The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

[Dick Strawkins]

I did use the expression that I "believed" Watson, although I have no proof either way. It doesn't seem like a particularly extraordinary claim. If it turns out that evidence comes to light indicating that RW made the whole lot up then so be it.

I don't see a particular reason to disbelieve her.
Look at all the oily sycophants that hang off her every word.
Is it really so surprising that one of them tried to make a move on her when she was drunk?

[Dilurk]

What the hell did I miss? Have DPR and AronRa confirmed EG as a fraud or something or are we a long way down a hypothetical track?

I can never keep up with the pyt anymore

It seems the timeline of events went like this:

2.30/3.00am: DPR Jones and RW went to his room to do a blog TV session. (If someone could find this and confirm how long it went on for it would be useful.)

4.00am: RW was back downstairs at the bar before leaving to go to her room at approximately 4am. Elevatorguy then said he found her talk interesting and would she like to go for coffee to discuss this further. She was creeped out by it.

Matt Dillahunty says it doesn't matter if EG is real or not. If the DPR/RW blog tv session went on for over an hour then it's possible EG wasn't real at all.

For the record, I tend to believe RW's version of events. I believe she did have an exchange of words with a guy in the elevator. The guy sounded polite but probably nervous, she obviously felt as though he was creepy. But that's just my personal opinion, I don't know any more about it than you do.

No, this is not correct.
DPR Jones made a mistake.
The drunken vblogging between Jones, Watson and AronRa occurred on the 3rd of June, at 2.30 AM on the Friday night/Saturday morning.

This is confirmed by a blogger who was at the conference.
http://middleagedboy.wordpress.com/2011 ... nd-part-1/

According to Watson the elevatorgate incident happened the evening after she had spoken at the conference.
This places it on Saturday night, the 4th of June, or technically, early on the morning of the 5th of June.
http://middleagedboy.wordpress.com/2011 ... nd-part-3/

Despite his mistake, I think the DPR Jones information does provide one new interesting fact.
That is, the intent of Elevatorguy.
Up until now people had been assuming that the only reason you would ask someone back to your room is to fuck them.
Well that is clearly not the case. Someone found Watson interesting enough to ask her back to his room just the previous night.
And she said yes.
It had nothing to do with sex (I presume!)

So what are the chances that elevatorguy just wanted to interview Watson for a podcast or blog post or some other sort of story?
Probably quite low. He was probably a fan who fancied his chances.
On the other hand the fact that she was invited to someones room the previous night for the purposes of a podcase shows that it is a possibility. In that case it is wise to be skeptical of claims that EG had one thing in mind.

DPR Jones may or may not have been confused about the date, after all they were all drunk. The point remains that RW has all the signs of being an alcoholic, as we now have confirmation she was out drinking to 2am or so on both nights.
We no

[Za-zen]

I can't find the video in question, though someone who did see it made an interesting comment. Oh the lolz.

http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop ... 0&start=20

[jjbinx007]

That is, the intent of Elevatorguy.
Up until now people had been assuming that the only reason you would ask someone back to your room is to fuck them.
Well that is clearly not the case. Someone found Watson interesting enough to ask her back to his room just the previous night.
And she said yes.
It had nothing to do with sex (I presume!)

"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. And I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"

"Don't take this the wrong way" - oops, she did exactly that

"but I find you very interesting" - he didn't say "cute" or "attractive" or "sexy in those specs". He said "interesting".

"And I would like to talk more" - he didn't say "have sex with you". Talk more. TALK.

"Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" - yes, this can be a euphemism for sex, but he prefaced it with "don't take this the wrong way" which, in my mind, indicates he meant the more literal meaning. A cup of hot caffeinated liquid and a chat.

So the guy's intent (to me at least) reads as if he was genuinely asking her back to his room for a discussion over coffee about the interesting things she'd been talking about.

The guy's intent (to her at least) reads as if he was a potential rapist who had cornered her in an elevator and tried to lure her back to his bedroom so he could pummel her with his pork sword.

[Karmakin]

I did use the expression that I "believed" Watson, although I have no proof either way. It doesn't seem like a particularly extraordinary claim. If it turns out that evidence comes to light indicating that RW made the whole lot up then so be it.

I don't see a particular reason to disbelieve her.
Look at all the oily sycophants that hang off her every word.
Is it really so surprising that one of them tried to make a move on her when she was drunk?

Moreso, is it really so surprising that one of them tried to make a move on her when HE was drunk (more than likely) as well?

As far as I'm concerned, that's normal expected drunken behavior. Not that I personally agree with said behavior*, but generally speaking that's what you get a lot of the time when alcohol is involved.

*I think people act stupid when they're drunk. I haven't drank myself (at all) in over a decade. It's not that I have anything against people doing it, but I just wish that #1. Less social events revolved around alcohol and #2. People understand that when they start to drink, they're accepting responsibility for what they do when they're drunk, even if it's not something they'd normally do. They understand that when they start to drink, it's SO they'd do things they wouldn't normally do. If that type of behavior bothers you, then being around drunk people may not be for you.

