Thanks. Yes.Michael K Gray wrote:Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?
Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my bank manager[/spoiler]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
And now, something completely different:
(so you think you have issues?)
Why, aged 29, I have decided I'll NEVER have sex again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... again.html
'I'm destined to be a crazy cat lady!' Asexual, 29, who said she'd never have sex again is looking for a man... but admits a celibate relationship is a 'tall order'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... order.html
(so you think you have issues?)
Why, aged 29, I have decided I'll NEVER have sex again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... again.html
And the followup:Lisa Smith, from Buckinghamshire, finds sex 'repellent'
Has had three lovers, and lived with two of them
Wants to find a man with whom she can have a celibate relationship
Will adopt children if she ever decides she wants them
'I'm destined to be a crazy cat lady!' Asexual, 29, who said she'd never have sex again is looking for a man... but admits a celibate relationship is a 'tall order'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... order.html
Vegan Lisa, 29, from Buckinghamshire, who doesn't want kids, hopes to find a man who will embrace her asexuality
Says she wants potential partner to accept cuddling as extent of intimacy
If the man of her dreams wanted sex she would say no. 'I'd feel like I was compromising myself and I would detest them for it'
Since writing for the Mail Lisa has heard from other asexuals but also had spiteful comments like: 'You can't get a man and this is how you cover it up'
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
If you are an example of a "wonderful father" that the court if biased against I would say things are working as intended. You are a baboon, a fool who thinks committing acts of violence against others (i.e. rape) is justifiable since they say things you disagree with. I would say that you must be young and immature but that doesn't excuse the idiocy you have put to text.somedumbguy wrote:I have to deal with a court system where the norm, the default, the stock policy separates wonderful fathers from their children every day.nippletwister wrote:somedumbguy wrote:Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.16bitheretic wrote:Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.
Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.
Am I angry to what radfems like Dworkin and Mackinnon have done to your courts? You bet. Am I angry as to how Marcotte practices her journalism (that is through terrible lies) you bet.
Am I saying every stooge that puts forth a harmful idea should be killed? Of course not.
Am I arguing that perhaps in some universe they would deserve it.... Hell that's just karma dude.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
John Greg, like I said I have no wish for SDG to go, but those posts are incompatible both with the fucking law of where I and others live and with shared ethos. So, I was just suggesting to remove them rather than make an idiotic fetish of an abomination sold as free speech.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.rocko2466 wrote:I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view so we thought we'd give it a miss. Hugely regret it! I listened to the album on repeat for like two months straight.Lsuoma wrote:Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.rocko2466 wrote:I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
These seats are reserved for the A✠mental-cripples who claim to be blind-'enhanced'.rocko2466 wrote:I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view...
Trouble is, they are all such delicate flowers¹ that none of them can ever leave their Gran's attic.
And these misogynistic concerts do not offer the comical trigger-warnings which are their opiate of choice.
________________________
¹ "Flowers" may be offensive as they are a plant's sex organs. And, as we know, sex is not a fit subject for the A✠dinner table, or any table for that matter, except perhaps a table in a brothel.
(Blackadder fans can stay schtum.)
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Hm. I didn't read SDG's posts as an advocation of people going out to attack, and more like a stream of thought of someone righteously fucked off. But I can see why there's legal risk involved there and I'm glad everyone has "stood down" and recognised this.
On a side note I personally use readers-of-Marcotte as a way to find out which people I no longer wish to associate with. I suspect I'm motivated by the fact I have a male (white) child, and that reading those kinds of things or encouragement of that kind of thought process is dangerous to him and his future. I think the views of her and Taslima are utterly abhorrent, however it's my understanding that Al spoke to Taslima and encouraged her to research male rape and its rate of occurrence. I have also definitely noticed more reporting of male rape in the news in recent years.
On a side note I personally use readers-of-Marcotte as a way to find out which people I no longer wish to associate with. I suspect I'm motivated by the fact I have a male (white) child, and that reading those kinds of things or encouragement of that kind of thought process is dangerous to him and his future. I think the views of her and Taslima are utterly abhorrent, however it's my understanding that Al spoke to Taslima and encouraged her to research male rape and its rate of occurrence. I have also definitely noticed more reporting of male rape in the news in recent years.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بÙرقع‎
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Hot.Michael K Gray wrote:Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بÙرقع‎
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Yes, I imagine that they would be.rayshul wrote:Hot.Michael K Gray wrote:Antacid بÙرقع‎
-
- .
