Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

[karlaporter]

http://i.imgur.com/006IlCq.jpg

Has anyone else realized I am sitting squarely on top of one of Mykeru's antlers? It looks like I'm toast the way it's embedded in my jugular. Is this intentional? I'm not sure how to interpret it.

I love this creative anniversary card. Thanks to site admins for their hard work and to the community of individuals here who make art out of dysfunctional. XO

The only intention was to fit as many avatars as possible (and to hide Anonymouscowherd under as many as possible)
It ended up being a mis-mash of subliminal associations (why is guest staring at Lsuoma's breasts? Does the position of Gumby's avatar mean that Ophelia has cunt on her mind? etc).

Dammit, I can't keep up the pretence... Yes, everything was intentional!! :dance:

I can't imagine the cathartic goodness of freely admitting that =)

[welch]

A few thoughts on the Vacula/Skeptic Kink affair.

Risking the comparison to the XKCD "the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both" cartoon, I think they are both in the wrong.

Vacula is in the wrong because he consistently refuses to distance himself from crappy stuff perpetrated by AVFM.
If Justin was serious about mens rights being human rights then he should realize that AVFM are not doing men a favor by their self-serving attention whoring style, and he would deal with more serious issues than those that AVFM choose.
He continually flirts with AVFM and seems to gain some financial benefit for so doing, at least in terms of contributions towards his conference trips.
Justin has gone to two Women in Secularism conferences now and I'm not seeing a direct effect on his thinking. The notion/insult that he was the advocate for "what about the menz?" is not entirely without baseless. There were many issues that he could have focused on (abortion, sharia law, blasphemy) that would have shown some degree of interest in the specific remit of those conferences but I didn't see much evidence of any interest in these topics in his pre-conference blogposts or in his involvement in the preparation of the conference statement at EWTS2013.
His public writings, tweets etc, seem to draw a picture of someone who is anti-feminist - but not someone who is prepared to delve into the different types of feminism. All feminism seems to be lumped together by Justin and opposed.
Silverman's interview was probably the straw that broke the camels toe. ;)
It was a pretty inept performance by Silverman but Justin snatched defeat from the mouth of victory by refusing to distance himself from many of the worst behavior over the past couple of years. If Justin had nothing to do with rape threats then whats the problem with him condemning those who send those threats. He even seemed to admit that people associated with him are sending those threats. Why did he do that? Does he even know who sent those threats? I doubt it. So why describe them as people (loosely)associated with him?
He might have been trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for those threats but avoiding to condemn them (and that's how the interview came across) is going to leave him vunerable to claims he isn't taking the threats seriously, or worse, that he tacitly supports them.
I'm not surprised that this became too much in the end for Skeptic Ink.


As for Skeptic Ink, I have one observation.
Justin published an article on AVFM on the 17th of August 2013.

Since then he has not written for them again.

Justin was invited to join Skepticblogs(the previous name for Skeptic Ink) one week LATER, on the 24th of August.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... blogs.html

So his major (or only) writing connection with AVFM happened BEFORE he joined Loftus and Clint's network.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fe ... feminists/

If Loftus and Clint were serious about their opposition to AVFM then why invite Justin in the first place?

Oh now you're just using dates and facts. This is about PHILOSOPHY and IMPLEMENTATION OF LOGICAL METHODS OF ARGUING! You can't bring in distraction like facts and points!

[katamari Damassi]

Not belaboring IMO at all =) My personal reasons is to not harm the living at all possible costs (self-defense the exception possibly). I have no desire to eat beings that lived and were put to death when I had other perfectly viable and sustainable alimentary options. It's very, very personal to me.

My best friend is the same way, and I don't try to talk him out of his convictions, my problem is with evangelizing vegetarians who go on about how it's better for health and the environment, when neither of those claims stands up to scrutiny.

[Lsuoma]

On my way out the door -

Wonderboy's "technique" isn't beyond the grasp of anyone here. It's very simple, actually. I've debated for years against creationists using many of the same debating methods. Not rocket science at all. But not all of us are here for the same reasons, and some of us just don't like the fact that that egotistical, pedantic, braying jackass is constantly thumping his "technique" over everyone's heads through his endless condescending and interminable bloviations. Wonderist is patronizing, he's completely full of himself, and he arrogantly assumes the mantle of a sage trying to educate the supposedly stupid unwashed masses here. If he wants to wear a superhero cape and run around his living room in circles with arms outstretched, pretending be the great debater, fine and dandy, that's his business. But when he comes in here and starts endlessly pontificating to us supposedly poor unlearned plebes, like Moses coming down from the mountain with his tablets, that's when he's gonna get mocked and insulted. He can compare people here who resist his nonsense to "debating with theists" all he wants. What he just doesn't comprehend is that trying to force your beliefs and attitudes (whatever they may be) on a place like the Slymepit is only going to get you a collective and well-deserved "fuck off" from people who don't appreciate being talked down to by some unoriginal and tedious pedant with a way-too-high opinion of himself.


OK, now I'm off to start my weekend.

Y'all have fun, now.

I, for one, have as a mission ripping the piss out of Wonderist as much as I feel like, never engaging him on his terms, and generally countering his superdickheadness with my own "technique".

[rpguest]

fuck you welch my spittle does NOT fleck!

its more of a dapple

[Dick Strawkins]

....Not only that but if there are children involved then the idea of simply leaving the woman (and risk leaving the children in the care of a violent parent) can be enough to force the man to stay, no matter how bad the abuse gets.

Ah, borderlines... Yeah... Been there, done that, own the battle scars of long-term conflict and abuse because, like so many dads, sticking in to the bitter end (no matter how bad and dangerous it got) was about protecting the children and there was no other option I could live with.

Now, if I'd have been the kind of man radfem feminists like to portray men, I'd have packed up years before and become a dead-beat dad. I'd work construction for a few months here, a few months there... Every time the State would catch up with me to garnish my wages, I'd already have a new job...

I think there is a fundamental problem regarding how academic feminism deals with borderline personality disorder.
Many feminists refuse to believe it is a real condition, mainly due to the fact that historically it was the basis of the diagnosis of 'hysteria' - in other words it sounds like it is a kind of partiarchal plot to deny a voice to 'difficult' women. It is also a condition that is frequently linked to female survivors of childhood sexual abuse and so can be viewed (by feminists) as a legitimate reaction to this abuse.
It is a pity because this is a topic that should be publicised more if we want to lower the levels of spousal abuse in society.
Although it is mainly associated with women (75-90% are female, and approximately 1 in 10 women have it) it does occur in males and therefore create a high risk of abuse for their partners too.
Is there a serious mens rights response to this subject?
If not, why not?

[Mykeru]

Has anyone else realized I am sitting squarely on top of one of Mykeru's antlers? It looks like I'm toast the way it's embedded in my jugular. Is this intentional? I'm not sure how to interpret it.

You're riding the horn. You love it and you know it. Stop being an exhibitionist.

[Parody Accountant]

A big bonus from monetising the blog site would be possibility for comedy /inappropriate adverts. Think of the joy of visiting pitblog.com or whatever, and seeing Mr Meyers happy face staring out and reminding us about his latest reasonable and well considered FTB post, or suggesting we buy his super new book, or an ad encouraging you to attend skepticon.