[Mykeru]

Mykeru: Just because I disbelieve Watson about the 2 incidents you describe doesn't mean I disbelieve her about everything she says.

Well, obviously it doesn't mean you disbelieve her. Because you don't. People still join Peter Popov's ministry. So what?

The question I asked was, given her track record for making shit up, what is it about this particular incident that you give her the benefit of the doubt?

It has nothing to do with extraordinary claims of the "Just because Uri Geller was caught cheating bending spoons doesn't mean he is always cheating when he bends spoons". It's more on the level of saying something like "Just because Lance Armstrong was finally caught doping with EPO doesn't mean he was always doping with EPO". I would disagree. It just means there wasn't mechanisms in place to catch him, or there were testing schedules and loopholes he could exploit. In the case of Rebecca Watson the best you can say about ElevatorGuy is not that you have any reason to believe her, but you believe her because, in this particular instance, she has not yet been definitively proven to be full of shit.

Well, good for you.

[CommanderTuvok]

I think this just confirms my long-standing view that Watson has a double standard when it comes to propositions. If the proposition comes from someone she knows, or someone she fancies (good looking, wealthy, powerful), it is A-OK. If the guy is a bit "creepy" (ie, not very good looking, poor, has a bit of BO, lacks confidence, etc.), the proposition is completely wrong.

This is taking into account the idea that EG offered an actual proposition.

But interestingly, I find that the white, middle class core of FTB and Skepchick (particulary Ophelia and Twatson) seems to have a prejudice against poor people, shy people, and smelly people. Rebecca reminds me of the airhead at high school who chases after the star quarterback, but sneers at the ugly nerds in the library. She wants to POPULAR. Both she and Ophelia should check their privilege.

[jjbinx007]

Watson used to be a street juggler?

[Lsuoma]

Mykery wrote:
are assholes who should have their malfunctioning frontal lobes carved out with a plastic spork and their skulls used as a planter.

Well, this begs the question...


*ducks*

[spoiler]http://greengabbro.net/static/oldphotos ... -ducks.jpg[/spoiler]

[Lsuoma]

People, people; we need to stay focused: The utter, merciless annhiliation of A+theism.

Our efforts are working and A+theism's fora activities are dwindling like a pile of fresh shit roasting in the Sahara. Soon they will have banned everyone over there and people can get back to what atheism and secularism is about: Disbelief in god(s) and keeping god(s) out of government.

Fuck those cunts hard. You know, with pineapples.

It's not the Pitters doing the heavy lifting here...

[Dilurk]

You know, I bet all the FTB lot, or most of them at least have read the various studies that show just how incredibly bad human memory can be, and normally is. Like the experiment where a researcher was able to get people to "remember" interacting with and even taking pictures with Bugs Bunny....at Disneyland. Details: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98195&page=1

Over and over, there are studies that show human memory, under the best of conditions, is not reliable at all, yet, everyone is accepting Watson's inebriated memory as the word of $DEITY.

And the gorilla at the basketball game http://www.livescience.com/6727-invisib ... otice.html

That's the least of their silliness mind you, but one that amuses me greatly. At this point, even if it didn't happen, (and we have no real proof either way), it's become so important to Watson et al, that, in a sense, Dillahunty has a point: the reality of EG no longer matters. They all believe it unto the tenth generation. They're no longer really even *lying*, in the sense of deliberately telling a falsehood. They truly believe it, so at worst, it's become "believing something without proof."

It's kind of fascinating to watch.

The irony of it is that I and others never really cared either way. Watson wants to be creeped out by EG, that's her choice, her right. She wants people to stop asking people to coffee/sex/play in the ball pit in the lobby in elevators, okay. I mean, it's a little unrealistic, and a bit arrogant to try to tell everyone what is and is not creepy for everyone, but sure, she's a right to say that.

Doesn't mean anyone has to agree with her. If you're going to tell me I have to agree with her, well, my only quandary will be which middle finger I show you in response.

If she wants to be creeped out by a guy in an elevator, that is certainly her right and no one is saying it isn't. It is her situation after all, not ours. Even Jean Kazez has said this. The problem comes when she makes the bald claim that men should never do this, since it is obviously Feminism 101, without qualifying which branch of Feminism she is making this claim for. Furthermore not all women would be intimidated by a man in the elevator who wasn't physically crowding them. There are all sorts of scenarios and you cannot claim they are all the same. scenario 1 "Woman has black belt in some martial art and some male half her size asks her to come up to his room for coffee."
scenario 2 "Some small woman in an elevator is crowded by a man trying to paw her asking her to come to his room for coffee." They are obviously not the same situation. A lot of us are pissed off that some branches of feminism are telling us they are the same situation and furthermore telling us that "sex is bad m'kay?"

