Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13741

Post by Git »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:Argghhh... http://www.skepticon.org/schedule/ has (vague) workshops! I'm breaking out in hives just thinking about it. Didn't we talk about those things last week or something? :shock:
If these 'workshops' are anything like those at the skepchickcon (and if ever there was a more apt name, I've not heard it) conference then they will consist of a group of big(ish) name skeptics sitting around a table pontificating about some vague subjects slightly associated with skepticism (ghost hunting, UFOs, bigfoot, harassment of brave women skeptics, how to effectively harass chill girl gender traitors)
A Workshop is that shed at the bottom of the garden where Uncle Harold, a horny-handed true son of Yorkshire,potters about with his lathe and his Black-and-Decker.

It is emphatically not a group of big(ish) name skeptics sitting around a table pontificating about some vague subjects slightly associated with skepticism, nor is it a circle-jerk of identity politics groupies trying out for the Oppression Olympics, or indeed a management-buzz-word-bingo session just so this month's doughnut consumption quota can be met.

And don't get me bloody started on the use of "workshop" as a verb. People who do that should be punched through their monitors.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13742

Post by Scented Nectar »

Git wrote:A Workshop is that shed at the bottom of the garden where Uncle Harold, a horny-handed true son of Yorkshire,potters about with his lathe and his Black-and-Decker.

It is emphatically not a group of big(ish) name skeptics sitting around a table pontificating about some vague subjects slightly associated with skepticism, nor is it a circle-jerk of identity politics groupies trying out for the Oppression Olympics, or indeed a management-buzz-word-bingo session just so this month's doughnut consumption quota can be met.

And don't get me bloody started on the use of "workshop" as a verb. People who do that should be punched through their monitors.
Git, I'm sorry to break this to you, but they've taken that original meaning and mutilated it into a monstrosity. They've raped it into the ground. Oh wait, that last one was PZ and GelatoGuy.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Interesting post about A+ at FTB from Maryam Namazie

#13743

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I remember once being in the streets with a friend. We were waiting for the crosslight to go green, then all of a sudden, some old crazy woman hit me on the head with her bag and started screaming at me, for no reason. I didn't mind (but it did sting a bit).

Irrelevant, I know...
What? You met Ruth Buzzi? Was she wearing her hair net with the knot showing in the front? :)

[youtube]Zw5Ski9yB58[/youtube]
Oh, so someone did film it, after all.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13744

Post by Scented Nectar »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:Argghhh... http://www.skepticon.org/schedule/ has (vague) workshops! I'm breaking out in hives just thinking about it. Didn't we talk about those things last week or something? :shock:
I am NOT clicking that link! But, just to know, is there a Surelyramics workshop? If so, can we create a "Secular Phil" group to fund my trip, hotel, food and booze? Just asking...
It just says 'workshop' in a number of time slots. But, even if they are short some, I get the feeling that they won't accept your workshop.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Interesting post about A+ at FTB from Maryam Namazie

#13745

Post by Scented Nectar »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, so someone did film it, after all.
I must say, that's a nice hat you have. :)

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13746

Post by Scented Nectar »

Here's another Ruth Buzzi video with her hitting-handbag and knotted hairnet. She's almost indistinguishable from real feminists, but she's obviously taking a poke at them with the offended woman gimmick. It's from a Dean Martin Roast of Jimmy Stewart:

[youtube]IBczl5p5ySk[/youtube]

The Pelagic Argosy
.
.
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Interesting post about A+ at FTB from Maryam Namazie

#13747

Post by The Pelagic Argosy »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I remember once being in the streets with a friend. We were waiting for the crosslight to go green, then all of a sudden, some old crazy woman hit me on the head with her bag and started screaming at me, for no reason. I didn't mind (but it did sting a bit).