Lovely.

I am thinking fake satirical/parody advertisements.

This is a great idea. I'd be willing to churn out a few candidates to see what sticks. Just need a pixel height and width standard (width is the most important factor for placing on a blog's sidebar.)

Oh and Renee, if you need a graphic for the site from the shoppers... I personally prefer to see what you attempted to do (transparent background should be a breeze, if you post what you've got here), or specific images to work from for inspiration.

[welch]

As for Skeptic Ink, I have one observation.
Justin published an article on AVFM on the 17th of August 2013.

Since then he has not written for them again.

Justin was invited to join Skepticblogs(the previous name for Skeptic Ink) one week LATER, on the 24th of August.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... blogs.html

So his major (or only) writing connection with AVFM happened BEFORE he joined Loftus and Clint's network.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fe ... feminists/

If Loftus and Clint were serious about their opposition to AVFM then why invite Justin in the first place?

Nice catch.

On the other hand it probably doesn't matter. I've tried to jokingly come to grips with how the skeptical community went over to this nonsense. I've written about the Tilly-hat wearing minor academics that seems to infest skeptical Meet-Ups, who seem to be little more than pontificating know-nothings.

Perhaps that is what we have to come to terms with, that the skeptical "community" was never "all that".

For the purposes of showboating to show solidarity and ideological purity, the actual chronology that shows Loftus is a posturing hypocrite probably doesn't matter.

Because what sells these days is posturing and hypocrisy.

It's all about who's technique and methodology is the most "academic".

Barb Drescher's reaction when I suggested that one way to improve and grow TAM would be to throw open all the sessions to submissions shows that, and she's one of the better ones. But, suggest her beloved TAM move away from the Academic model, and the fangs come out. The skeptic community at large, to outsiders, has at best, a vague interest in dealing with reality. The only consistent example is the medical stuff, and a huge chunk of that is Orac/Science-based medicine.

How much time was spent doing deep analysis of, yet again, claims of bigfoot. Meanwhile, people get their bank accounts drained all the time due to shysters via email and blind trust in anything called an "ATM". Bring those kinds of things up as good subjects for skeptics and "OH, JUST BECAUSE WE WON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, WE'RE WRONG". Well, no. But if one of the reasons for this entire silly movement is to "help people not get suckered", then why keep going on and on about the same fucking subjects all the time and REFUSE to consider anything else.

I found it amusing that she talked about how having 20-30 papers submitted for the sunday sessions was some sign of how successful the 20-minute up-against-last-day-breakfast ghetto session is. Given the number of people supposedly wanting to participate, that number's at least one power of ten low.

The skeptic community is a superannuated group of academics and they want to keep it that way.

[Tribble]

I've noticed recent signs that he has finally grasped what everyone knows. That people posting at his blog and a few others are anti-intellectual dogmatists who are one trick ponies with nothing interesting to say (such as Nerd of Redhead) All they do is attack using the same tired memes and never engage unless it to affirm what they already believe.

He is also very bad at judging people I have noticed. Very bad actually. He can't tell the difference between someone asking a genuine question and someone trolling him. He can't tell the difference between an honest interlocutor and an idiot. So he calls everyone who disagrees with him an idiot or dishonest almost as an automatic fall back system as he simply fails to know when someone is genuine and making good points. Maybe he is learning but I do not hold out any hope.

I also fully expected him to accept Ally Fogg because if there one thing that easily impresses Myers is someone's credentials. He is very much the identity politician. So who says something is more important to him than what they say. He falls for Ad Hominem every time even when that may disagree with his position.

I am inclined to be a little more generous in some regards. I think (hope) PZ realises that he would be in a better position in terms of a credible commentator on sceptically-tinged gender relations if he had set out his stall like Ally and stuck with that mode.

In other words - being sympathetic and taking things more seriously and critically.

And perhaps that's behind the change you yourself notice according to your first paragraph.

I certainly agree that his judgement is poor and that he (and the wider A+/FC(n) circle) dismisses hard questions as trolling.

The problem is that Myers made his mark on the Internet by being a vitriolic, confrontational atheist who presented things in black-white paradigms. At this point, I think he's kind of stuck in the prison of that image and it'll take a lot of 'rehabilitative posts' before I buy off on anything but a bit of variation in the ol' PZ-vitriol level.

[Cunning Punt]

I see Justin Vacula lurking.

OK Vacula. tell us the answer to the one question everyone wants to know...

Did you get a photo of the Holy Elevator? :drool:

In the end, the Holy Elevator is the Alpha and the Omega. We all just wait here for Its Holy Image. When It is finally revealed to us, then Lsuoma can close the Slimepit and we can go on with our useless and miserable lives. Because we all live within the Holy Elevator, and by sharing Its Holy Beverage, The Coffe, we then can find the Light.

This is why Justin has been booted. He has the Key. He is the latter-day Prior of Sion. He possesses knowledge of the Holy Bloodline of Elevatorgate. He knows how many floors the hotel has.

[welch]

Egotist, in his typical obsessive fashion, finds a way to make something that has nothing to do with him all about himself and his "technique". What a surprise.

He saw a chance to show how smart and right he is. 'Twas inevitable.

[welch]

Is there a job opening for a PZ-lite that I didn't hear about?

Atheism Entails Anti-Discrimination!

Man, he gives good head.

[welch]

A few thoughts on the Vacula/Skeptic Kink affair.

Bla-di-bla, etc...

All good points. I never delved into Loftus' and Clint's reasons for letting Justin go. It seemed unlikely that they were trying to make amends with Peezus. My problem was the way in which it was handled. That alone was enough for me to give up on them.

I have never been to AVFM as it is not in my realm of interest and sounded like it had low potential for lulz-unlike say, Shakesville, which is always good for lulz. Maybe I'm being unfair and they're not all pathologically bitter guys some of whom have been genuinely fucked over by a system that favors-in some ways-women, but I don't care enough to expend effort. Still just from what I hear here, Justin would be better off avoiding any association with them.

I don't blame Skeptic Ink for getting rid of Vacula (although as I mentioned above they probably should never have hired him if they were so worried that association with AVFM was toxic.)
I do, however, think they were very unprofessional in the way they terminated the relationship.
It's like Justin returned from a conference only to find the locks changed and his clothes thrown on the lawn, and the official line is they mutually agreed to part company on friendly terms.
It wouldnt have taken much to have done it in a non drama fashion.
I get the impression that they did it this way to make a public statement - that Justin's association with AVFM marks him as a radical extremist and therefore doesn't deserve common decency.

My question to Loftus now is, now that you''ve thrown Justin to the wolves, you have not solved the drama problem.
All you've done is move some other Skeptic Ink blogger higher up the list of hate targets for FTB.

Whose next to be sacrificed?
D4MION? (He was the one who pushed for Justin to be sent to WISC2013 and is a known slymepitter)
Notung? (Slymepitter - twitter friend to many other pitters and anti FTBers)
Russell Blackford (lying fuckhead? according to PZ Myers)
Ed Clint? Evolutionary Psychology - practically Misogyny101.