For my part, it's the rank hypocrisy. Telling people they have no right to "mansplain" to rebecca how there was zero harm, or how she should feel, and then, damned near in the same breath, tell other people that their feelings are wrong, they should feel differently and there was zero harm. How anything even vaguely resembling a threat is so very traumatic that Benson is still irrational about it, and yet telling people you'll snap their necks is a minor moment of rudeness.

Precisely. False equivocation of one scenario with many other scenarios. Like PZ's innuendo about elevator rape, yes I imagine it happens but I have no reason to believe RW was in danger of being raped from what evidence we have. One scenario is not like another. That's what really pisses me off.

on and on. Fuck, i'd have far fewer problems with them if, even as stupid as what they spout is, they applied the standards they demand of everyone to themselves. A corollary to the golden rule? "Ask not of others what you answer not yourself"* or something like that.



*i may have heard that somewhere before, so it is entirely probably that someone else said it first, and i'm just repeating it.

Fair enough. It happens a lot on the fast moving 'pyt.

[windy]

FTR and because I feel like just fucking venting, Greta Christina can kiss my ever-loving, eternal ass. My guy is going to have part of his fucking tongue removed on the 25th. This is along with removing the mass on his neck and doing a throat camera look. Somehow, I'm thinking there aren't shoes out there to compensate for a piece of your fucking tongue. Her "fundraiser" is all the more assholish in light of what my guy is going through. A giant FUCK YOU to Greta. And her fucking ugly ass shoes.

Sorry to hear it Renee, my sympathies as well.

[CommanderTuvok]

Watson used to be a street juggler?

She's had plenty of practice at juggling balls, from what I've heard.

[Bhurzum]

Watson used to be a street juggler?

Sorry, couldn't resist it!

[Za-zen]

Watson used to be a street juggler?

What do you mean used to be? She has just taken her act onto the conference circuit run by a lot of schmucks who thought they were being hip, progressive, and appealing to a younger audience, by having the lead party girl do her act as light relief to boring science types.

[Remick]

For the record, I tend to believe RW's version of events. I believe she did have an exchange of words with a guy in the elevator. The guy sounded polite but probably nervous, she obviously felt as though he was creepy. But that's just my personal opinion, I don't know any more about it than you do.

Do you believe Rebecca Watson's version of events when she says, in her HFA speech in Florida, that she had a stalker who ran the blog ElevatorGate, lived locally and was prevented from going to the event by the organizers, when ElevatorGate is some teenager living in the UK?

Do you believe Rebecca Watson's version of events when she says The SlymePit is a site "dedicated to hating her" and one of the posters here, Sacha, claimed she was going to a conference to accost Watson and had her name removed from the registration when, in fact, the conference organizers let Sacha register under a pseudonym to protect her from Rebecca Watson?

If not, why do you believe her about this?

Honestly, because in the EG instance, calling her a liar gains nothing, but gives her and her side more ammunition. "They don't believe women when they 'report' 'harrassment'."

Conceding that the EG incident happened exactly as she said. Nothing to lose. Ok, they guy said what he said, she responded, he left her alone. There is no violation or foul in this case. She gains nothing from this. She has gained far more from the reaction to it, than it happening. The "Evidence" she has is from people trolling her about her vid, EG is literally a nothing. It doesn't mean anything.

The skepchick youtube channel has well over 100 videos. Her EG video is over 1/10th of their total channel views.

So you can prove she lied in other cases, great, nail her on that. There is nothing to gain as no one can prove/disprove EG other than the guy himself, even then it would be a he said/she said.

[jjbinx007]

The question I asked was, given her track record for making shit up, what is it about this particular incident that you give her the benefit of the doubt?
...
In the case of Rebecca Watson the best you can say about ElevatorGuy is not that you have any reason to believe her, but you believe her because, in this particular instance, she has not yet been definitively proven to be full of shit.
Well, good for you.

Because you can't prove she lied any more than I can prove she didn't. You have the same evidence available to you that I do, and we must each make a judgement call. I can understand why you might think she made the whole thing up, however I tend to think that she is a person who embellishes, exaggerates and magnifies rather than invents everything from scratch. I don't think she's clever enough. She says "I get rape threats" and she produces messages left by obvious trolls, not actual credible rape threats. She doesn't make it all up, she simply twists, distorts and embellishes.

So when she says a guy got in an elevator and said what she claims he said, I do tend to believe that an incident like that did happen. Even if I believed her word for word I don't think EG had any plans to assault or rape her. If the incident did happen the way she describes then it was an entirely harmless thing which she's blown up out of all proportion, as she usually does.

Is your stance that that none of it happened? I believe there's a kernel of truth in most things that she says, and the Elevatorgate is (to me) no different. It doesn't mean it happened exactly the way she described, but it's not an extraordinary claim she's making.

[Altair]

TMI Alert

[spoiler]Hey, got some good news just now. The tests came back negative. I do not have prostate cancer. So, I suppose it's either medication or surgery to get that fucker a bit smaller.