Irrelevant, I know...
What? You met Ruth Buzzi? Was she wearing her hair net with the knot showing in the front? :)

[youtube]
Call that wearing a hairnet? This is how you wear a hairnet:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yA89e4M_qFg/U ... arples.jpg

Guest

Re: Interesting post about A+ at FTB from Maryam Namazie

#13748

Post by Guest »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: I remember once being in the streets with a friend. We were waiting for the crosslight to go green, then all of a sudden, some old crazy woman hit me on the head with her bag and started screaming at me, for no reason. I didn't mind (but it did sting a bit).

Irrelevant, I know...
I went to a notorious liberal arts college back in the Eighties, full of touchy feely and oh-so-sensitive liberals and hippies (you know the same type of wankers that make up the A+ forums).

Two incidents that typify my experience there:

I was sitting in the student community center with friends one day near a trash can when an "old bag lady" came digging through the trash. In reality it was a student, who I recognised as a worker at one of the campus eateries, she was wearing a disguise. One of my conservative friends (I started to seek them out as I grew increasingly disgusted with the ethos of the campus) made some rude comment along the lines of "why do they let these types of people in here". LOL! I saw that it got a rise out of her and the next time that friend and I were at the campus restaurant that girl took a particular interest in talking to my friend. This girl was, no doubt, doing this as some sort of class project, dressing as a bag lady and gauging the reactions of students on campus. I'm sure that my friend figured front and center in her report!

On another occasion I was sitting around talking to an RA (resident assistant) one night when he asked me what ethnicity I thought he was. I didn't know and so I guessed wrong. He was all upset by this and hurt that I had guessed incorrectly. I wish now that I had said, "Oh I'm sorry but I don't happen to have my Heinrich Himmler Book of Racial Characteristics with me."

The Pelagic Argosy
.
.
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13749

Post by The Pelagic Argosy »

Git wrote:And don't get me bloody started on the use of "workshop" as a verb. People who do that should be punched through their monitors.
Or brained with their monitors.
http://www.dididado.org/wp-content/uplo ... itored.jpg

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Interesting post about A+ at FTB from Maryam Namazie

#13750

Post by Scented Nectar »

The Pelagic Argosy wrote:Call that wearing a hairnet? This is how you wear a hairnet:
Much better. The main knot(s) are tastefully away from the forehead. She won't get mistaken for a catholic woman on ash wednesday, at a distance. :)

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13751

Post by AndrewV69 »

Steersman wrote: PZ probably wouldn't be caught dead with a cat for a house pet as otherwise I expect Jerry Coyne would never let him hear the end of it ...
OK I will bite. Why not? What is the issue here?

Mr Danksworth
.
.
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:30 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13752

Post by Mr Danksworth »

I'm being a glutton for punishment and looking into feminist intersectionality theory. Does anyone have any links to discussions of the theory outside of the femishpere?

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13753

Post by Scented Nectar »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Steersman wrote: PZ probably wouldn't be caught dead with a cat for a house pet as otherwise I expect Jerry Coyne would never let him hear the end of it ...
OK I will bite. Why not? What is the issue here?
PZ pretends to, or really does, hate cats. So, when Coyne shows funny or cute cat vids on Saturdays as 'Caturday', PZ will post and 'Anti-Caturday' other animal. I think he's trying to be funny. Don't quit your day job, ass prof!

Zhu Wuneng
.
.
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:28 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13754

Post by Zhu Wuneng »

Hey, just wanted to say, it was cool talkin with y'all. I have some very serious family and work issues cropping up right now, so I can't really justify allotting time to recreational arguing, much as I love it. Maybe next year! Peace.

Mr Danksworth
.
.
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:30 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13755

Post by Mr Danksworth »

Bot alert.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13756

Post by Scented Nectar »

Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13757

Post by Scented Nectar »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.
I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.

If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Spam

#13758

Post by mordacious1 »

Of course, this won't any since one that spam gets deleted but,
when I was in High School, I had a friend who called his dads new wife the "step stool". It became a meme with a lot of really dirty jokes involved. I think the jokes got him through having to live with her for two years.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Spam

#13759

Post by mordacious1 »

make any sense....it doesn't make any sense without that too.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13760

Post by ERV »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.
I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.