Nah. They're all proper "Academics". I mean, the only time they talk about their beliefs in public is in a proper conference setting. Justin had to go sully it up with real world activism. (disagree or not, the boy does more real world stuff in a year than FTB/A+/SIN COMBINED) There's no place for a blue-collar prole like him in their intellectual collective.

[ReneeHendricks]

Oh and Renee, if you need a graphic for the site from the shoppers... I personally prefer to see what you attempted to do (transparent background should be a breeze, if you post what you've got here), or specific images to work from for inspiration.

It's this guy:

Detective-With-Magnifying-Glass-300x300.jpg

(17.59 KiB) Downloaded 194 times

I need it transparent *except* for his eyes and paper in his pocket. Attempts I've made render those things transparent as well and it looks like utter shit :D

[welch]

Clarification. Forgot to add: It's just *a* technique.

Just a quick interjection (I don't want to join this argument) to make the observation that your style of enormous numbers of replies is somewhat reminiscent of the FTB commenter,'The Hermit'.
He tends to 'win' arguments by posting again, and again, and again and again and again and again and again and again and (you get the idea) until any opponent has been bored shitless.

If you want to use this style on FTB blogs or Nugent's site then please go ahead, but don't act surprised if people HERE act annoyed when you do it in the slymepit. It just comes across as spam.

I would argue that, over the long term, it would improve discussions here also, with fewer pointless flame wars.Of course, that's assuming other pitters pick up methods of their own for calming down pointless drama. Which is the point of my demonstrating it in the first place; that others might pick up some ideas from it and try things on their own, esp. outside the pit. Once the techniques proves their usefulness, people will undoubtedly start using anti-drama techniques here, too. Dave2 is already one of them. I think Steersman has his ways of doing it, and there are others here who are good at managing drama. Fewer pointless flame-wars would be a good thing all around, IMO.

yes dear. However did we survive before you. in a world full of fog, you are Clear.

[Lsuoma]

Justin published an article on AVFM on the 17th of August 2013.

http://gumbercules.com/orlyeh.jpg

[welch]

Egotist, in his typical obsessive fashion, finds a way to make something that has nothing to do with him all about himself and his "technique". What a surprise.

Has anyone ever seen him and Feefles in the same room at the same time?

Come to think of it, has anyone actually ever seen him in public at all?

[AbsurdWalls (again)]

It's all about who's technique and methodology is the most "academic".

Barb Drescher's reaction when I suggested that one way to improve and grow TAM would be to throw open all the sessions to submissions shows that, and she's one of the better ones. But, suggest her beloved TAM move away from the Academic model, and the fangs come out. The skeptic community at large, to outsiders, has at best, a vague interest in dealing with reality. The only consistent example is the medical stuff, and a huge chunk of that is Orac/Science-based medicine.

Not sure about where your "academic model" idea comes from? In my experience academic (scientific) conferences work on a submission basis. Most invite general submissions, some invite submissions on particular topics (for skeptics "we have space for three talks on skepticism applied to medicine and three for skepticism applied to gender issues" or whatever), and the larger ones might invite people to propose symposia ("we think the conference should run a session on skepticism and technology, here is why it's important and here are ten people who might be interested"). The only closed invitation-only talks I have seen at conferences have been for keynote speeches (less than a quarter of the total conference stage time) and the funding for the invited speaker's expenses are usually covered by some endowment or sponsorship ("introducing John Welch for the annual Justin Vacula memorial lecture, may he rest in peace at the bottom of that Dublin elevator shaft").

Are things very different in computer science or whatever academic field is closest to what you do?

[Lsuoma]

I would argue that, over the long term, it would improve discussions here also, with fewer pointless flame wars.Of course, that's assuming other pitters pick up methods of their own for calming down pointless drama. Which is the point of my demonstrating it in the first place; that others might pick up some ideas from it and try things on their own, esp. outside the pit. Once the techniques proves their usefulness, people will undoubtedly start using anti-drama techniques here, too. Dave2 is already one of them. I think Steersman has his ways of doing it, and there are others here who are good at managing drama. Fewer pointless flame-wars would be a good thing all around, IMO.

yes dear. However did we survive before you. in a world full of fog, you are Clear.

Fair warning everyone - if you all start using Wonderbread's "techniques" I'm closing down the Pit.

[codelette]

So, yeah...I was perusing one of the Puertorican paper websites this morning and looky looky...the O.T. with the self-harm fetish is there!
http://www.vocero.com/se-hace-pierna-or ... ego-video/

[welch]

Not belaboring IMO at all =) My personal reasons is to not harm the living at all possible costs (self-defense the exception possibly). I have no desire to eat beings that lived and were put to death when I had other perfectly viable and sustainable alimentary options. It's very, very personal to me.

My best friend is the same way, and I don't try to talk him out of his convictions, my problem is with evangelizing vegetarians who go on about how it's better for health and the environment, when neither of those claims stands up to scrutiny.

Well, if you notice on the health side, they do the "set up the opposing view to an extreme level to prove the point". It was what was wrong with SuperSize me. Look at his first meal. TWO double-quarterpounder meals? Who the fuck eats that in one sitting? he then tries to LIVE on mcdonalds? While there may be people who do that, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to think it's a majority.

Meat eaters, by and large, don't eat nothing BUT meat. We do in fact, eat fruits and veggies, and salads and the like. Meat is a PART of the diet, not THE diet, but when you get enough vegans talking, they present this weird as fuck view of what non-vegans eat, and as someone who is decidedly non-vegan, I wonder what magic underwear they're pulling their data from.

I've also yet to meet the legions of vegans who are all so fucking super-healthy compared to non-vegans. From what I've seen, there's no real difference. A vegan who does nothing but sit on the couch or in front of a computer all day is going to be just as much of an unhealthy blob in real danger of death from a brisk walk around the block as a non-vegan. They may be unhealthy in different ways, and you do not often see a vegans in the ranks of the suetblobs on scooters crowd, but being unhealthy is not solely determined by how fat you are.

I eat things that taste good. I try to do this in a way that is not unhealthy. that's pretty much my criteria. Besides, unless you're hand-picking your vegetables and grains, it's probably a good idea not to think of the wholesale slaughter that a good-size combine wrecks.

[Wonderist]

Wonderboy's "technique" isn't beyond the grasp of anyone here.

Never said it was.

It's very simple, actually.

True. Not claiming otherwise. But being simple and being able to explain it simply are two separate things. Bicycling is simple, not beyond the grasp of people here, but if a good portion of folks here were not in the habit of using a bicycle when using one might be a good option, then someone explaining online how and why it's a good option might have to use quite a few words to describe it. Even that's not enough, because it would *still* require people to go out and practice it themselves, which I've also encouraged.

I've debated for years against creationists using many of the same debating methods. Not rocket science at all.

Great! But then why object to someone bringing up the topic here, when there are many people who *might* benefit from the discussion and/or demonstration. If you don't need to hear it, just skip it or put me on ignore. What's the big deal?

But not all of us are here for the same reasons,

I agree.

and some of us just don't like the fact that that egotistical, pedantic, braying jackass is constantly thumping his "technique" over everyone's heads through his endless condescending and interminable bloviations.