Blood sugar is up to 187, though. Seems my pancreas is not manufacturing enough insulin to process the sugar, so it's passing through into my bladder, adding sugar to my urine. Doc says it's likely diabetes, but can also be renal glucosuria, so got some more tests coming up next week.

I'll keep y'all posted.[/spoiler]

Glad to know it's not

[spoiler]Prostate cancer[/spoiler]

Al

Keep taking your medications and try to stop spitting sugar through

[spoiler]your dick[/spoiler]

[Mykeru]

Honestly, because in the EG instance, calling her a liar gains nothing, but gives her and her side more ammunition. "They don't believe women when they 'report' 'harrassment'."

I'm talking about what is an isn't true, based on the overall veracity of the person recounting the event. I don't care what kind of whiny horseshit they can construct when they don't get a pass.

So you can prove she lied in other cases, great, nail her on that. There is nothing to gain as no one can prove/disprove EG other than the guy himself, even then it would be a he said/she said.

Oh, we have. She just makes shit up. It's demonstrable. So the question still maintains, aside from some
"Pascal's PR" considerations, why believe this actually happened or happened in the way she said it did?

Because you can't prove she lied any more than I can prove she didn't.

Oh, well, if I can't prove she lied, if it's outside the realm of possibility, if all we have to go on is belief, then why are we having this conversation?

I tend to think that she is a person who embellishes, exaggerates and magnifies rather than invents everything from scratch.

Well, okay, as long as she's just embellishing, exaggerating and magnifying, I'm just totally out of line for not automatically believing it happened or happened more or less the way she said. I'm just a cynical asshole, I guess.

It doesn't mean it happened exactly the way she described, but it's not an extraordinary claim she's making.

Who the fuck said it was?

[Remick]

So what is the point then Mykeru? I think DPRJones point on the magic sandwich show is spot on. You can tell by the way she acts and how she behaves and what she says, that she is not actually afraid of any of the things she claims to be. She does not behave like someone who is taking these "threats" seriously, this has been true for over a year now. So why should anyone else pay any attention to these "threats".

EG involved no threats, no harrassment, no improper behavior. Shit it wasn't even rude. It is a nothing. Nail her where you can prove she lied, and point out how she doesn't take the threats seriously. If that is done, why would anyone else take them seriously?

[Angry_Drunk]

Thousands of years from now, scholars will theorize that we ancients sowed our maize based on the cycle of the 'pit futilely attempting to divine the veracity of Rebecca Watson's elevator story.

There will also be those who believe that cycle predicts the end of the world, but they're just fucking nutters.

[Pitchguest]

Halfish's blog: http://haifischgeweint.wordpress.com/de ... whiteness/

This is her:

https://www.facebook.com/GeneralPerversion/info

Wait a minute. Jamie?? The new Skepchick's name is Jamie, no? Same person?

[ReneeHendricks]

If a person puts out something to the public and it is found to be a blatant and purposeful lie, *everything* else they spew then becomes exceedingly suspect. *That's* my own particular issue with Watson and EG.

[Skep tickle]

Renee, is that your dog? If so, what's the name?

Yep, that's my Chihuahua/Whippet. Her name is Willow.

So she's a Chihuappet? Or maybe a Whiphuahua? :think:

Either way, she's cute!

[LMU]

People, people; we need to stay focused: The utter, merciless annhiliation of A+theism.

Our efforts are working and A+theism's fora activities are dwindling like a pile of fresh shit roasting in the Sahara. Soon they will have banned everyone over there and people can get back to what atheism and secularism is about: Disbelief in god(s) and keeping god(s) out of government.

Fuck those cunts hard. You know, with pineapples.

It's not the Pitters doing the heavy lifting here...

Indeed.

They recently banned the new admin at the non safe space forum, their sister site: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3499

Apparently there had been a pool as to how long it would take: http://www.secularsocialjustice.com/t14 ... forum#1577

[Altair]

http://www.freezepage.com/1358440375DRGTQYLAKG

Richard Carrier posts again, this time dissecting the comment of someone who goes by the name "submariner".

This is his/her comment:

“In other words, the Lee petition exists because women in this movement are being digitally harassed beyond the pale (and not, say, blacks or homeopathy opponents); and feminism is being openly mocked…”

PZ Meyers forbid Feminism be MOCKED, oh noes!, and OPENLY as well!!.(better if they mock in secret).

You have feminists like Feminist Frequency claiming that words to Christmas songs are sexist, that depictions of video game NPC’s are sexist.( talk about 1st world problems) Feminists have elevated internet trolling to the level of harassment ( although not legally declared such) , swooned about people wearing a t-shirt that made it clear the wearer did not want to be identified with one of their groups, and another who gave a creationist style science denialism “lecture” with no citations, quote mines, and strawman arguments.

Richard, the feminists and A+ ers are doing fine mocking themselves. Most rational people can see this for what it is: a political movement. One that refuses to look skeptically at itself.