If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
Dont look at me!
http://anongallery.org/img/4/3/i-have-n ... -doing.jpg
LOL!

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13761

Post by AndrewV69 »

Mr Danksworth wrote:I'm being a glutton for punishment and looking into feminist intersectionality theory. Does anyone have any links to discussions of the theory outside of the femishpere?
Seeing as it is a feminist theory I suspect you may have a bit of difficulty finding anyone outside of that circle jerk discussing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
Intersectionality is a feminist sociological theory first highlighted by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989). Intersectionality is a methodology of studying "the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relationships and subject formations" (McCall 2005). The theory suggests—and seeks to examine how—various biological, social and cultural categories such as gender, race, class, ability, sexual orientation, and other axes of identity interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion-based bigotry, do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination. [1]
So we get people like Marcott loudly proclaiming that any charge brought by a woman should be assumed to be true (thus the trial is all about determining punishment) and not to determine guilt or innocence if a man is alleged to be the perpetrator.
http://www.kickaction.ca/node/1499
The word “intersectionality” comes out of a metaphor coined by the critical legal theorist Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw to explain how race oppression and gender oppression interact in Black women’s lives.
I am reasonably certain I have mentioned Critical Theory before, well Critical Legal Theory is going to take that one step further (already has according to some people) look into the activities of Catherine Ann MacKinnon for example.

*cackle* I like it actually. Have your enemy change laws to oppress himself, while you just supervise the whole process, while proclaiming yourself to be oppressed. It is beautiful, no denying it. One step further than requiring two female witnesses to be equal to one man, instead the word of one woman supersedes the word of any number of men.

/snark (but not really)

So here we have in Canada the IIRP (Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy) out of SFU (Simon Fraser University)
http://www.sfu.ca/iirp/index.html
The Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy anchors a vibrant interdisciplinary community of scholars, researchers and students who have moved to the forefront of intersectional scholarship in Canada. The Institute provides opportunities to collaborate with other organizations, Centres, and Institutes at SFU and beyond who are developing intersectionality as a framework for health research and policy.
http://www.sfu.ca/iirp/ibpa.html
There is growing recognition that governments should be evaluated by their ability to deliver and implement policy that can correct power imbalances and address differential and distributional health impacts including avoidable, inequitable and unjust differences in the health of diverse groups of people. An intersectionality-based policy analysis (IBPA) Framework has been developed to improve upon current Health Impact Asessment (HIAs) tools and frameworks. This volume provides an overview of the IBPA Framework and brings together scholars who have developed and applied this innovative policy analysis approach to complex health issues in and beyond British Columbia, Canada. The collection demonstrates the ways in which IBPA may be used by diverse policy actors who seek to tackle health inequities when making health and health-relat- ed decisions at the level of policy and programming.
BTW, having moved to BC from Ontario, I am under the impression that effective and timely delivery of health care services in BC, is in a worse state that in Ontario (I am involved in volunteer community work so I have seen some of the issues first hand).

Should be interesting to see what develops further down the road.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13762

Post by sacha »

Michael K Gray wrote: (Sacha: Now you know how Penny feels in the Big Bang Theory?)
haha!

JAB
.
.
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:04 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13763

Post by JAB »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.
I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.

If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
That's OK... we can all "foe" the bot... problem solved until the next one.

astrokid.nj
.
.
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:54 pm
Location: Atheist MRA MGTOW

Re: My Privilege (asshole)

#13764

Post by astrokid.nj »

Saint N. wrote:From the people that brought you "This is Atheism +"
Good stuff.. The description of his father's and grandfather's lives reminded me of this interview with a old-timer MRA.
If you were to give a state of the union address on the condition of modern men, what would some of the highlights be?

Unlike a lot of guys who hang around with “Men’s Rights” types, I’m far more positive about the condition of modern men than most of them. A lot of men are leading longer, healthier, lives than the average man ever has before in history. We have what is from a historic perspective a miraculous level of health care available to us. The modern world is full of convenience, and comfort, and simple survival is no longer the real challenge that it used to be for a lot of men.

