Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Damn, really sorry, I'm pissy again today (fucking mood swingsm!)
Phil, get off the rag and kiss my ass
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Damn, really sorry, I'm pissy again today (fucking mood swingsm!)
She's always had this thing about 'gendered' language but that didn't particularly affect a lot of her stuff about religion - at least not until the last year when she got completely obsessed about it.bhoytony wrote:I've seen her stuff for years and I've never been particularly impressed. One thing I do remember from a few years ago during the Great RD.Net forum wars was her snotty, superior posts on Dawkins site seeming to think she had the authority to order people how to behave. To be honest I'm not sure how she ever got to be so prominent, what exactly does she do? She's completely pissed off her co-writer and I don't see any more books coming out.Dick Strawkins wrote:
The rumor that the barmaid is based on Ophelia Benson is not recent.
I certainly heard it at least two years ago.
Of course it seems wierd now - especially after her swallowing the blue pill and going all cult-like with her new BFF in FTB/Skepchicks - but a few years back she was one of the best known female atheists and was actually doing a lot of decent online stuff against the excesses of fundamentalistic religion (before she, Steff and Jen founded their own!)
Or onlookers could just skip any post by/in respont to Oolon. It's very easy to do, I sometimes do it myself. For example, I was not interested in a few sideshow conversations going on here between regulars. I just skipped them.decius wrote:Your disagreement is most welcome.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
And again I'll have to disagree (what's wrong with me today?). What fucking "damage" could it do? No more than Mabus and his rants at worst. I've said before that I would really like to have one or more FTBers post here in earnest. We have one (well, not exactly in earnest, but that's all we have for now), let's try and engage.
Of course, disclaimer for FTB onlookers: this comment is my opinion, and mine alone.
The damage would be along the lines of what I briefly outlined earlier - onlookers' boredom, waste of time and resources, distraction from more fruitful baboon watch, pages and pages of pseudo-conversation without any hope of it progressing further.
In other words, being played by a troll.
Why do you assume I'm offended by the use of words on here? I'm mainly talking about the offence of others... For myself I saw the homophobic comment I mentioned (Faggy Josh) and it was the first time I had a real reaction to a phrase on here. Not that rational a reaction - a disgust reaction. Then having read some articles including the one Steersman linked to about how sexist and misogynistic language is more accepted than homophobic or racist language I had to ask myself why am I offended/disgusted by f*ggot or n*gger used in the context to diminish a gay or black person and not so much by c*nt, tw*t, bitch etc. when used to diminish a woman?Saint N. wrote: First you'd have to explain to me why 1) would not be an option, especially in a unmoderated forum, given that in my original reply to you I say, "the first [statement] is a personal choice whose restricts bar on no one else but the person who has self-selected to uphold it." There is no actual requirement on here for you or anyone else to use/not use any epithets whatsoever. But you can't externalize your personal discomfort onto others without expecting to get objections from people who have a different take (it's not rational to demand for others to just take offense on your behalf if they are not offended). As to why some people feel more comfortable with one epithet over another, different people have different reasons, and I refuse to generalize on something that has no one answer. I can only speak for myself, as I did when I told you,
So you are talking to your neighbour out front, they say '... that fucking n*gger down the road let his dog shit on my grass, what a c*nt..". You blithely ignore the word-choice? What a wonderfully picture perfect rational-sceptical world you live in. Maybe you need to perform psychometric tests and poll the neighbourhood before deciding that person is a racist. Me, I'm just a non-rational-sceptic judgemental arsehole like all the FtB'ers, obviously.Saint N. wrote: I don't actually censor by diction on account of not wanting to offend people. If there are words (whether casual niceties or profanities) I don't use it's more because they're not part of my everyday vocabulary rather than that I see them as 'bad'. (by not being part of my everyday vocabulary I mean that I would have to make a conscious effort to remind myself to use them just to make a point of using them, which would be a silly exercise IMO). But I don't police other people's word choice, nor do I jump to conclusion about their character based on the words they use.