In case you were wondering, I won’t be signing the petition.

Carrier calls him a prototypical sexist atheist and logic-challenged, an ass and a heartless person.

The "points" made by Carrier are full of appeals to emotion and the usual stuff we expect from them, but here's the part I found the most interesting

Because delusionally not believing there is any sexism is practically a defining attribute of modern sexists. Which makes this a nearly ideal red flag: anyone who denies there is any sexism in America to study is probably a sexist;

Even taking into account that I've never seen anyone denying there is sexism in America the world, and that what most people have done is to ask for evidence of specific instances of reported sexism (that and attempt to extend the definition of sexism to acts commited affecting the male half of the population, the horror!), the fact that he's attempting to use a disagreement as proof of guilt is fucked up in more ways than one.

[ReneeHendricks]

Renee, is that your dog? If so, what's the name?

Yep, that's my Chihuahua/Whippet. Her name is Willow.

So she's a Chihuappet? Or maybe a Whiphuahua? :think:

Either way, she's cute!

She knows she's cute too. My neighbor calls her a "Chippet".

[Skep tickle]

...

1) Anything that is friggin' awesome is a pretty sweet dude.
2) T-Rex is friggin' awesome.
3) Therefore, T-Rex is a pretty sweet dude.

...

Simply musing based on above syllogism:

Al has pretty sweet urine and presumably pretty sweet blood; Al is a pretty sweet dude.

As previously demonstrated (see, for example, his blog posts & youtube videos), Al is friggin' awesome.

Al, meet T-Rex. You two may find you have alot in common. :D

[cunt]

Good thing we don't really have to worry about murder anymore, ever since somebody said "thou shalt not kill". If we need another stern all-knowing ultimate authority figure to do the same for rape, then it might as well be Ophelia.

[Za-zen]

Of course it doesn't matter whether RW made the whole thing up. It also doesn't matter if people at conferences make up shit about being harassed, and sexually assaulted, because it could have happened.

And that's what matters, we have to deal with the "what ifs" in life, and make sure everyone at a skeptic/atheist conference feels their "what ifs" scenarios have been addressed.

People get mugged in life, it happens, therefore it is reasonable to assume that people at conference wil be subject to mugging. Does it matter whether a mugging actually has took place at conference before we start discussing what we should do about muggers at conferences? No of course not, we know muggings happen therefore it is an issue we should address. If it turns out that the one person who claimed to have been mugged at conference was lying about it, well we should thank her for highlighting the possibility that she could have been mugged so that we can do something about it.

Note: nothing EG is accused of saying or doing is comparable to mugging, (it being an illegal act just like sexual assault) but the loonies most certainly built their fantasy of predatory males stalking vulnerable females around the construct... Which then of course led to shouts for action to prevent such heinous crimes happening in future. So no it doesn't matter whether EG is watson fantasy. It could have happened.

[Reap]

Just cause I can....
[youtube]vFIsQg1hPoI[/youtube]

[Dave]

Mykeru: Just because I disbelieve Watson about the 2 incidents you describe doesn't mean I disbelieve her about everything she says.

Well, obviously it doesn't mean you disbelieve her. Because you don't. People still join Peter Popov's ministry. So what?

The question I asked was, given her track record for making shit up, what is it about this particular incident that you give her the benefit of the doubt?

Because her reputation and track record as a habitual liar does not overcome the background probability that the event occurred. In this case, I am defining the event in the broadest general terms such as, a guy interacted with her on her way back to her hotel room in a way that she found creepy. Women have interactions that they find creepy with men on a regular basis, therefore, absent other information, I tend to believe them when they report such an occurrence, just as I tend to believe people when they claim they had lunch one day, absent other reasons to disbelieve them. In my estimation, Watson's track record for veracity, or the lack thereof, is such that I am reluctant to take her word for any of the details of the event, but is not sufficient to overcome the probability that such an event did occur. In fact, from my personal experience with (non-atheist) conventions, if a woman is looking for creepiness, its almost guaranteed that she would find some event in any 24 hour period that she could consider creepy. Against that background, it seems more probable to me that she has "embellished" and actual event to suit her needs than to have made up an event out of whole cloth.

[Gefan]

So, I managed to sit through Oolon's appearance on Reap Sow Radio.
How best to sum my impression of Oolon "live"?
As is often the case, it may be best to steal from Hitch (in this case a 1980's vintage essay on neo-conservatives).
"He is one of those unctuous types who thinks he is a wit and is half right".

[Reap]

Now, for a question to Reap: how many people have you banned from comenting at your blog? Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind.

Since I started blogging in 2007 (on myspace...sigh) I recall have banned 3 people including oolon, and I'm going to unban him because I think he might behave a bit differently now. Not that he has to always agree with me but he can disagree knowing where the line is.