I also think men have a great deal more freedom regarding life choices – if they choose to exercise that freedom – than the average man has in the past. The social changes of the past half-century have made the provider role optional for men. We are now free to choose lower stress ways to make a living and pursue that “work-life balance” which is one of the favorite buzzwords of our contemporary culture.

Modern communications technology has made ignorance of any subject a choice – the internet alone puts far more information resources at anyone’s fingertips than even huge university libraries had when I was growing up. Transportation technology gives us mobility that was only dreamed of barely a century ago. I can literally get to almost any part of the world in a few hours – instead a few weeks or months. The real barrier today to a man’s horizons is his motivation, drive, and interest – compared to times past when the simple act of traveling a few hundred miles was arduous and challenging.

And, something which a lot of people don’t think about is the fact that there are fewer men from the United States – both in terms of raw numbers or as a percentage of the population – who are walking around crippled or mutilated as a result of war than at probably any time in the past; certainly in the past 150 years or so.

Statistics and factoids, unfortunately, do not do a very good job of capturing a sense of what an environment is really like. To try to illustrate what social conditions were like in the past compared to today, I like to use the example of building the Panama Canal. Approximately 25,000 men died during its construction. Now, try to imagine for a moment what social conditions must have been like for so many men to find it attractive to take that kind of risk with their lives. How many men do you know today who would volunteer to head off to the jungle and face a high probability of death? The pressures going on in the lives of those men are probably beyond anything we can imagine today.

Or, take the “White Feather” campaign. Imagine being so sensitive to social pressure that having a woman hand you a white feather would be shameful enough that you would sign up to go to war in order to avoid it. I think a lot of men today, probably most if we are talking about younger men, would say “Take that feather and shove it where the sun don’t shine.”

Or, consider the “Mormon Migration.” Between 1846 and 1868, thousands of people made the arduous 1300-mile journey from Nauvoo, Illinois (or Independence, Missouri) to the area of Salt Lake City, Utah. Many made the trek on foot pushing the sum total of their worldly possessions in a handcart. Many perished along the way.

Imagine a life so hard and hopeless that walking a thousand miles or more dragging everything you own in a handcart was an attractive alternative. Then look around at the life you lead today and try to tell me with a straight face that you don’t have things pretty darned good.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13765

Post by Scented Nectar »

In the voice of Ricky Ricardo calling "Luuuucccccyyyyy", I have to say, Lsssuuuuoooommmaaaaaaa, what have you done putting me in charge!??!?!?!?

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13766

Post by ERV »

Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]8NPzLBSBzPI[/youtube]

The Pelagic Argosy
.
.
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13767

Post by The Pelagic Argosy »

ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]
Hey, spammers! SPEED it up a little!

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13768

Post by JackRayner »

Dick Strawkins wrote: James, the issue I would take with your current stance is that it doesn't take into account the case of "dictionary feminism".
Dictionary feminism is the basic one line description of feminism that most people will give if asked to define it. It goes something like: "feminism is the call for women to be given equal treatment in terms of job and wage opportunities, employment and other basic human rights."
In other words it is a description for humanism as applied to women, and as such it's the sort of stance that most people, whether MRAs or otherwise, accept.

Now I realize the problem is that your opposition to feminism doesn't entail an opposition to the "dictionary feminism" I've just described and, instead, is really an opposition to political feminism (patriarchy theory, rape culture, male privilege, etc), but I think it's worth noting, just in case you are accused of being in favor of withholding basic human rights from women.
I don't care for so-called "dictionary feminists". When established feminism doesn't look anything like what the dictionary would have one believe, which should I go by? If someone wants to call themselves a feminist, have at it. I'm not going to adopt and promote a label based on some lay person's subjective perception of it, however. And I'm not going to stop criticizing it because someone believes feminism is nothing more than "The radical notion that women are people too." Fuck, I believe women are people too! There's nothing new or radical about that. I support women's rights, and I do it just fine without adopting bullshit "theories".

To me it's similar to the "moderate" Christian that says "Well, that's not MY Christianity." OK. Great! So, what are you doing to battle this version of Christianity that you claim to oppose? Nothing.