- Posts: 681
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_coveringcomslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Oh dear, I've been such a misogynist yesterday evening! I dared share the stage with two extremely talented female singers, and I've stollen all their girl power with my maleness.
You wish. I was so ashamed of my vocal performances compared to theirs, I had to refuse payment after the show. This from someone with an already negative bank account balance.
(disclaimer: I seem to still be a bit drunk from yesterday, and wanted to post something so my position as most prolific poster here doesn't dwindle...)
Videos coming soon, in the music topic.
You wish. I was so ashamed of my vocal performances compared to theirs, I had to refuse payment after the show. This from someone with an already negative bank account balance.
(disclaimer: I seem to still be a bit drunk from yesterday, and wanted to post something so my position as most prolific poster here doesn't dwindle...)
Videos coming soon, in the music topic.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
This is, I think, a start:comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b#CanadaIn December 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Muslim women must remove niqabs in some cases when testifying in court.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Whay SDG posted was, in my opinion, the first time anyone here has posted anything even close to the sort of rape threats that the FTB crowd claim is a constant feature of this place.Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.
There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:
1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.
Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:
1. Posting stuff that I am advised will possibly lead to personal legal liability for me. On of my (seven!) sisters-in-law is a criminal trial attorney whom I have consulted WRT the Pit, and will continue so to do. Her decision, as my attorney, informs my decision in every case of potential legal liability. I may or may not decide to discuss specifics in public (i.e. on the Pit), but I will post announcements if possible.
2. Boring my fucking arse off. It's a big arse, so this is not instantaneous. But once it hits the floor, it needs a lot of re-hoisting.
3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to. In such a situation the following applies:
a) Is your name Lsuoma Californensis? If not, fuck off.
b) If so, are you the Lsuoma Californensis that owns this board? If not, fuck off.
Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
To hell with the silly Steffalump type jokes, SDG's stuff is exactly what they have been waiting for for the past seven months since the forum began.
I don't think we can simply sweep it under the carpet.
You list a set of rules (and despite what people might think of free speech or moderation, it is implicit in the running of a site like this that there must be some rules.)
Is it too much to ask to include a couple of extra rules that have, over time, developed into the norm for behavior on this forum. These are:
Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.
Don't doxx people (meaning giving out personal information that is not easily googled, and even if it is, doesnt contain home or work addresses)
This place is like a public bar to a lot of us. We come here to laugh and goof about while catching up on the latest FTB shenanigans. With those stupid rape wishes SDG has done the equivalent of purning up and taking a huge shit on the floor. That sort of behavior - and the failure to condemn that behavior - is exactly the reason why the MRA movement is doomed to remain at arms length from most of us here.
Thanks very much SDG, you complete and utter fuckwit.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!
The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!
We love Big PZ!
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]Koala Lovers[/spoiler]
And this is probably the reason why the whole of humanity is not doomed yet.Michael K Gray wrote:For the few animal lovers¹ amongst us:
Thirsty koala follows walker, drinks three bottles of water
Dateline, mid-summer, South Australia, (a bit up the road from here):
A THIRSTY koala has made the rare move of climbing down a tree before following a walker along suburban roads, drinking three bottles of water over an hour.
But that was not enough.Woo-Hyang Sun wrote:"I was walking near the Black Hill Conservation Park entrance (when) my husband spotted a koala in a tree," Mrs Sun said.
"We took some photos, and initially the koala looked scared.
"She kept looking at me and looked like she wanted something, so I poured some water in my palm, and the koala drank it at once.
As the temperature began to rise, the thirsty koala became even more ambitious.â‹®After sustaining long eye contact with Mrs Sun's husband for several minutes, the koala succumbed to the prospect of a cool drink of water and climbed down from the tree, not at all phased by her suburban surroundings.
Not only did the koala hit the streets of Athelstone for a leisurely stroll, it almost threatened to get behind the wheel of Mrs Sun's car.
"When I opened the car door, she was poking her head to look inside my car, I guess for more water?," she said.Read the whole story with more cute piccies at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/thirsty-k ... s-of-water"After she finished the whole bottle, she was waving her hand, I guess, for more water.