Bullshit... The straw is poking a country mile out of your description of FtBs here. Count how many N-words and how much PG and John D get to demonstrate 'free thought' on this thread.Saint N. wrote: Unlike at FtB, there is still no rule here forbidding any of these words either explicitly or implicitly, evident by the fact that we've said them now several times with no repercussions whatsoever.
they have a whole list of verboten words that if used by a person, in any situation, defines them as irredeemable immoral scumbags. Pointing out the humor when they fail to live up to the standard they demand of everyone else is not a bias, when our only standard is that censorship (y'know, the kind that's imposed on others) is antithetical to freethought.
Hopefully I've clarified that I am not considering anyone immoral and indecent to their core by using certain slurs at all. I am saying that using slurs in a certain context then yes you will have every expectation to be considered a bigot and I think most here will agree with two out of the three below.Saint N. wrote: tl;dr Oolon your conflation of personal word choice and imposed censorship (by which if you fail to censor along the lines of the approved narrative you're dismissed as an immoral and indecent person by definition) is wrongheaded at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I suspect many people are going to try and repeat the "experiment" with better controls, now.aweraw wrote:Precisely... and as soon as he realized the outcome wasn't going to be the one he was aiming for, he immediately halted the experiment by revealing himself. I expect someone from the axis of half-truths at some point in the near future to claim that the "results" of Dillhunty's "experiment" are inconclusive, just to spin it away from what they surely was the inevitable outcome if it were carried through to completion. I reckon Matt must know he got all the information he needed to draw a conclusion, but then tried to offer a chance for them to give him the result he was chasing by dropping the pretense of anonymity.
OB managed to 'convincingly' ape professional philosophers who, for some bizarre reason, accrue caché (amongst non-scientists) by mere dint of possessing their PhDs.bhoytony wrote:I've seen her stuff for years and I've never been particularly impressed. One thing I do remember from a few years ago during the Great RD.Net forum wars was her snotty, superior posts on Dawkins site seeming to think she had the authority to order people how to behave. To be honest I'm not sure how she ever got to be so prominent, what exactly does she do? She's completely pissed off her co-writer and I don't see any more books coming out.Dick Strawkins wrote:
The rumor that the barmaid is based on Ophelia Benson is not recent.
I certainly heard it at least two years ago.
Of course it seems wierd now - especially after her swallowing the blue pill and going all cult-like with her new BFF in FTB/Skepchicks - but a few years back she was one of the best known female atheists and was actually doing a lot of decent online stuff against the excesses of fundamentalistic religion (before she, Steff and Jen founded their own!)
It's close to impossible to believe.Dick Strawkins wrote:It's hard to believe now but her prominence in the atheist movement came about due to her strong stances against censorship and identity politics!
That's "whoMever¹", Mr. Gordian'sknot!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And I will engage here whoever I feel like.
Damn, really sorry, I'm pissy again today (fucking mood swingsm!)
Utter bulshit.1. Say a black person is a n*gger in a context where that person is being disparaged then racism is a reasonable assumption
2. Say a gay person is a f*ggot in a context where that person is being disparaged then homophobia is a reasonable assumption
3. Say a female person is a c*nt in a context where that person is being disparaged then misogyny is a reasonable assumption
I've got a bag of "punch in the face" for you. Royal mail ok?Michael K Gray wrote:That's "whoMever¹", Mr. Gordian'sknot!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And I will engage here whoever I feel like.
Damn, really sorry, I'm pissy again today (fucking mood swingsm!)
(Lucky I am at Phil's antipodes!)
____________________
¹ Or "Whomsoever" in the plural.
"Poured herself in." Doesn't that have wonderful connotations of an attack by something gelatinous?Saint N. wrote:I’m so glad Greta Christina has poured herself into the movement
I propose the general adoption of this well crafted and descriptive epithet.disumbrationist wrote:No no no. Matt, you walked into the Large Moron Collider, where particles of stupid and lazy are crashed into each other at relativistic speeds, creating new and exotic galaxies of fallacies and sanctimonious whining.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... ostume.jpgPhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Utter bulshit.