If someone decides that my rejection of feminism means that I hate women and oppose women's rights, and they give me no opportunity to explain my actual position, then they can fuck off too...

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13769

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

ERV wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.
I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.

If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
Dont look at me!
http://anongallery.org/img/4/3/i-have-n ... -doing.jpg
LOL!
People, our overlords! (wouldn't have them any other way).

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13770

Post by Scented Nectar »

The Pelagic Argosy wrote:
ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]
Hey, spammers! SPEED it up a little!
Uh oh. Sacha? Help?

I actually worked in two different chocolate factories as a teen, working out of a temp place that sent me to various factories. There used to be both a Neilson's and a Rowntree's here in Toronto, although I think both are now closed or moved. Only one conveyor belt (and I was on a lot of different ones) made me vow to never touch a candy bar that has peanuts in it. I still won't. It was a line where our job was to pull out the bad peanuts as they all went past us. With two of us working each side of the moving assembly line, which was a solid covering of peanuts a foot across, and which were layered double high so half were hidden (!!!), went by us at way too fast of a speed. Nasty, rotted looking, already shelled peanuts slipped past us along with the good ones, and ones we couldn't see at all at the bottom layar, and sometimes there peanut sized contaminants, like one thing I pulled out of there which was some sort of squishy larval cocoon as far as I could tell. Ugh. There were 4 of us pulling out the bad looking stuff, but we had a Lucy and Ethel sort of thing happening. Bad looking things went past us and onwards into the candy bars. We just did our best, and got paid. I was only on that line for a couple of days. I think that was at Neilsons, around 1979 or 80. Rowntrees provided quite fairly timed assembly lines, and they treated everyone really good too. However, while Neilsons was good in the personal hygiene requirement, I was grossed out that none of my Rowntree coworkers seemed to wash their hands after the toilet. They just went back to work where in some cases they directly touched chocolate with their bare hands. And I'll leave the rumours other workers told me out of this, since I didn't see any of those things personally.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13771

Post by Scented Nectar »

Spelling, grammar, wall of text paragraph. What just happened? blarrgghhhh.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13772

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Zhu Wuneng wrote:Hey, just wanted to say, it was cool talkin with y'all. I have some very serious family and work issues cropping up right now, so I can't really justify allotting time to recreational arguing, much as I love it. Maybe next year! Peace.
Sorry to hear that, I hope you pull through. Darwinspeed!

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13773

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Steersman wrote:
“sheesh” yourself ... :-)
Oh FFS!

I just got an idea for a blind date service ... I can just see it, match up a you what with a you know what.
??? Something does not compute. Maybe due to some different, incongruent or false interpretations of the word “sheesh”:
sheesh (shsh) interj.
Used to express mild annoyance, surprise, or disgust.
Considering that I suffixed my comment with a smiley, I would think either of the first two possibilities would have been the most reasonable interpretations ....

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13774

Post by Steersman »

JackRayner wrote:Don't know if any of y'all are familiar, but there was a debate that a feminist was trying to set up, titled "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?" The original planner started receiving a bunch of hate and threats from feminists, and so she called it off. It's known that it was feminists sending the threats, and yet the popular lie is that it was the MRAs, and it's even spread onto that junk-site "Jezebel". Anyways, here's the lasted [and most telling] update on that;

[youtube]t5ufzpiWbBM[/youtube]

Seriously though, I'm getting to the point where I'm just about done being charitable to any feminist's argument... Why bother?
Interesting video there – thanks.

As for “being charitable to any feminist’s argument”? Maybe because that “any” covers a lot of ground [all of it] and that there might actually be some feminists who might actually be brought back from the “dark side” by actually addressing their arguments honestly. For instance, even the infamous Sally Strange has conceded that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”, although she seems frequently to forget that she has done so - and in spite of frequent reminding …. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all that ….

But , after all, none of us can claim to be omniscient, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, at least to maintain any claim to sanity ...