[Hemisphere]

My brother just sent me this, presumably from 4chan:

[spoiler]"A white heteronormative cisgendered CEO professor and Baptist preacher was teaching a class on Karl Rove, known Christian.

“Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Jesus Christ and accept that you too can become straight through daily prayer, self-flagellation, and eating Chik-Fil-A every day!”

At this moment, a brave, trans-Asian, self-diagnosed pansexual demiromantic vegan multisouled person who had been free of all animal products and only bought products at the local transgender co-op boldly stood up, holding a glass filled with some white liquid.

“Hey, Professor, what is this?”

The arrogant professor smirked like a rapist and smugly replied “It’s clearly milk, you crazy faggot. What the fuck does milk have to do with political science?”

“Wrong. It’s an all natural vegan soy almond kombucha latte. No animals or transpeople were harmed or raped in the making of this product.”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of the Wall Street Journal. He stormed out of the room, clearly planning some kind of rape. The professor realized that he had been playing into the hands of the kyriarchy of CEOs, investment bankers, the Religious Right, and psychiatrists. He then killed himself. The proper term for this is “trans-dead”.

The students checked their privilege, all diagnosed themselves with autism and gender identity disorder and joined the Gay-Straight Alliance. An obese trans-eagle furry otherkin waddled into the room and tried to perch upon the American Flag, bending the flagpole in the process. All parties involved gave up meat, Christianity, and the right to bear arms.

The students all lifted their glasses of soy fluid in a toast.

“That beverage’s name? Harvey “The One Percent” Milk.” said the vegan trans-autistic Korean."[/spoiler]

Made me lol

[Jan Steen]

[spoiler]

YES. Using "begs" when they mean "invites" the question is really annoying. To beg the question is to fail to answer it, as "begging off". But I think we fight a losing battle.

Is it? I've always understood it to be: one's argument requires ('begs') a particular answer to the central question ('the question') it is trying to answer.

e.g.

Billy Crane Laig (because I'm modifying WLC's justifications for the premises) claims that:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) (1,2) The universe had a cause

1) is true (claims BCL) because everything we can think of that begins to exist, also has a cause.
2) is true (granted)
so 3).

However (says I), if 2) is true then the universe must count as something that begins to exist. So when we say that everything we know that begins to exist has a cause, we must also know this about the universe, otherwise our justification for 1) doesn't work. So we must also know that 3) is true to be able to say that both 1) and 2) are true. So BCL's argument begs the question, i.e. it requires that the universe had a cause.

As with people who say "refute" when they mean "dispute" - a refution being a reasoned rebuttal, not just an "I disagree, poopyhead".

I believe the correct term is 'refudiate'. /sarahpalin

[/spoiler]
The "syllogism" can be re-written;

1.Everything that exists has a cause; (since it can't exist without begining to exist)
2.Everything exists; (by definition)
3.Therefore, everything has a cause.

1=3 and 2 is immaterial. So now it just looks more like the empty re-statement of the premises that it actually is.

No, that is not right. You can't just assume that everything that exists had to begin to exist, therefore you can't assume that everything that exists had a cause. Second, you can't say that everything exists (pink unicorns?). And third, your conclusion doesn't follow when you can't assume that everything that exists had to begin to exist. And you can't.

[Reap]

Perhaps Watson, after giving her lecture on harassment, turning a talk on "Communicating Atheism" into a litany of her woes as a super-attractive, desireable and high-value woman in Skepticism, much to the irritation of Richard Dawkins, and then pontificating into the wee hours of the morning at the bar, turned DPR's invitation at 2:30-3:00 am to do a video blog into the small condensation nuclei of her "Elevator Guy" story.

Yep. That's pretty much what I was thinking.
If I was DPR Jones and on the night in question I invited a drunken Rebecca back to my room for whatever reason, via elevator, at 2.30am-3.00am I would think it was me she was referring to when she mentioned the elevator incident (at least initially).

Maybe after she came back to the bar when finished doing the podcast elevator guy figures " Well she went up with that guy maybe she will go up with me next. I know she has been talking about men being dicks all day but I guess she was kidding....what harm could it cause just to ask her?"

[Parge]

My brother just sent me this, presumably from 4chan:

[spoiler]"A white heteronormative cisgendered CEO professor and Baptist preacher was teaching a class on Karl Rove, known Christian.

“Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Jesus Christ and accept that you too can become straight through daily prayer, self-flagellation, and eating Chik-Fil-A every day!”

At this moment, a brave, trans-Asian, self-diagnosed pansexual demiromantic vegan multisouled person who had been free of all animal products and only bought products at the local transgender co-op boldly stood up, holding a glass filled with some white liquid.

“Hey, Professor, what is this?”

The arrogant professor smirked like a rapist and smugly replied “It’s clearly milk, you crazy faggot. What the fuck does milk have to do with political science?”