I wasn't suggesting to censor him, mind you. However, trolls are a pest and there exist copious literature detailing the damage their tactics can do to internet communities. Treating them just like any other poster isn't really the smartest of options. Ignoring them is easier said than done and even that approach seems largely ineffective and sometimes detrimental. A dedicated thread seems the most effective way to deal with them (I can provide reference, if needed). If that bothers you that much, I would like to understand exactly why.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Or onlookers could just skip any post by/in respont to Oolon. It's very easy to do, I sometimes do it myself. For example, I was not interested in a few sideshow conversations going on here between regulars. I just skipped them.
Oolon can do no damage by just being a tedious troll. This is quite a contemporary talk, as Matt was accused of doing great damage to the A+ community. Sorry, I'm not playing that game.
Ok, I probably need to get some fresh air, I'm more annoyed than usual. Might be the weather.
Ok, I guess I'm starting to see what you mean.Michael K Gray wrote:http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... ostume.jpgPhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Utter bulshit.
:lol: :lol: :lol:bhoytony wrote:Wow, she really has some opinion of herself.
Funny, I've never pictured the barmaid as looking like a slightly more butch Albert Steptoe.
What's this? Michael Jackson's comeback tour?Michael K Gray wrote:http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... ostume.jpgPhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Utter bulshit.
Phil, not ignoring you as I find this board a bit difficult to navigate - hard to find where I was previously and the number of people making comments on my points make it difficult to reply (Is that called a dogpile? Seems quite similar to when I disagree on FtBs).Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Now, to be serious, Oolon is not making me dance to his fiddle. I'm engaging in a conversation with him. Yes, granted, one that is becoming increasingly boring and repetitive, but as you know my good nature, I have hope yet.
Ok, I'm a bit dumb.
Hehe is this not feeding the troll? I'd like to know why it is not reasonable given at least for the first two making any statement like that by a public figure (In the UK) would result in serious censure and resignations etc. Actually in the UK the third would result in accusations of sexism regardless of the insistence here that 'no one' in the UK thinks of c*nt as sexist!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Utter bulshit.1. Say a black person is a n*gger in a context where that person is being disparaged then racism is a reasonable assumption
2. Say a gay person is a f*ggot in a context where that person is being disparaged then homophobia is a reasonable assumption
3. Say a female person is a c*nt in a context where that person is being disparaged then misogyny is a reasonable assumption
If the parts where they do the "YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE. WHAT I DID NOT TELL YOU, YOU SHOULD KNOW. OH YOU DONT GET IT", are so illogical, that if it were at all possible, they could take Randi's million for mindreading. :)rayshul wrote:That one more or lessly describes the entire skepchick contingent. Except it also comes with a side order of "wahhh people want to have so much sex with me but wahhhh so jealous wahhh." And I bolded that bit about girls because fuck, they are girls. I don't care if they're all middle aged.
I feel like the chill girl thing - that girls act in a certain way so boys like them - is kind of the wrong way round. Or the accusations are leveled at the wrong parties. The gender feminists are obsessed with boys, how boys interact with them, what rules boys should have for approaching them, and a fuck load of other hilarious headgames which are all like, YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE. WHAT I DID NOT TELL YOU, YOU SHOULD KNOW. OH YOU DONT GET IT. And then the whole running away to talk about what the boy did wrong and how the perfect boy does things THIS way not THAT way and gosh boys are always so into them...
Ughhhh.
No! I want my punch in the face to be in real life!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I've got a bag of "punch in the face" for you. Royal mail ok?Michael K Gray wrote: Or "Whomsoever" in the plural.
I propose to hide them in my gizzards.masakari2012 wrote:BTW, ERV only wants us to serve Mountain Dew or Crab Juice, so hide the beers before she shows up.