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Spam

#13775

Post by Scented Nectar »

mordacious1 wrote:Of course, this won't any since one that spam gets deleted but,
when I was in High School, I had a friend who called his dads new wife the "step stool". It became a meme with a lot of really dirty jokes involved. I think the jokes got him through having to live with her for two years.
I'm reminded of an old joke. Do the jokes involve the line "may I push in your stool for you?"

Spence
.
.
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:52 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13776

Post by Spence »

ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]8NPzLBSBzPI[/youtube]
It could be worse. At least the menz aren't trying to run the line. We'd only be worse.
mickeycheese.gif
(479.42 KiB) Downloaded 177 times
(With notpologies to drimble at b3ta. Hell, so many others have stolen this I figured one more time wouldn't matter)

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13777

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I'll repeat myself, but:

Steersman, oh my Steersman:

Buy yourself a sense of humour.

(although I must admit, there's some funny shit to have in reading you. I'm too Monthy Pythoned to comment on it right now).

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13778

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit.
I guess then that the poll you refer to is among the other 3% ....

But while I’ll agree that statistics can certainly be misused – as might even be the case with those on the incidence of rape – it seems that the benefits derived from the discipline and the science are pervasive if not profound ....
Steersman, oh my Steersman:

Buy a sense of humour.
Been looking to buy one of those, but so far, no luck – obviously, at least in the view of some. You have any ideas? E-bay perhaps? [Someone sold his soul there some time ago, so an estate sale of a sense of humour is a possibility.] Or maybe go to Helen Hunt whom, I’ve been told, has many things of that nature in her bag-of-tricks? .... :-)

But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it. While you’ve indicated you frequently play things for the laughs, that seems to be very context dependent. And, in addition, my comment was directed at or made available to everyone else, not all of whom are likely to have seen it as you apparently intended ....

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13779

Post by AndrewV69 »

This is a "Chill Girl". Right?

[youtube]_i9w4SF6qfU[/youtube]


Her channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/emilyhart?feature=watch

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13780

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13781

Post by JackRayner »

Steersman wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Seriously though, I'm getting to the point where I'm just about done being charitable to any feminist's argument... Why bother?
Interesting video there – thanks.

As for “being charitable to any feminist’s argument”? Maybe because that “any” covers a lot of ground [all of it] and that there might actually be some feminists who might actually be brought back from the “dark side” by actually addressing their arguments honestly. For instance, even the infamous Sally Strange has conceded that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”, although she seems frequently to forget that she has done so - and in spite of frequent reminding …. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all that ….

But , after all, none of us can claim to be omniscient, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, at least to maintain any claim to sanity ...
Simply put, when a self-proclaimed feminist claims they're for "equality", I'm not going to be giving them the benefit of the doubt...

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13782

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?
Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13783

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?
Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...
Would you really take the statement "Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit." as serious? Because if so, I have to question your skepticism. This meme has been going around the net for a while. And the enormity of it alone should give you a cue.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13784

Post by Steersman »

JackRayner wrote:
Steersman wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Seriously though, I'm getting to the point where I'm just about done being charitable to any feminist's argument... Why bother?
Interesting video there – thanks.

As for “being charitable to any feminist’s argument”? Maybe because that “any” covers a lot of ground [all of it] and that there might actually be some feminists who might actually be brought back from the “dark side” by actually addressing their arguments honestly. For instance, even the infamous Sally Strange has conceded that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”, although she seems frequently to forget that she has done so - and in spite of frequent reminding …. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all that ….

But , after all, none of us can claim to be omniscient, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, at least to maintain any claim to sanity ...
Simply put, when a self-proclaimed feminist claims they're for "equality", I'm not going to be giving them the benefit of the doubt...
I certainly am not prepared to “give them the benefit of the doubt” as there are, obviously, more than a few of them who are totally off the wall and out to lunch. In which case it is entirely acceptable to be asking where they are coming from and which of the many feminist ideologies they happen to subscribe to. But that is, I think, quite a bit different from “not being charitable to any feminist’s argument”.