“Wrong. It’s an all natural vegan soy almond kombucha latte. No animals or transpeople were harmed or raped in the making of this product.”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of the Wall Street Journal. He stormed out of the room, clearly planning some kind of rape. The professor realized that he had been playing into the hands of the kyriarchy of CEOs, investment bankers, the Religious Right, and psychiatrists. He then killed himself. The proper term for this is “trans-dead”.

The students checked their privilege, all diagnosed themselves with autism and gender identity disorder and joined the Gay-Straight Alliance. An obese trans-eagle furry otherkin waddled into the room and tried to perch upon the American Flag, bending the flagpole in the process. All parties involved gave up meat, Christianity, and the right to bear arms.

The students all lifted their glasses of soy fluid in a toast.

“That beverage’s name? Harvey “The One Percent” Milk.” said the vegan trans-autistic Korean."[/spoiler]

Made me lol

I'm co-opting a sentence from that for my sig, so that I can laugh at it every time I post. Brilliant.

[ReneeHendricks]

LMAO here! I've not commented at all on this particular Ophie post, yet my name comes up in the comments. Oh, and they *still* have it completely wrong!

http://www.freezepage.com/1358445018GAPUJTRTKA

[another lurker]

Mykeru wrote:

Just to be clear, because people still insist on treating these fucking con artists as though they are just mistaken, or that there has to be some point-to-point corresponding reality to their bullshit stories, I'm not saying she misinterpreted, got it wrong, or that DPR did anything.

I'm saying that, as a pathological liar, she used her drunk participation in something completely innocuous to construct a fictional narrative that fits what she had been talking about for days, and which she needed for that narrative and, not surprisingly, her own over-inflated ego

QFT. People like this are attention whores. They want nothing more than to stay in the spotlight, and will invent, and/or embellish stories to keep the spotlight on them. To put yourself out there, like she has already done, requires a massive ego to start with. I knew someone like this, and they are creepy as fuck. All about the 'image' and taking any opportunity they can to talk to the media.

[comslave]

Does anybody know of any response from any of the Baboons over the DPRJones/Twatson story?

I've got a bucketload of popcorn ready to go.

It'll be crickets until they can find a reason to call him a rapist.

rule for conferences: "No one at conferences should ever proposition Rebecca Watson" - Thunderf00t.

Embargo!
:clap:

[jg64]

Renee,

Sorry to hear about your man. Hope things go as well as they can, if we can do anything to help out, let us know.

[ReneeHendricks]

Renee,

Sorry to hear about your man. Hope things go as well as they can, if we can do anything to help out, let us know.

Thanks. I'm sitting here with the pamphlets they gave him yesterday and not really wanting to read through them. I'll save the stress for another day.

[Zenspace]

Some current issues:

Begging the Question

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy where the person is assuming, as part of the premises, that which they are trying to prove. People who say "it begs the question" to mean "raises the question" are assholes who should have their malfunctioning frontal lobes carved out with a plastic spork and their skulls used as a planter.

TMI Alerts

Thank you, Al, for letting us know you have a prostate the size of a bagel and not doing a Bristol Stool Scale report on your greasy morning shit instead.

Steersman

Is still a dick.

Skimming the Pyt during lunch:

- debate post
- exposé post
- debate post
- medical update post
- debate post
- debate post
- (lather, rinse, repeat about two dozen times)
- Mykeru post :lol:

So, thanks for that, Mykeru.

[Al Stefanelli]

...

1) Anything that is friggin' awesome is a pretty sweet dude.
2) T-Rex is friggin' awesome.
3) Therefore, T-Rex is a pretty sweet dude.

...

Simply musing based on above syllogism:

Al has pretty sweet urine and presumably pretty sweet blood; Al is a pretty sweet dude.

As previously demonstrated (see, for example, his blog posts & youtube videos), Al is friggin' awesome.

Al, meet T-Rex. You two may find you have alot in common. :D

Bitch Piss (UK) A fruity flavored alcoholic beverage

[Mykeru]

Because her reputation and track record as a habitual liar does not overcome the background probability that the event occurred.

Oh, really?

In this case, I am defining the event in the broadest general terms such as, a guy interacted with her on her way back to her hotel room in a way that she found creepy.

And you think it was "creepy" because she said so. Do you then believe her when she came out with version 2.0 that he was also mildly threatening?

Women have interactions that they find creepy with men on a regular basis,

Does that tell us about these men, or these women?

therefore, absent other information, I tend to believe them when they report such an occurrence,

You can tend to believe anything you fucking well like.

just as I tend to believe people when they claim they had lunch one day, absent other reasons to disbelieve them.

Piss poor analogy. So is this:

http://www.prunejuicemedia.com/wp-conte ... 00x224.jpg

I believe her because I had lunch.

In my estimation, Watson's track record for veracity, or the lack thereof, is such that I am reluctant to take her word for any of the details of the event, but is not sufficient to overcome the probability that such an event did occur.

Okay, so without the details you've got...what?

In fact, from my personal experience with (non-atheist) conventions, if a woman is looking for creepiness, its almost guaranteed that she would find some event in any 24 hour period that she could consider creepy.