Okay. And these people also have the option to skip or put me on ignore. So what's the problem? (And, obviously, I disagree with your characterization of me; you've not bothered to get to know me or engage in reasoned dialogue, so it would be pretty hard for you to be able to 'read' my mind like that. You're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. But still, you can just ignore me if I bother you that much.)

Wonderist is patronizing, he's completely full of himself, and he arrogantly assumes the mantle of a sage trying to educate the supposedly stupid unwashed masses here.

'Mind reading fallacy'. False claims, no evidence. Red Herring Ad Hominem.

If he wants to wear a superhero cape and run around his living room in circles with arms outstretched, pretending be the great debater, fine and dandy, that's his business.

Fantasized ad hom.

But when he comes in here and starts endlessly pontificating to us supposedly poor unlearned plebes

'Mind reading fallacy'. If I thought people here were 'unlearned plebes', I wouldn't even be here in the first place. You are the one making assumptions about other people here.

, like Moses coming down from the mountain with his tablets,

False analogy: Moses came down with commandments and was backed by the authority of a 'god'. I come only with observations of how I and others have done this, and my only plea to any 'authority' is 'it works'. I have no authority here, I don't claim any authority here. And I'm no different than anyone else here who has posted some of their debates or talked about better or worse ways to engage the FTBers.

that's when he's gonna get mocked and insulted.

Which I've already shown doesn't work on me. But you can keep trying, of course. Eventually it'll sink in that it's really pointless and a waste of your time.

He can compare people here who resist his nonsense to "debating with theists" all he wants.

I use that example because I'm very familiar with it. I'm not calling people here theists, if that's what you think. Plus, most people here know what debating with theists is like, so there is some reference point, and the 'techniques' concept maps over quite well. I respect theists as people, I just think they are wrong about certain things. I don't consider them 'lesser' than me. Perhaps you consider them 'lesser' than you, and you're projecting that attitude onto me? That would at least explain why the comparison seems demeaning to you. Is there a different reason?

What he just doesn't comprehend is that trying to force your beliefs and attitudes (whatever they may be) on a place like the Slymepit

Where have I attempted to *force* my beliefs on anyone? Do you consider this diatribe by you as an attempt to 'force' your beliefs on me? Personally, I don't, but then nothing I've posted has come anywhere close to such a diatribe, so I can't see where you're getting your accusation from. Can you please quote me where you feel I've attempted to force my beliefs and attitudes on anyone?

[quote is only going to get you a collective and well-deserved "fuck off" from people who don't appreciate being talked down to by some unoriginal and tedious pedant with a way-too-high opinion of himself.

Define 'talked-down to', and please quote me where I've 'talked down to' anyone. And compare with your own post. Is it possible you are 'talking down to' me? When I respond calmly to flames and attacks, that's not 'talking down', that's just not getting riled up.

OK, now I'm off to start my weekend.

Cheers!

[welch]

fuck you welch my spittle does NOT fleck!

its more of a dapple

SPITTLE-FLECKER, SPITTLE-FLECKER, RPGUEST IS A SPITTLE-FLECKER, NEENER-NEENER-NEEEEEEENER!

[welch]

I've noticed recent signs that he has finally grasped what everyone knows. That people posting at his blog and a few others are anti-intellectual dogmatists who are one trick ponies with nothing interesting to say (such as Nerd of Redhead) All they do is attack using the same tired memes and never engage unless it to affirm what they already believe.

He is also very bad at judging people I have noticed. Very bad actually. He can't tell the difference between someone asking a genuine question and someone trolling him. He can't tell the difference between an honest interlocutor and an idiot. So he calls everyone who disagrees with him an idiot or dishonest almost as an automatic fall back system as he simply fails to know when someone is genuine and making good points. Maybe he is learning but I do not hold out any hope.

I also fully expected him to accept Ally Fogg because if there one thing that easily impresses Myers is someone's credentials. He is very much the identity politician. So who says something is more important to him than what they say. He falls for Ad Hominem every time even when that may disagree with his position.

I am inclined to be a little more generous in some regards. I think (hope) PZ realises that he would be in a better position in terms of a credible commentator on sceptically-tinged gender relations if he had set out his stall like Ally and stuck with that mode.

In other words - being sympathetic and taking things more seriously and critically.

And perhaps that's behind the change you yourself notice according to your first paragraph.

I certainly agree that his judgement is poor and that he (and the wider A+/FC(n) circle) dismisses hard questions as trolling.

The problem is that Myers made his mark on the Internet by being a vitriolic, confrontational atheist who presented things in black-white paradigms. At this point, I think he's kind of stuck in the prison of that image and it'll take a lot of 'rehabilitative posts' before I buy off on anything but a bit of variation in the ol' PZ-vitriol level.

Good point. He also has too much of his self-worth tied up in his commentariat to just come out and change things, even if he wants to, (i have real doubts about this.) Losing that crew would leave him with?

[Wonderist]

Fair warning everyone - if you all start using Wonderbread's "techniques" I'm closing down the Pit.

Um, as I already pointed out, people here already are using these techniques here, and they are not 'my' techniques. Just because I talk about them doesn't mean I own them in any way. I'm sure there are many people in the world who've discovered the same or similar techniques before me.

[welch]

Oh and Renee, if you need a graphic for the site from the shoppers... I personally prefer to see what you attempted to do (transparent background should be a breeze, if you post what you've got here), or specific images to work from for inspiration.

It's this guy:

Detective-With-Magnifying-Glass-300x300.jpg

I need it transparent *except* for his eyes and paper in his pocket. Attempts I've made render those things transparent as well and it looks like utter shit :D

Do you have a link to a more hi-res version? That would make it easier.

[Mykeru]

OK, I have a four-day reasonably fun-filled weekend in front of me and I'm not going to spend it playing on this site. Happy 4th to all the bible-thumpin' gawd-n-guns Hee-Haw watchin' Merkins!

You used the wrong picture for American Independence Day.

http://robomonkey.files.wordpress.com/2 ... merica.png

Now that's more like it.

Fucking A.

[welch]

It's all about who's technique and methodology is the most "academic".

Barb Drescher's reaction when I suggested that one way to improve and grow TAM would be to throw open all the sessions to submissions shows that, and she's one of the better ones. But, suggest her beloved TAM move away from the Academic model, and the fangs come out. The skeptic community at large, to outsiders, has at best, a vague interest in dealing with reality. The only consistent example is the medical stuff, and a huge chunk of that is Orac/Science-based medicine.

Not sure about where your "academic model" idea comes from? In my experience academic (scientific) conferences work on a submission basis. Most invite general submissions, some invite submissions on particular topics (for skeptics "we have space for three talks on skepticism applied to medicine and three for skepticism applied to gender issues" or whatever), and the larger ones might invite people to propose symposia ("we think the conference should run a session on skepticism and technology, here is why it's important and here are ten people who might be interested"). The only closed invitation-only talks I have seen at conferences have been for keynote speeches (less than a quarter of the total conference stage time) and the funding for the invited speaker's expenses are usually covered by some endowment or sponsorship ("introducing John Welch for the annual Justin Vacula memorial lecture, may he rest in peace at the bottom of that Dublin elevator shaft").