I'll have the Mountain Dew, thanks. Mixed with tequila, which in my hometown is called a redneck margarita.masakari2012 wrote:BTW, ERV only wants us to serve Mountain Dew or Crab Juice, so hide the beers before she shows up.
Um, my morning grammar sucks. Drop that first "If". :PScented Nectar wrote:If the parts where they do the "YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE. WHAT I DID NOT TELL YOU, YOU SHOULD KNOW. OH YOU DONT GET IT", are so illogical, that if it were at all possible, they could take Randi's million for mindreading. :)rayshul wrote:That one more or lessly describes the entire skepchick contingent. Except it also comes with a side order of "wahhh people want to have so much sex with me but wahhhh so jealous wahhh." And I bolded that bit about girls because fuck, they are girls. I don't care if they're all middle aged.
I feel like the chill girl thing - that girls act in a certain way so boys like them - is kind of the wrong way round. Or the accusations are leveled at the wrong parties. The gender feminists are obsessed with boys, how boys interact with them, what rules boys should have for approaching them, and a fuck load of other hilarious headgames which are all like, YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE. WHAT I DID NOT TELL YOU, YOU SHOULD KNOW. OH YOU DONT GET IT. And then the whole running away to talk about what the boy did wrong and how the perfect boy does things THIS way not THAT way and gosh boys are always so into them...
Ughhhh.
(Sorry MKG and other anti-Oolons, I'd like to respond)oolon** wrote:Hehe is this not feeding the troll? I'd like to know why it is not reasonable given at least for the first two making any statement like that by a public figure (In the UK) would result in serious censure and resignations etc. Actually in the UK the third would result in accusations of sexism regardless of the insistence here that 'no one' in the UK thinks of c*nt as sexist!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Utter bulshit.1. Say a black person is a n*gger in a context where that person is being disparaged then racism is a reasonable assumption
2. Say a gay person is a f*ggot in a context where that person is being disparaged then homophobia is a reasonable assumption
3. Say a female person is a c*nt in a context where that person is being disparaged then misogyny is a reasonable assumption
A citation for Dick and the Uk'ers who say 'no one' in the UK sees the word this way
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200 ... oo_for_who
...From which, I guess your hometown to be Reykjavik?Johann the Cabbie wrote:I'll have the Mountain Dew, thanks. Mixed with tequila, which in my hometown is called a redneck margarita.masakari2012 wrote:BTW, ERV only wants us to serve Mountain Dew or Crab Juice, so hide the beers before she shows up.
Ok, I just lost it! I've got a very visual imagination, and it played like a perfect sitcom. I have tears of laughter at the corner of my eyes.Michael K Gray wrote:No! I want my punch in the face to be in real life!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I've got a bag of "punch in the face" for you. Royal mail ok?Michael K Gray wrote: Or "Whomsoever" in the plural.
In front of the press!
Datelyne: Adelaide, Wednestuesday, Oct 32, 3013:
World-Famous lead Stylophone-player Fillet Godiabanana from the Retro-Punk-Jazz-Fusion/Light-Metal (Al, Na, Mg) Welsh Band PhairyLlandru, was filmed snotting a no-nobody of no-fixed address, Adelaide in a totally provoked assault!
Our reporter, who attended the subsequent trial, claimed that the magistrate said that she has not seen such a-more deserved beating in her many years on the bench.
And then went on to add that she has presided over multiple S&M Brothel cases in the last few years.
And enjoyed the evidence.
Caught adjourned!
I followed a link from there to here and found:Scented Nectar wrote:Some new words coined at http://www.genderratic.com/p/2098/gener ... issiverse/
Genderitis – My definition of genderitis is the tendency to see and try to analyze everything solely in terms of gender. It’s a mistake.