"She followed me for an hour and ended up drinking three bottles altogether - definitely the friendliest koala I've ever seen."
_________________________
¹ Punishable by 5 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine
A very pleasant sight on a sunday morning.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Michael K Gray wrote:Too true. Nearly a "deepity"bhoytony wrote:There seem to be people here who assume that everybody who is posting on this blog want the exact same outcome as themselves. Sorry, but your goals aren't necessarily the goals of anybody but yourself.
About the only commonality between us is a distaste for hypocrisy.
You are correct. I hadn't stopped to think about what it was on the common side which is interesting and a bit depressing
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
And what evidence do you adduce to support that contention? For instance, how about this statement of SDG’s:Dick Strawkins wrote:<snip>Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.
There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:
1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.
Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:
<snip>
Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.
<snip>
Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more rape in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, fuck them both. Get raped chickadees. Fuck off AND DIE.
Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose†and all that ….
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).DeepInsideYourMind wrote:And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_coveringcomslave wrote:The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Riiight-on there brother Michael!Michael K Gray wrote:ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!
The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!
We love Big PZ!
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg
And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I only JUST took you off "ignore" to find that, true to form, you are still your vapidly humour-free contrarian self.Steersman wrote:And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!
Oh well, back to ignore mode, you pointless tape-worm.
That experiment in optimism over experience lasted all of 53 seconds.
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I have to ask: did you mean this comment to be sarcastic, or did you fall off the crib in your infancy?ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:That's not a shaving accident, unless the woman (? Proof of gender?) has Parkinson's.rocko2466 wrote:
My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
It's clearly self harm, either real or staged: check out the multiple slashes across the heel. Nice idea if you're into that kind of thing: gets nice chafed by shoes, but hidden by trousers, so provides an all-day reminder of how worthless you are while remaining hidden from the public.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�
Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose†and all that ….
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]selfish Libertarians[/spoiler]
Cue Bhoytony to hypocritically observe that he doesn't give a tinker's toss about your opinion, yet bothers to post an intense selfish rant against it...Dick Strawkins wrote:I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�
Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose†and all that ….
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?
-
- .
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Frankie Boyle:
"A merry-go-round is a just a Sushi-bar for Pædophiles"
"A merry-go-round is a just a Sushi-bar for Pædophiles"
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?Michael K Gray wrote:That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
It wasn't a series of crimes, just one (but according to news paper reports had a history of other traffic offences). She was convicted of making a false statement to police in 2010 and sentence to six months in prison. Carnita Matthews then appealed that conviction and it was over-turned, and then she tried to get court costs from the police but was that turned down by the judge. If she was the person in side the burqa (and the apellantt judge could not be sure which is why he overturned the conviction) then she did indeed get away with it because her face was covered.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Thanks, Lsuoma.
Rayshul, check your PM.
Rayshul, check your PM.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Breathe deeply and become the chocolate
[youtube]YOn4vg0JIAo[/youtube]
[youtube]YOn4vg0JIAo[/youtube]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:
http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg
If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg
If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:
http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg
If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
-
- .
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
- Location: The Penumbra of Doubt
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
It's the kind of thread Notung should approve of. No profanity, no gratuitous insults, "lively" but hardly acrimonious debate. I see at least one refugee from The Borg found there way there which, AFAIAC, is a still win for the good guys. The 'Pit isn't for everyone, but we're still here. And what would The Borg do for an enemy if we weren't? (That's not really a serious question - they can invent them out of thin air.)didymos wrote:It's not about which forum is teh bestest. I posted that because watching an APlusser deploy what is usually a winning SJW tactic and having it go completely awry is pretty funny.masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I couldn't agree more.Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Yeah, that sucks. I deeply, deeply and most humbly apologise. :oops:Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Seconded.decius wrote:I couldn't agree more.Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
-
- .
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I've always thought of FTB as like Dwight from the Office, full of weird inane rambling that THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE ABOUT! The Slymepit gets to be Jim and take the role of pranking them at every opportunity.
-
- .
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
- Location: The Penumbra of Doubt
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I didn't see SDG's original flameout (and don't wish to, but I'll take the Big L's word for it), but I'm going to strongly disagree with all of his violent phantasies.Dick Strawkins wrote:OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
I don't believe they are serious threats any more than Rebecca's set of messages or the "butterfly tagger" nonsense. We can laugh them off and point out the hypocrisy of the FTBorgers but it doesn't do any good to start sending the very messages they have shown they will treat as a threat. I don't care if it was the red wine, red bull or red mist talking, it was unneccessary, unpleasant and dumb.