Are things very different in computer science or whatever academic field is closest to what you do?

Ah, then I was wrong about that. So TAM isn't even following an academic model, it's following an ELITEST model. Even...better(?)

[welch]

I would argue that, over the long term, it would improve discussions here also, with fewer pointless flame wars.Of course, that's assuming other pitters pick up methods of their own for calming down pointless drama. Which is the point of my demonstrating it in the first place; that others might pick up some ideas from it and try things on their own, esp. outside the pit. Once the techniques proves their usefulness, people will undoubtedly start using anti-drama techniques here, too. Dave2 is already one of them. I think Steersman has his ways of doing it, and there are others here who are good at managing drama. Fewer pointless flame-wars would be a good thing all around, IMO.

yes dear. However did we survive before you. in a world full of fog, you are Clear.

Fair warning everyone - if you all start using Wonderbread's "techniques" I'm closing down the Pit.

I just think his avatar should be L. Ron

[welch]

More predictable than a pendulum.

[Tribble]

Is there a job opening for a PZ-lite that I didn't hear about?

Atheism Entails Anti-Discrimination!

And from the comments:

John W. Loftus Mod > SleeZee Lyers • an hour ago −

I share the goals of Atheism + most emphatically. I've been critical of some of their tactics and rhetoric though.

I'm done there. I don't need another A+.

[Dave]

Not sure about where your "academic model" idea comes from? In my experience academic (scientific) conferences work on a submission basis. Most invite general submissions, some invite submissions on particular topics (for skeptics "we have space for three talks on skepticism applied to medicine and three for skepticism applied to gender issues" or whatever), and the larger ones might invite people to propose symposia ("we think the conference should run a session on skepticism and technology, here is why it's important and here are ten people who might be interested"). The only closed invitation-only talks I have seen at conferences have been for keynote speeches (less than a quarter of the total conference stage time) and the funding for the invited speaker's expenses are usually covered by some endowment or sponsorship ("introducing John Welch for the annual Justin Vacula memorial lecture, may he rest in peace at the bottom of that Dublin elevator shaft").

Are things very different in computer science or whatever academic field is closest to what you do?

Ah, then I was wrong about that. So TAM isn't even following an academic model, it's following an ELITEST model. Even...better(?)

Actually, I think what it most closely follows is the Entertainment model: Think Scifi cons, Trekkie conventions, etc, where the point is to party with like minded people and meet the Celebs. (Disclaimer, I have never actually attended either atheist/skeptic conventions or scifi/comic conventions.)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Apparently Morsi broke the promises he made.

I wish I lived in a country where the people spontaneously deposed their president for breaking promises.

[Dave2]

as an adult, how many times have you been hit in actual anger. Not joking around, not sparring in an organized setting, but having someone hit you in anger, with a real desire to hurt you?

I'm 37 now. At 18 I got mugged which was pretty nasty. Around that time I also awoke after a night of being drunk and I'd been beaten - cuts and bruises type stuff - but I can't recall the event. At 25 I instigated a fight with a housemate who I felt needed "taught a lesson" due to his continually threatening violence, and we roughed one another about a bit. Stupid of me really.

And I think that's it. So once in genuine anger, and once during the course of a crime, and probably another time but who knows?

I'm 6'2" and heavy with it - so people don't tend to start fights with me.

This is lucky for me, because if they did they would soon discover that I don't know the first thing about fights.

At least that would be story were it not for my second serious live-in girlfriend.

And this is probably more pertinent to the conversation - in my early twenties I spent 18 months living with a girl who had a real Jekyll and Hyde personality, and she did slap, kick, scratch and pinch when she felt she was being mocked. How often? I didn't keep track, but it would be rare that a week would go by...

And once or twice I responded in kind.

It was awful really - it didn't stop her and I just felt guilty about my behaviour as well as miserable about her behaviour. We did the whole split up-get back together-split up stuff, and really I should have left for good first time, as I would now.

Hence, in the main, why I'm an advocate of just getting out of there in that context.

Do note that I'm not suggesting that when people's backs are against the wall that they should just sit there and take it.

[ReneeHendricks]

Oh and Renee, if you need a graphic for the site from the shoppers... I personally prefer to see what you attempted to do (transparent background should be a breeze, if you post what you've got here), or specific images to work from for inspiration.

It's this guy:

Detective-With-Magnifying-Glass-300x300.jpg

I need it transparent *except* for his eyes and paper in his pocket. Attempts I've made render those things transparent as well and it looks like utter shit :D

Do you have a link to a more hi-res version? That would make it easier.

How about this: http://skeptischism.com/wp-content/uplo ... ifying.jpg

[katamari Damassi]

Not belaboring IMO at all =) My personal reasons is to not harm the living at all possible costs (self-defense the exception possibly). I have no desire to eat beings that lived and were put to death when I had other perfectly viable and sustainable alimentary options. It's very, very personal to me.

My best friend is the same way, and I don't try to talk him out of his convictions, my problem is with evangelizing vegetarians who go on about how it's better for health and the environment, when neither of those claims stands up to scrutiny.

Well, if you notice on the health side, they do the "set up the opposing view to an extreme level to prove the point". It was what was wrong with SuperSize me. Look at his first meal. TWO double-quarterpounder meals? Who the fuck eats that in one sitting? he then tries to LIVE on mcdonalds? While there may be people who do that, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to think it's a majority.

Meat eaters, by and large, don't eat nothing BUT meat. We do in fact, eat fruits and veggies, and salads and the like. Meat is a PART of the diet, not THE diet, but when you get enough vegans talking, they present this weird as fuck view of what non-vegans eat, and as someone who is decidedly non-vegan, I wonder what magic underwear they're pulling their data from.

I've also yet to meet the legions of vegans who are all so fucking super-healthy compared to non-vegans. From what I've seen, there's no real difference. A vegan who does nothing but sit on the couch or in front of a computer all day is going to be just as much of an unhealthy blob in real danger of death from a brisk walk around the block as a non-vegan. They may be unhealthy in different ways, and you do not often see a vegans in the ranks of the suetblobs on scooters crowd, but being unhealthy is not solely determined by how fat you are.

I eat things that taste good. I try to do this in a way that is not unhealthy. that's pretty much my criteria. Besides, unless you're hand-picking your vegetables and grains, it's probably a good idea not to think of the wholesale slaughter that a good-size combine wrecks.

That and vegans will also bring up the industrialized factory conditions that meat is produced under as if there were no alternative. True it requires extra effort and money so that not everyone can get pasture raised meats, but the are out there.

[Dave2]

Did you read the original article he's trying to satirize?

Yes.

[AbsurdWalls (again)]

It's all about who's technique and methodology is the most "academic".

Barb Drescher's reaction when I suggested that one way to improve and grow TAM would be to throw open all the sessions to submissions shows that, and she's one of the better ones. But, suggest her beloved TAM move away from the Academic model, and the fangs come out. The skeptic community at large, to outsiders, has at best, a vague interest in dealing with reality. The only consistent example is the medical stuff, and a huge chunk of that is Orac/Science-based medicine.