One might even suggest that the cases and difference between them is pretty much analogous to Zvan and company mentally taking the “leap of faith” – so to speak – from thinking that all men are potential rapists to thinking that they are, in fact, all rapists ....

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13785

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote:This is a "Chill Girl". Right?

Video: _i9w4SF6qfU

Her channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/emilyhart?feature=watch
Reminds me of having given an ex-girlfriend a book titled “Pornography for Women”. And in it were a bunch of captioned photos of men in no-more revealing or obscene poses than a no-shirt or open-shirt pose. And the captions from the guys were things like “I can watch the Super Bowl anytime; it’s more important that we watch The Bridges of Madison County together”. And, “Let’s invite your mother over to stay as long as she wants”. And, “As long as I have two legs, you’ll never have to take out the garbage again.” ....

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13786

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Did anyone catch the next-to-last SGU podcast?

Steve Novella mentioned that he had to deal with someone arguing about Queen Bee, and he demolished their arguments and their "hate". Does anybody know who this person was?

Also, they all had a really good laugh at the guy who got knocked over and killed after he dressed up in a "Bigfoot" costume. I've got no problem with that myself, but don't the Baboons have really strict standards about jokes and what people should find amusing?

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13787

Post by sacha »

James Onen wrote:Seeing as we're on the topic of 'dictionary' feminism vs. gender feminism...

[youtube]3o-OcTSeVcs[/youtube]

8-)
Have I mentioned how much I adore her?

GWW is simply brilliant.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13788

Post by cunt »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Gumby wrote:
franc wrote:If the name was hidden, there's simply no way to differentiate the gibberish of the big baboon and his shitlick accomplice -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... smandmras/

You know that after the Thunderf00t episode, there was no way in hell Peezus would let anyone in who didn't goosestep to FTB/A+ radfem dogma. Especially someone he lets write on his own blog.
What was the point of that post by Chris Clarke?
I thought he was brought on board by Peezuz to write some more environmentally orientated articles. This current one is like PZ-lite on social justice warrior mode. He complains about MRAs not recognizing evidence and neglects to add any evidence of his own to the entire post. I guess it was more a rant about MRAs in general but it's a silly idea to complain about others not accepting evidence when all you are offering yourself is a whiney anecdote.
I don't know. I think it's this cartoon in blog format.

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6924 ... parody.gif

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13789

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?
Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...
Would you really take the statement "Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit." as serious? Because if so, I have to question your skepticism. This meme has been going around the net for a while. And the enormity of it alone should give you a cue.
No, I did not take the statement itself as serious; I recognized the hyperbole in it. Part of my reason for my “the other 3%” comment which I should have tagged with a smiley instead of the, I thought, equivalent ellipsis [...]; mea culpa.

But what I was questioning – and responding to – was the apparent intent behind it: considering that the only context for your comment that seemed relevant was my previous comment to MKG, I thought your comment was an attempt to “take the piss out of it”, i.e., to “mock, tease, ridicule or scoff at” the serious nature of the discussion, to wit, the benefits of understanding how a certain “low” frequency of supposed rapes can lead to a fairly large portion of the population which has been exposed to that type of assault ....

As for the “meme going around the net for a while”, apart from noting that the net is a very large and inhomogeneous place and that not everyone is familiar with every last crook and nanny in it, that is indeed unfortunate and probably contributes not a little to some inappropriate “hyper-skepticism” about the subject in question. A “false negative”, if I’m not mistaken ....

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13790

Post by cunt »

AndrewV69 wrote:This is a "Chill Girl". Right?

[youtube]_i9w4SF6qfU[/youtube]


Her channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/emilyhart?feature=watch
Posh girl. Bet she has a pink VW Beetle parked outside.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13791

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?
Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...
Would you really take the statement "Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit." as serious? Because if so, I have to question your skepticism. This meme has been going around the net for a while. And the enormity of it alone should give you a cue.
No, I did not take the statement itself as serious; I recognized the hyperbole in it. Part of my reason for my “the other 3%” comment which I should have tagged with a smiley instead of the, I thought, equivalent ellipsis [...]; mea culpa.