Which is, of course, what White Knights do.Damseling – At bottom damseling is a claim to on someone else to protection as a right, as an entitlement. Insisting on a woman’s victimhood in every situation, or her greater victimhood in her situation vis-à -vis someone else’s victimhood, is going to be crucial.
(*my guess, the proof-reading leaves a little to be desired on that site.)There really was a time when younger women tried to imitate the sophistication and worldiness of older women. There really was a time when grown women were ashamed to cry except maybe when a kid had died. Or at the opera. That was allowed. There really was a time when women didn’t chatter and giggle in public like high school girls. There really was a time when young American [women]* didn’t chirp when they talked. And somehow all that got cut out of femininity in our culture, the female gender role evolved away from adulthood.
Surely you jest. I'm from a small town in central Maine.Michael K Gray wrote: ...From which, I guess your hometown to be Reykjavik?
And what groveling and shitting Justin Griffith did was still insufficient for the FTB pea-brained ignocenti. PZ, as far as I know, has kept his promise to never again acknowledge his existence. And he gets no visits or comments from any of the baboon regulars that I could see, where they often stopped by prior to Justingriffithwhateverthegatenameisgate. All that groveling, retreating backtracking and backstabbing in order to lick his masters' hands, and all it got him was a total shunning and a contemptuous, dismissive "We shall allow you to continue to exist here".welch wrote:Oolon's so full of shit he sharts when he burps. "If he'd only apologize." Justin said the thing with amy's address was stupid and he shouldn't have done it. But that's not enough. Because if you see what the fuckwits at FTB put Justin Griffith through, no ONLY did he have to apologize for supporting Abbie's right to have an opinion, even if he didn't agree with it, he had to reject all the overtures he'd made towards actually talking with us, and start actively shitting on us. Then, and ONLY then had he "done enough to make up for his mistake"CommanderTuvok wrote:Bullshit, tainted one. No amount of apologies would have worked. They launched a witch hunt, and they do not stop until the witch is drowned.oolon** wrote:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... in-vacula/
Seems pretty good to me - if Justin had apologised for the mistakes he admitted he made JT would stand up for him. Even apologising for *some* if he has justification for the others... Not quite the bow-and-scrape John Welch thinks is needed.
BTW, perineum, what do you think of Surly Amy's doc-dropping? Will you resort to the standard Baboon rationalisation (ie Baboons reserve the right to doc drop if they feel like), or actually admit Amy was wrong to do it?
So Oolon saying "if he'd just apologize" is bollocks on a fucking stick. That crowd doesn't want an apology in the "admission of error and stating one will not repeat said error" sense that sane people mean. What they mean is a groveling amount of bowing and scraping and you must, MUST join in the hatred of the others.
You seem to mistake my position.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:(Sorry MKG and other anti-Oolons, I'd like to respond)
More disingenuous self-exculpatory tripe similar to "I forgot my password" or "I'm unable to set up a second account".Phil, not ignoring you as I find this board a bit difficult to navigate - hard to find where I was previously and the number of people making comments on my points make it difficult to reply (Is that called a dogpile? Seems quite similar to when I disagree on FtBs).
Gotta love you for the Jingo reference.Michael K Gray wrote:You seem to mistake my position.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:(Sorry MKG and other anti-Oolons, I'd like to respond)
I am not "anti-Oolon".
I am anti-folk-being-sucked-in-to-his-transparent-game, as you seem to be.
Were I Oolon, I'd be jumping with joy that that you had been taking the fetid bait for so long, despite other fish warning you about the trol-nets.
Positively beaming.
In fact, I may becoming "pro" Oolon, for his lazy skill as a fisherman for the naïve soles [sic] who always are attracted to his coarse rhetorical rete¹ are somewhat startling, despite their crudity, catch the same fishes time & time again.
Much akin to the "curious squid", of Pratchett folklore.