In theory, I don't like to see restrictions on what people say or how they say it but, obviously, there have to be some. Given the opposition will not hesitate to stoop to any level to shut us up, giving them the opportunity to do so is daft. It was the same with Eucli- there doesn't have to be any substance to the allegations, but making them can get the site shut down until they are investigated and, eventually, chucked out. Afterwards, of course, you become "that hate site that was dealing pr0n to little girls" (cue colon), and that shit can stick, even if it is totally disproved.
So this is my pub too, but if I haven't got enough sense to stop myself from doing things that will get it closed down (even temporarily), I shouldn't be surprised if the landlord wants to keep his license and boot me out on the keister.
-
- .
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
- Location: The Penumbra of Doubt
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Paul Fidalgo drinks the Koolaid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/nearearthob ... nd-listen/
Not a very interesting read, as it's just a retreat of the usual A+ mantra, and the A+ remoras glom on pretty quickly. Notung shows up and tries to be reasonable and, er, skeptical, so you can guess how that went.
The A+ers seem to spend more time on FTB than on their own forum safe space, only going back there to tell each other how they commented before the 'Pit did, and *group hug*.
So with CFI continuing to throw skepticism under the bus, and PZ and Jen also wanting to renounce skepticism, will CFI become the Centre for Feminist Ideology? I wonder how the rank and file feel about that?
Not a very interesting read, as it's just a retreat of the usual A+ mantra, and the A+ remoras glom on pretty quickly. Notung shows up and tries to be reasonable and, er, skeptical, so you can guess how that went.
The A+ers seem to spend more time on FTB than on their own forum safe space, only going back there to tell each other how they commented before the 'Pit did, and *group hug*.
So with CFI continuing to throw skepticism under the bus, and PZ and Jen also wanting to renounce skepticism, will CFI become the Centre for Feminist Ideology? I wonder how the rank and file feel about that?
-
- .
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
- Location: The Penumbra of Doubt
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Mathews was lucky. The original offence was a traffic one (which stood), but then "someone" with their face covered made a claim that the traffic Police had made her remove her covering and was therefore a racist. That complaint was found to be untrue and she was sentenced to a fine and six months porridge. This was appealed and she got off the false complaint charge, but had to pay her costs. The judge refused those costs (and they were more than court costs) because he thought another judge might reasonably have convicted her! The State government immediately extended Police and others powers to demand removal of face coverings for ID purposes, so it likely won't happen again. There have since been huge protests by helmeted "youths" outside the Church of Laterday Motorcycle Couriers.clownshoe wrote:Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?Michael K Gray wrote:That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
It wasn't a series of crimes, just one (but according to news paper reports had a history of other traffic offences). She was convicted of making a false statement to police in 2010 and sentence to six months in prison. Carnita Matthews then appealed that conviction and it was over-turned, and then she tried to get court costs from the police but was that turned down by the judge. If she was the person in side the burqa (and the apellantt judge could not be sure which is why he overturned the conviction) then she did indeed get away with it because her face was covered.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Cfi is a joke.
Fidago got henpecked on twatter a couple of weeks ago, for daring to agree with someone who refused to swallow the koolaid. Humpty dumpty rebuked him for not being an ally, as there were bigger things at stake..... Yeah that's a cfi ED, oh the lolz.
Fidago got henpecked on twatter a couple of weeks ago, for daring to agree with someone who refused to swallow the koolaid. Humpty dumpty rebuked him for not being an ally, as there were bigger things at stake..... Yeah that's a cfi ED, oh the lolz.
-
- .
- Posts: 4024
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
:lol:Michael K Gray wrote:Frankie Boyle:
"A merry-go-round is a just a Sushi-bar for Pædophiles"
never heard the melody till I needed the song
Violence wishes/fantasies -- obviously out of bounds (regardless of Lsuoma's actions). Bad PR, inhumane, bad skepticism, not interested. Fat-shaming of public figures who are brittle, privileged, anti-skeptical hypocrites: bad PR, poor taste, juvenile, mean, still think it's funny.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
A friend of mine needs some Pit help. She's a very talented singer, whose career will immensely benefit if her advantage in this poll could be restored.