But what I was questioning – and responding to – was the apparent intent behind it: considering that the only context for your comment that seemed relevant was my previous comment to MKG, I thought your comment was an attempt to “take the piss out of it”, i.e., to “mock, tease, ridicule or scoff at” the serious nature of the discussion, to wit, the benefits of understanding how a certain “low” frequency of supposed rapes can lead to a fairly large portion of the population which has been exposed to that type of assault ....

As for the “meme going around the net for a while”, apart from noting that the net is a very large and inhomogeneous place and that not everyone is familiar with every last crook and nanny in it, that is indeed unfortunate and probably contributes not a little to some inappropriate “hyper-skepticism” about the subject in question. A “false negative”, if I’m not mistaken ....
Let me reassure you there was no intent other than humour. Now, if you want to blow it out of proportion, that's your privilege (haha). I have nothing to say about this statistics discussion as I've said my bit a year ago on Abbie's thread. If you're interested, go look for it. If not, let's move on.

"False negative"? Try "other cultures"... (criptic sign off for tonight, have a nice one folks!)

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13792

Post by sacha »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.
I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.

If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13793

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

sacha wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.
I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.

If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.
MATRIARCHY!!! (good night again)

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13794

Post by sacha »

Scented Nectar wrote:In the voice of Ricky Ricardo calling "Luuuucccccyyyyy", I have to say, Lsssuuuuoooommmaaaaaaa, what have you done putting me in charge!??!?!?!?
get your twisted panties in order. The cunt who shuns underpants is going to take care of it.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13795

Post by sacha »

ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]8NPzLBSBzPI[/youtube]
HAHAHA!

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13796

Post by Scented Nectar »

sacha wrote:I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.
Yay! And everything they say about blonds is a lie!

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13797

Post by Scented Nectar »

sacha wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:In the voice of Ricky Ricardo calling "Luuuucccccyyyyy", I have to say, Lsssuuuuoooommmaaaaaaa, what have you done putting me in charge!??!?!?!?
get your twisted panties in order. The cunt who shuns underpants is going to take care of it.
Um, I'm not wearing any either. :P

The Pelagic Argosy
.
.
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13798

Post by The Pelagic Argosy »

Scented Nectar wrote:
get your twisted panties in order. The cunt who shuns underpants is going to take care of it.
Um, I'm not wearing any either. :P[/quote]
Don't get a chill, girl! :lol:

The Pelagic Argosy
.
.
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13799

Post by The Pelagic Argosy »

I love the smell of quote fail in the evening.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#13800

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote: ...
No, I did not take the statement itself as serious; I recognized the hyperbole in it. Part of my reason for my “the other 3%” comment which I should have tagged with a smiley instead of the, I thought, equivalent ellipsis [...]; mea culpa.

But what I was questioning – and responding to – was the apparent intent behind it: considering that the only context for your comment that seemed relevant was my previous comment to MKG, I thought your comment was an attempt to “take the piss out of it”, i.e., to “mock, tease, ridicule or scoff at” the serious nature of the discussion, to wit, the benefits of understanding how a certain “low” frequency of supposed rapes can lead to a fairly large portion of the population which has been exposed to that type of assault ....

As for the “meme going around the net for a while”, apart from noting that the net is a very large and inhomogeneous place and that not everyone is familiar with every last crook and nanny in it, that is indeed unfortunate and probably contributes not a little to some inappropriate “hyper-skepticism” about the subject in question. A “false negative”, if I’m not mistaken ....
... Now, if you want to blow it out of proportion, that's your privilege (haha).


:-) Although that “blowing it out of proportion” is or was, I think, the point in question and not something to be assumed at the outset ...
I have nothing to say about this statistics discussion as I've said my bit a year ago on Abbie's thread. If you're interested, go look for it. If not, let's move on.
May do so. Although the question was raised again in the context of Justicar’s recent video on the topic and I and others may have further things to say on it, particularly as it seems to be part of the ongoing battle with various feminists ....

Locked