_____________________
¹ Latin for net
Because, of course, if he did, he'd be agreeing with the dreaded evil slimepitters. They can never force themselves to do that, no matter how right the pit is about something. They are frightened of the irrational and completely false bogeyman caricature they have made of us.Dick Strawkins wrote:He does admit, in the latest clip, that they would have done nothing if he hadn't revealed his true (and oh so important) identity.JackRayner wrote::lol: Nice! :clap:disumbrationist wrote:By the way, I looove Dillahunty's latest video. He describes his 'experiment' to demonstrate the sanity of the A+theism forums, but says that his experiment never went to completion.
Ha!
No no no. Matt, you walked into the Large Moron Collider, where particles of stupid and lazy are crashed into each other at relativistic speeds, creating new and exotic galaxies of fallacies and sanctimonious whining.
You grabbed the largest handle you could find.
"Don't worry," you said. "The bullshit flux is just a tad too high. I'll just make this tiny adjustment too show how robust the machine is."
A small black hole, built from compressed persecution complex, formed that day, swallowing you and your internet fame whole.
The experiment was a incredible success.
I watched the whole thing and I'm hoping that Dillahunty sticks to his guns about demanding that the A+Theists apologize to him, and that the inmates running the asylum over at the forums stick to their as well.
I'm saddened that he still won't admit that his little experiment proves him wrong, but there's still hope for a greater shit storm!
He just can't bring himself to admit out loud that the detractors have been proven 100% correct.
Central Maine, Iceland?Johann the Cabbie wrote:Surely you jest. I'm from a small town in central Maine.Michael K Gray wrote: ...From which, I guess your hometown to be Reykjavik?
You both are wrong:Michael K Gray wrote:Central Maine, Iceland?Johann the Cabbie wrote:Surely you jest. I'm from a small town in central Maine.Michael K Gray wrote: ...From which, I guess your hometown to be Reykjavik?
If that is, indeed, your ultimate goal, then you shall brook no countenance from me.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:But if I can help him jump with joy, what's the hurt? I've made the world a little better...
Well met, good Sir knight.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:<--- no smiley, out of respect
Their definition of "troll" is what's fatiguing them. Trolling to them not only means people out to mock and disrupt, it also means people who don't know much about A+, are genuinely curious about what it's all about, and ask common questions that have been posed many times before. This annoys the High Priesthood, and such people are dismissed as trollish, disruptive and "JAQ-ing off". Seems to me, if you're trying to start a new movement, especially one that touts itself as being progressive, open and inclusive, that one should be patient of newbies and patiently and eagerly explain things to them in order to be inclusive and welcome them into the fold. But that's just me, that whole Sophisticated Theology thing is tough for me to figure out.Tony Parsehole wrote: JT also makes the mistake of saying the A+forum is troll fatigued. Troll fatigued? They have 1853 users and have only banned 30, including Matt, for "trolling". hardly warrants fatigue.*
I really have to brush on my English. I'm at a loss re the sublined part. But as far as my ultimate goal goes: live my life happily with my soon-to-be-wife and have lots of fun and adventures with the Pit. Worthy goals, yes?Michael K Gray wrote:If that is, indeed, your ultimate goal, then you shall brook no countenance from me.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:But if I can help him jump with joy, what's the hurt? I've made the world a little better...
But I suspect that from your previous verbiages that it not your ultimate goal.
One poster on a forum does not mean the forum embrasses said poster's views. If he's trying to paint us in a bad light, well good luck to him. Everything is either here or archived. Let him have his fun.As for "what's the hurt?", don't get me started, please!
One may well ask, (as an extremum): "What is the hurt in convincing folk that hippy crystals can cure cancer?"
(I am guessing that that question is as stark as the kreepy-marionette image.)