That's how bigotry works.

Against that background, it seems more probable to me that she has "embellished" and actual event to suit her needs than to have made up an event out of whole cloth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... enniel.png

And only the grin remained.

[Al Stefanelli]

My Latest Video:

Death and Destruction for the Glory of God

[youtube]O6LLwBWkOTQ[/youtube]

[Tigzy]

Watson used to be a street juggler?

Still, I think it's kind of fitting that a large turdlike object existing in a vacuum should be named after her.

[cunt]

Rebecca Watson holding court in an irish bar about how desirable she is, forever.

[Ericb]

Watson used to be a street juggler?

Still, I think it's kind of fitting that a large turdlike object existing in a vacuum should be named after her.

If only she had been a mime.

[Za-zen unlocked]

Rebecca Watson holding court in an irish bar about how desirable she is, forever.

As an irishman i personally welcome rebecca watson to partake of our inns, she is most assured that we will give her a stage, and she won't even have a clue that she's the entertainment

[fascination]

TMI Alert

[spoiler]Hey, got some good news just now. The tests came back negative. I do not have prostate cancer. So, I suppose it's either medication or surgery to get that fucker a bit smaller.

Blood sugar is up to 187, though. Seems my pancreas is not manufacturing enough insulin to process the sugar, so it's passing through into my bladder, adding sugar to my urine. Doc says it's likely diabetes, but can also be renal glucosuria, so got some more tests coming up next week.

I'll keep y'all posted.[/spoiler]

I hope everything works out sweetie. Good news that you are cancer free!

[cunt]

Plus she's gives a measurable boost to the economy.

[Pitchguest]

Al, I find the lack of a racist hat in your latest video distressing.

[fascination]

What the hell did I miss? Have DPR and AronRa confirmed EG as a fraud or something or are we a long way down a hypothetical track?

I can never keep up with the pyt anymore

It seems the timeline of events went like this:

2.30/3.00am: DPR Jones and RW went to his room to do a blog TV session. (If someone could find this and confirm how long it went on for it would be useful.)

4.00am: RW was back downstairs at the bar before leaving to go to her room at approximately 4am. Elevatorguy then said he found her talk interesting and would she like to go for coffee to discuss this further. She was creeped out by it.

Matt Dillahunty says it doesn't matter if EG is real or not. If the DPR/RW blog tv session went on for over an hour then it's possible EG wasn't real at all.

For the record, I tend to believe RW's version of events. I believe she did have an exchange of words with a guy in the elevator. The guy sounded polite but probably nervous, she obviously felt as though he was creepy. But that's just my personal opinion, I don't know any more about it than you do.

Or Dick Strawkins is right and DPR is confused about the night. It doesn't really matter. DPR feels the same way that we do about Watson but he believes that Elevatorgate happened. He said that he was told by reliable sources who EG was. DPR knows Rebecca. I think we are back to where we started on Elevatorgate..no hard proof either way. However, DPR does give a little credence to her story. DPR is not on her "side" and yet he has inside info and believes it happened.
I really don't know why this is being picked apart so much though. It will never be proven or disproven at this point unless something extraordinary happpens. The cool thing about DPR's video was his opinion about Watson's behavior. That hasn't even been discussed. We are nitpicking Elevatorgate again, lol. It appears DPR is mistaken about the night they did the Blog TV session anyway...

[Cunning Punt]

I did use the expression that I "believed" Watson, although I have no proof either way. It doesn't seem like a particularly extraordinary claim. If it turns out that evidence comes to light indicating that RW made the whole lot up then so be it.

I don't see a particular reason to disbelieve her.
Look at all the oily sycophants that hang off her every word.
Is it really so surprising that one of them tried to make a move on her when she was drunk?

Plus if you back to YouTube comments from several years back she had lots of fanboys. There's a video of her wedding at TAM lots of wistful comments.

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?thr ... Yi2KTaieDs

[cunt]

266

Rodney Nelson
16 January 2013 at 9:46 pm (UTC -6)
The trouble with trolls is they’re subject to Sturgeon’s Law: “90% of everything is crap.” Even the more articulate trolls like noeljim99 are basically crap.

Just like how 90% of what Tis Himself posted was pointless "me too" variants or a cowardly kicks once he'd got the proper nod from the bigger kids. The other 10% was plagiarised.

[comslave]

Rebecca Watson holding court in an irish bar about how desirable she is, forever.

In the meantime, her "use by date" passed ten years ago.

[jjbinx007]

The cool thing about DPR's video was his opinion about Watson's behavior. That hasn't even been discussed. We are nitpicking Elevatorgate again, lol. It appears DPR is mistaken about the night they did the Blog TV session anyway...

Maybe DPR doesn't have a Feminist wife.

[Al Stefanelli]

Al, I find the lack of a racist hat in your latest video distressing.

Oooh, my bad. Next time, I promise...