Not sure about where your "academic model" idea comes from? In my experience academic (scientific) conferences work on a submission basis. Most invite general submissions, some invite submissions on particular topics (for skeptics "we have space for three talks on skepticism applied to medicine and three for skepticism applied to gender issues" or whatever), and the larger ones might invite people to propose symposia ("we think the conference should run a session on skepticism and technology, here is why it's important and here are ten people who might be interested"). The only closed invitation-only talks I have seen at conferences have been for keynote speeches (less than a quarter of the total conference stage time) and the funding for the invited speaker's expenses are usually covered by some endowment or sponsorship ("introducing John Welch for the annual Justin Vacula memorial lecture, may he rest in peace at the bottom of that Dublin elevator shaft").

Are things very different in computer science or whatever academic field is closest to what you do?

Ah, then I was wrong about that. So TAM isn't even following an academic model, it's following an ELITEST model. Even...better(?)

It would be weird for it to follow an academic model because the function of TAM is nothing like the function of an academic conference. It is much closer to following a "festival" model (like you might have a music or comedy festival) where there are curators who (one hopes) do research and pick the best "acts" to come and perform in order to draw a large audience. There are even music festivals where the bands run workshops during the day (learn to play the harmonica etc.) which I believe is another thing that TAM does the equivalent to in the field of skepticism.

So, stop ragging on academics/academia so much! I know some of the most obnoxious bores online try to buoy themselves up with their academic credentials but I would argue that they are certainly not representative of most of the academic world that I know.

[mikelf]

You misunderstand my point. We are all, after a fashion, on the same side of the great rift. You might be more effective using your powers to engage those on the other side, rather than trying to exhort the lunkheads to heights that are, frankly, beyond their grasp.

Consider it leadership by example.

Mikelf, I've already been doing that for literally years (leading by example; see the Ask An Atheist podcast comment threads linked earlier; I've done this elsewhere several times since as well).

One person, alone, has little power to change things. But one person championing a *good idea* can share that good idea with another person, and those two can go on to share the idea with 4, etc, etc. So, by sharing good ideas with other people who have similar goals, we can have a much more powerful influence on things (the rifts, etc.) than if we were to just go out by ourselves and try to fight everything alone.

I'm just one guy. I can't do much by myself. But if, when I find some good ideas, I share them with others who are working towards the same or similar goals, I magnify my 'power' indirectly by helping others to succeed towards those goals.

See, here is the thing. You can't appoint yourself sensei. You must be accepted as such. It should be clear that the proles here are not ready to accept your teachings. Perhaps it is your place, like Caine in Kung Fu, to wander in the wilderness, keeping your wits sharp and your rhetorical swords sharper. The day will come that they seek will you out. But, they must travel their own path to that future.

[Southern]

Fair warning everyone - if you all start using Wonderbread's "techniques" I'm closing down the Pit.

I still don't understand what his "technique" is - I have only a vague idea about it involving lots and lots of words that may or may not be relevant, or make any sense to begin with.

[Mykeru]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2861/9210 ... 977732.jpg

The Battle of Yorktown. Checkmate.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3753/9210 ... a1990c.jpg

Lord Cornwallis surrenders

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7327/9207 ... 29df9b.jpg

"Don't let the gangplank hit you in the ass"

[Whig]

Is there a job opening for a PZ-lite that I didn't hear about?

Atheism Entails Anti-Discrimination!

Atheism entails $0 down, $99 a month for a new Kia Rio!
Go down to Skepti-Motors now and you'll get a free porcupine fitting!

[Mykeru]

Is there a job opening for a PZ-lite that I didn't hear about?

Atheism Entails Anti-Discrimination!

Atheism entails $0 down, $99 a month for a new Kia Rio!
Go down to Skepti-Motors now and you'll get a free porcupine fitting!

Attention Comarades! A glorious victory for the forces of AthiPlus! Discrimination is down 60% this week. Mandatory spontaneous demonstrations will be held in Victory Square.

[Metalogic42]

To me, atheism is a-theism...without theism...without a belief that god(s) exist. No belief required. No "denials" required.

Note my qualifier, "to me". YMMV. I think that how one views their own atheism has a lot to do with who they debate against. (In addition to how they arrived at their own atheism). For me, it's people who want to insist that atheism is just another religion. No, sorry, I'm stopping that claim right from the get go. Atheism isn't even a belief, it's the absence of a particular belief. And if you want to know how that argument has worked for me, well it's worked great. Atheism is mainstream. You're all welcome! (in all honesty I give credit to the internet, people don't feel like they are the only atheist anymore) We've already won on the atheism awareness front. To me, going back to the debate on atheism is a belief, is taking many steps backwards.

I'll also say that for me, my atheism, is something I "know". I know fairies don't exist. I know the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage doesn't exist. I just apply that same logic towards gods. YMMV.

You can't know something without also believing it. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

[welch]

as an adult, how many times have you been hit in actual anger. Not joking around, not sparring in an organized setting, but having someone hit you in anger, with a real desire to hurt you?

I'm 37 now. At 18 I got mugged which was pretty nasty. Around that time I also awoke after a night of being drunk and I'd been beaten - cuts and bruises type stuff - but I can't recall the event. At 25 I instigated a fight with a housemate who I felt needed "taught a lesson" due to his continually threatening violence, and we roughed one another about a bit. Stupid of me really.

And I think that's it. So once in genuine anger, and once during the course of a crime, and probably another time but who knows?

I'm 6'2" and heavy with it - so people don't tend to start fights with me.

This is lucky for me, because if they did they would soon discover that I don't know the first thing about fights.

At least that would be story were it not for my second serious live-in girlfriend.

And this is probably more pertinent to the conversation - in my early twenties I spent 18 months living with a girl who had a real Jekyll and Hyde personality, and she did slap, kick, scratch and pinch when she felt she was being mocked. How often? I didn't keep track, but it would be rare that a week would go by...

And once or twice I responded in kind.

It was awful really - it didn't stop her and I just felt guilty about my behaviour as well as miserable about her behaviour. We did the whole split up-get back together-split up stuff, and really I should have left for good first time, as I would now.

Hence, in the main, why I'm an advocate of just getting out of there in that context.

Do note that I'm not suggesting that when people's backs are against the wall that they should just sit there and take it.

Here's the thing: only the person being hit can decide that. Some people can remain calm in the same situation that someone else will retaliate with all the strength they can muster. This idea that there's some kind of magical "appropriate retaliation" is just that: magical thinking. It's like wondering why law enforcement doesn't "shoot to wound". Doesn't work that way.

When I was actively teaching martial arts, I was amazed at the range of responses we'd see from people sparring for their first time, and after a while, I understood why they ONLY sparred with the teachers. Because someone who seemed as calm and level-headed as could be was all too often the person who, upon getting their first hit to the face, "berserk", (best word I can think of) and suddenly, they were on, this was real, and if you didn't have a lot more knowledge and practice than them, it was going to be ugly. This wasn't full contact MMA stuff, nor was it classic TKD 'near hit' stuff. Light to moderate contact, designed to teach them how to apply what they were learning outside of static sets.