And Gladiator, I salute you!Well met, good Sir knight.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:<--- no smiley, out of respect
I didn't even know the French had stolen my state name from one of their provinces. I'm gonna hafta DMCA France now, those fuckers.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:You both are wrong:Michael K Gray wrote:Central Maine, Iceland?Johann the Cabbie wrote:Surely you jest. I'm from a small town in central Maine.Michael K Gray wrote: ...From which, I guess your hometown to be Reykjavik?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_(province)
I laughed while reading JT trying to make a connection between how Matt's call-in talk show is moderated and how the A+ forums are moderated. I suppose they are both moderated in a fairly dismissive fashion, except in one case it's conducive to making an interesting television program, and in the other conducive to drumming people the fuck out of your oh so inclusive 'comminuty'.Gumby wrote:Seems to me, if you're trying to start a new movement, especially one that touts itself as being progressive, open and inclusive, that one should be patient of newbies and patiently and eagerly explain things to them in order to be inclusive and welcome them into the fold.
I feel ashamed, but likely should not.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I really have to brush on my English. I'm at a loss re the sublined part.Michael K Gray wrote:then you shall brook no countenance from me.
ROFLMAO. Amy knows as much about the legal process as oolon does. The irony is that she probably made a bucket load of extra income following all the publicity. Far from costing her, I suspect tf00t/elevatorGate/Vacula fair use of her images actually made money for her.Tfoot wrote:FYI, surly amy threatened to sue for for 100 000 dollars for using her image on FTBs (going back a month or two).
Properly retarded. There is no "eligibility" criteria for suing someone. You just go and do it. Of course anyone who does that risks being saddled with defence costs under many circumstances for frivolous abuse of the court system, a point lawyers were subtly making on her behalf demanding a $5k upfront fee.Tfoot quoting Amy wrote:If Thunderfoot decides to use that image in any derogatory way from this moment on I will be eligible to sue him for $100,000 in damages.
Sorry for the late response to this, I originally thought of answering but other stuff got in the way, and then it seemed to be a rather minor thing to bring up after the discussion had moved on to other subjects... but then I recently read I think Steersman pointing out the importance of admitting you where wrong, and got reminded/"inspired" to do just that, and I also have reason to chip in on the Amy Roth/DMCA subject, so I though it'd be nice to properly end this discussion before I continue.Michael K Gray wrote:As for the idea that males 'feed' their wives, this is not borne out by any tribe of which I am familiar.
In traditional Australian tribes, it is the other women who bring in and prepare most of the food and provide care & protection for pregnant females.
Did anyone else read the post oolon linked?3. Say a female person is a c*nt in a context where that person is being disparaged then misogyny is a reasonable assumption.
A citation for Dick and the Uk'ers who say 'no one' in the UK sees the word this way
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200 ... oo_for_who
ROFLMAO. I confess, I didn't bother following it since oolon created a straw man with the "no one" statement (in quotes, no less). Many people here referred to the use of cunt in the UK causing little concern, but also noted some hypersensitive people do need fainting couches. So, I didn't read the article since it was constructed on a pointless straw man.Dick Strawkins wrote:oolon saidDid anyone else read the post oolon linked?3. Say a female person is a c*nt in a context where that person is being disparaged then misogyny is a reasonable assumption.
A citation for Dick and the Uk'ers who say 'no one' in the UK sees the word this way
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200 ... oo_for_who
Awesome. One paragraph of clear thought that the FC6/5/4 plus associated trolls are unable to connect the dots over.Does that mean men can't use the word 'cunt' in an abusive way - that it should be reserved for women's use? Not necessarily. After all, if men can use it in a descriptive way, why not the other way too? The distinction seems facile. And distinguishing who can use a word on the basis of their sex seems unnecessarily discriminatory and separatist. Are you more offended when a man uses 'cunt' as a term of abuse than when a woman does? Should you be? And does that mean a woman using 'dick' as an insult is necessarily more offensive than a man using it? To be honest I don't know what the answer is. But I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Holy shit! Is that the best you can do? An article from 2003 which - in all the time it's been up there - was retweeted 3 times and recommended by a staggering 33 people on facebook! :lol:oolon** wrote: A citation for Dick and the Uk'ers who say 'no one' in the UK sees the word this way
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200 ... oo_for_who