She has been ahead for days, but not it appears that results are being pharyngulated and she's suddenly down.
Please cast your vote for Anna Haas.
http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks
She has been ahead for days, but not it appears that results are being pharyngulated and she's suddenly down.
Please cast your vote for Anna Haas.
http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I did an analysis of the page of hate a few weeks ago:c) Rebecca's page of hate, as you correctly identify, has no examples of real threats, just hate speech, trolling, abuse, etc
The hyperlink to the page of hate was the word "hundreds" sandwiched between harassment from and atheists.
There were at the time 325 comments total.
268 of the comments were authored by the four "stalkers" 325-268=57 57 +4 (stalkers) = 61 people
Of the remaining 57 comments 39 were terrible hate speech type comments. 8 were personal comments ( I think you're ugly, i don't like your hair, etc)
2 were reasonable disagreement ( one by Mykeru).
One saying she was the Ann Coulter of the left.
One I can't even figure out.
Even granting all the comments I found reasonable that's only 61 individuals.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
None of mine did either...:(Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:
If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
and I gave her SPECIAL POWERS
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V0SEYyeEkws/U ... sychic.png she should be thanking me
I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
So, I'm not sure what happened, but apparently SDG posted something that crossed a line. Guys, don't do that! (for realz this time)
And no photoshop could not possibly insult the original as much as the incredibly shitty remake did, so no need for apologies, Jan Steen- using a scene from the remake was a nice touch IMO.
[youtube]e6i2WRreARo[/youtube]
No, the face paint lady is the equivalent of Lord Summerisle ("Sister Summersisle" in the remake) and is played by Ellen Burstyn. Your wank material should be safe.Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
And no photoshop could not possibly insult the original as much as the incredibly shitty remake did, so no need for apologies, Jan Steen- using a scene from the remake was a nice touch IMO.
[youtube]e6i2WRreARo[/youtube]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
-
- .
- Posts: 4024
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Since I've never heard of Anna Haas, I'm not sure it's fair for me to cast my vote. But she needs little over 20 votes to surpass the other one. The poll ends today.decius wrote:A friend of mine needs some Pit help. She's a very talented singer, whose career will immensely benefit if her advantage in this poll could be restored.
She has been ahead for days, but not it appears that results are being pharyngulated and she's suddenly down.
Please cast your vote for Anna Haas.
http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Since I've never heard of Anna Haas, I'm not sure it's fair for me to cast my vote. But she needs little over 20 votes to surpass the other one. The poll ends today.[/quote]Pitchguest wrote: http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks
Try this sung tribute to her grandma. She's good.
[youtube]5eKo-sVd4mc[/youtube]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Indeed, she is. However, the fact that Della Mae has only gotten 16 votes in that poll is an absolute crime.decius wrote: Try this sung tribute to her grandma. She's good.
And reinforces my decision to eschew the Nashville country/bluegrass music scene in favor of those in Austin, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I still think this is the best one yet:Apples wrote:And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
http://i.imgur.com/lODAS.jpg
-
- .
- Posts: 5429
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
The death penalty can be contextualized as the state or society killing in self defense. Morally I have no problem with that, though I am against capital punishment only because the justice system(at least in my country)is so seriously flawed that I wouldn't trust it to accurately determine guilt.DeepInsideYourMind wrote:America has the death penalty, so do many countries in the world ... who doesn't condone killing?16bitheretic wrote:Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)
Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.
NOBODY deserves torture or rape. That sort of eye for an eye thing is the province of religion and isn't that what we want to get away from?
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
It's too late!windy wrote:So, I'm not sure what happened, but apparently SDG posted something that crossed a line. Guys, don't do that! (for realz this time)
No, the face paint lady is the equivalent of Lord Summerisle ("Sister Summersisle" in the remake) and is played by Ellen Burstyn. Your wank material should be safe.Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
I've already made the connection in my head!
I can't take the risk!
Damn you, brain, you were meant to be my friend!
:doh:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I think of it every time PZ climbs on a pair of soapboxes to say "We're winning - there are no American tanks in Baghdad" or nips at the heels of another skeptic or public figure who dwarfs him in influence/integrity.Gumby wrote:I still think this is the best one yet:Apples wrote:And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
http://i.imgur.com/lODAS.jpg