Yet, on a number of occasions, I was quite grateful that I had a LOT more knowledge and experience than them, so I could wind things down without having to knock them out. I was even more grateful for the training that allowed me to continue to respond, instead of blindly reacting.

You cannot, can. not. predict how someone is going to react when hit, regardless of force or target. They may remain calm and collected, they may grab the nearest heavy object and beat your skull in with it.

That's why this idea of "appropriate force" in response is so bad, because it makes some assumptions that are not true for the untrained. Person A may react in what you see as an "appropriate" fashion. Person B may not. Expecting otherwise is ignorance.

[welch]

My best friend is the same way, and I don't try to talk him out of his convictions, my problem is with evangelizing vegetarians who go on about how it's better for health and the environment, when neither of those claims stands up to scrutiny.

Well, if you notice on the health side, they do the "set up the opposing view to an extreme level to prove the point". It was what was wrong with SuperSize me. Look at his first meal. TWO double-quarterpounder meals? Who the fuck eats that in one sitting? he then tries to LIVE on mcdonalds? While there may be people who do that, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to think it's a majority.

Meat eaters, by and large, don't eat nothing BUT meat. We do in fact, eat fruits and veggies, and salads and the like. Meat is a PART of the diet, not THE diet, but when you get enough vegans talking, they present this weird as fuck view of what non-vegans eat, and as someone who is decidedly non-vegan, I wonder what magic underwear they're pulling their data from.

I've also yet to meet the legions of vegans who are all so fucking super-healthy compared to non-vegans. From what I've seen, there's no real difference. A vegan who does nothing but sit on the couch or in front of a computer all day is going to be just as much of an unhealthy blob in real danger of death from a brisk walk around the block as a non-vegan. They may be unhealthy in different ways, and you do not often see a vegans in the ranks of the suetblobs on scooters crowd, but being unhealthy is not solely determined by how fat you are.

I eat things that taste good. I try to do this in a way that is not unhealthy. that's pretty much my criteria. Besides, unless you're hand-picking your vegetables and grains, it's probably a good idea not to think of the wholesale slaughter that a good-size combine wrecks.

That and vegans will also bring up the industrialized factory conditions that meat is produced under as if there were no alternative. True it requires extra effort and money so that not everyone can get pasture raised meats, but the are out there.

Or my favorite: go into the woods and shoot it fresh. Reminds me, I'm almost out of bambi. HURRY UP FALL!

[welch]

Not sure about where your "academic model" idea comes from? In my experience academic (scientific) conferences work on a submission basis. Most invite general submissions, some invite submissions on particular topics (for skeptics "we have space for three talks on skepticism applied to medicine and three for skepticism applied to gender issues" or whatever), and the larger ones might invite people to propose symposia ("we think the conference should run a session on skepticism and technology, here is why it's important and here are ten people who might be interested"). The only closed invitation-only talks I have seen at conferences have been for keynote speeches (less than a quarter of the total conference stage time) and the funding for the invited speaker's expenses are usually covered by some endowment or sponsorship ("introducing John Welch for the annual Justin Vacula memorial lecture, may he rest in peace at the bottom of that Dublin elevator shaft").

Are things very different in computer science or whatever academic field is closest to what you do?

Ah, then I was wrong about that. So TAM isn't even following an academic model, it's following an ELITEST model. Even...better(?)

It would be weird for it to follow an academic model because the function of TAM is nothing like the function of an academic conference. It is much closer to following a "festival" model (like you might have a music or comedy festival) where there are curators who (one hopes) do research and pick the best "acts" to come and perform in order to draw a large audience. There are even music festivals where the bands run workshops during the day (learn to play the harmonica etc.) which I believe is another thing that TAM does the equivalent to in the field of skepticism.

So, stop ragging on academics/academia so much! I know some of the most obnoxious bores online try to buoy themselves up with their academic credentials but I would argue that they are certainly not representative of most of the academic world that I know.

You did note wherein I said "Ah, so I was wrong about that."?

[AbsurdWalls (again)]

So, stop ragging on academics/academia so much! I know some of the most obnoxious bores online try to buoy themselves up with their academic credentials but I would argue that they are certainly not representative of most of the academic world that I know.

You did note wherein I said "Ah, so I was wrong about that."?

Of course! I've just noticed that you seem to be using "academic" as if it were a dirty word recently in a few contexts (playing up this trope that academics are snooty ivory tower folks who look down on ordinary people who do things) and I felt prompted to respond to it. Interestingly I see that stereotype most often from academics who want to emphasise that they are not like those other (unspecified) academics who aren't down with the working man and his struggles.

[AbsurdWalls (again)]

To put it more pretentiously (as is my perogative as an academic), you're tilting at a windmill when actually the folks responsible are a couple of tossers in windmill costumes.

[Mykeru]

To me, atheism is a-theism...without theism...without a belief that god(s) exist. No belief required. No "denials" required.

Note my qualifier, "to me". YMMV. I think that how one views their own atheism has a lot to do with who they debate against. (In addition to how they arrived at their own atheism). For me, it's people who want to insist that atheism is just another religion. No, sorry, I'm stopping that claim right from the get go. Atheism isn't even a belief, it's the absence of a particular belief. And if you want to know how that argument has worked for me, well it's worked great. Atheism is mainstream. You're all welcome! (in all honesty I give credit to the internet, people don't feel like they are the only atheist anymore) We've already won on the atheism awareness front. To me, going back to the debate on atheism is a belief, is taking many steps backwards.

I'll also say that for me, my atheism, is something I "know". I know fairies don't exist. I know the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage doesn't exist. I just apply that same logic towards gods. YMMV.

You can't know something without also believing it. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Knowledge is TRUE, JUSTIFIED belief, so saying knowledge is a subset of belief is as true as saying living the good life is a subset of having a pulse.

[welch]

So, stop ragging on academics/academia so much! I know some of the most obnoxious bores online try to buoy themselves up with their academic credentials but I would argue that they are certainly not representative of most of the academic world that I know.

You did note wherein I said "Ah, so I was wrong about that."?

Of course! I've just noticed that you seem to be using "academic" as if it were a dirty word recently in a few contexts (playing up this trope that academics are snooty ivory tower folks who look down on ordinary people who do things) and I felt prompted to respond to it. Interestingly I see that stereotype most often from academics who want to emphasise that they are not like those other (unspecified) academics who aren't down with the working man and his struggles.

If it came across that way, that was unintentional. I was using it as a descriptive of a kind of conference in contrast to other kinds, say, computer conferences, sci-fi cons, etc. I don't have a problem with academics or academic conferences unless they act as though any suggestion of change is a horrible idea. Drescher never did actually say WHY she so completely disagreed with the idea other than "if you make professional speakers jump through hoops, you won't get them" which was kind of stupid on many levels. Other than that, she just wanted to make sure my suggestion wasn't even seriously considered.

[Dave2]

That's why this idea of "appropriate force" in response is so bad, because it makes some assumptions that are not true for the untrained. Person A may react in what you see as an "appropriate" fashion. Person B may not. Expecting otherwise is ignorance.

I'm not really sure if this is meant to be at variance with anything I've written.

In fact, it is the realisation that various people react variously that makes me think you might as well advise (advise, not legislate) a certain categorical response.

What I would do - in the situation again - is get out with minimum fuss. I agree with many in the MRM in that it is good to avoid getting trapped in a relationship and I cultivate my independence for that very reason.

What you would do - up to you really.

The sole contention I'm advancing is that I don't see the Elam stuff as satirical. It's angry, it's unfunny, it doesn't seem to ape much that is representative of it's targets, he isn't at all consistent about whether he's serious or not. I agree with Ally that he plagues his own pond and puts up barriers between those he claims to help and sympathise with - and them getting actual help and sympathy.

That is all I'm really defending - what individual responses to individual encounters with violent people is something of a sideshow.

So when I say:

"Violent girlfriend - don't lose your temper, get shot of her and move on".

It's my notion of best advice, not explicit law.

I'd even go so far as to say that somewhere there might be people who spend their days indulging in grotesque slapstick violence and constant screaming rows, throwing pans and crockery at each other, and that they completely love it and its a personal bliss for them.

Good on 'em - not for me tho'.

[Mykeru]

Or my favorite: go into the woods and shoot it fresh. Reminds me, I'm almost out of bambi. HURRY UP FALL!

Considering how good it is to kill it and cook it right up, I want to pioneer game hunting with a Mark II flame-thrower as a "best of both worlds" solution.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimage ... hrower.jpg

"Quick! Bring up the buns!"

[Dave2]

This assumes you think we're at odds - we may well not be - my mistake if so.

[Metalogic42]

To me, atheism is a-theism...without theism...without a belief that god(s) exist. No belief required. No "denials" required.

Note my qualifier, "to me". YMMV. I think that how one views their own atheism has a lot to do with who they debate against. (In addition to how they arrived at their own atheism). For me, it's people who want to insist that atheism is just another religion. No, sorry, I'm stopping that claim right from the get go. Atheism isn't even a belief, it's the absence of a particular belief. And if you want to know how that argument has worked for me, well it's worked great. Atheism is mainstream. You're all welcome! (in all honesty I give credit to the internet, people don't feel like they are the only atheist anymore) We've already won on the atheism awareness front. To me, going back to the debate on atheism is a belief, is taking many steps backwards.

I'll also say that for me, my atheism, is something I "know". I know fairies don't exist. I know the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage doesn't exist. I just apply that same logic towards gods. YMMV.

You can't know something without also believing it. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Knowledge is TRUE, JUSTIFIED belief, so saying knowledge is a subset of belief is as true as saying living the good life is a subset of having a pulse.

That's my point...

[Wonderist]

From: viewtopic.php?p=107394#p107394

OK, now I'm off to start my weekend.

Y'all have fun, now.

I, for one, have as a mission ripping the piss out of Wonderist as much as I feel like, never engaging him on his terms, and generally countering his superdickheadness with my own "technique".

I wouldn't question your right to do that. However, do you see that when you *also* make a *vague* warning about if I post anything long'again, you'll segregate me as one would a genuine troll, that this puts me in a position of having an 'authority' with their finger on a button, and having no prior knowledge of what the conditions are for when the button will be pushed?

In my position, that is far more auto-cratic than anarchic. Sure, the auto-crat is quite lenient, but that leniency is no longer connected to publicly stated rules and principles, but to the whim of the auto-crat alone.

I was blocked at Ophelia's blog under much the same circumstances. She thought my comment about ElevatorGate was 'too long', and now she goes on to call it 'boring' (which is where I picked up that word, BTW). But can you read that post and find anything actually ***wrong*** with it? It's much shorter than my long posts on the Pit: http://gnuatheism.wikispaces.com/Elevator+Guy+Kerfuffle

For that, I was shunted away.

On Zvan's blog, I posted in defense of the pit, and used myself as a member to deflect the attention onto me to make more personal for them. Instead of facing a vague, nameless entity, I showed them how, through stereotype and guilt-by-association, they were including me in those attacks. I challenged them on that basis. Yes, my posts were annoying. But were the ***wrong***? viewtopic.php?p=81381#p81381

For that, I was shunted away.

I've repeatedly asked people who object to my postings about these 'techniques' to engage in conversation and explain what they object to, rather than just continuing with flames. Some people have even done so, and I respond to them reasonably, not with long-boring-anti-drama. If people engage reasonably, I do as well. Even if they flame, I still respond reasonably, just at greater length and with more caution. But still reasonably.

And during this, it was unexpected to me that the owner, Lsuoma, would make a vague warning essentially saying 'don't do it again'. But with no elaboration, what does that mean? Do what exactly? Is there some new character limit cutoff? Is it based on arbitrary judgment? Is there any possibility for discussion beforehand, or will it be a flip of a switch? What are the parameters/conditions?

Without clarification, it's as if a Sword of Damocles has been placed over my head. I could be punished at any moment, on a whim from one person, not based on any rule or principle, but only a tug of a heart-string of emotion.

I find this quite disturbing, as it seems to me anti-thetical to what I thought were the original purposes of the Pit.

Was I wrong to challenge Ophelia? Was she right to block/delete my comments? Was I wrong to challenge Zvan? Was she right to block/delete my comments? I don't think I was wrong, and I don't think they were right.

I also don't see my situation here as very much different to the one at Ophelia's. My posts may have been long, but they were not off-topic or irrelevant, and others had posts just as long or longer. Here it is the same.

Some people there felt I was annoying and 'talking down' to them, and while they may have been annoyed, I did not talk down to them (AFAIK), but was just expressing my opinions. Opinions that they disagreed with. And that pissed them off, and so the Sword of Damocles was hung up. So I left.

I am open to discussing the pros and cons of my posts, but I would hope that drastic action against me not be meted out on a whim or without clear, detailed warning of just what my 'crime' is, and just what are the 'limits' I must stay within. I would also hope that those limits would be fair and equally applied to all pitters, rather than arbitrarily being imposed on one person.

If, through reasonable dialogue, we can determine that my posts did cross some sort of line of principle or rule, then I would be more than willing to adapt my style to accommodate that finding. On the other hand, if it cannot be shown that I've crossed some sort of line, then I would ask that my unusual situation, with a Sword of Damocles hanging over my head, be reset back to 'normal' pit member. I don't think it's unusual to seek this sort of resolution, nor unreasonable.

Regards,
Thaumas

[Wonderist]

Y'all have fun, now.

I, for one, have as a mission ripping the piss out of Wonderist as much as I feel like, never engaging him on his terms, and generally countering his superdickheadness with my own "technique".

I've responded to this here: viewtopic.php?p=107449#p107449

[welch]

Or my favorite: go into the woods and shoot it fresh. Reminds me, I'm almost out of bambi. HURRY UP FALL!

Considering how good it is to kill it and cook it right up, I want to pioneer game hunting with a Mark II flame-thrower as a "best of both worlds" solution.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimage ... hrower.jpg

"Quick! Bring up the buns!"

Nah. then you end up with the internal organs fouling the meat. Yuck. Also, napalm adds the most awful flavor.

[Parody Accountant]

That's my point...

That point is a subset of other things you've said.

amidoinitrite?