I have to say, I was impressed with the guy who grabbed the gun. Perfect move, make sure it's pointed at the perp's innards, then keep pushing him back so he can't fix that.
The impression I get was, based on the posture and the headphones was that he didn't grok what was happening at first. Something got stuck in his face, and he grabbed it, then realized "SHIT! GUN!" and like someone riding a tiger, knew letting go would be bad.VickyCaramel wrote:I have to wonder if I am only person who watched that and thought that the contents of the guy's wallet were probably not worth fighting over. Grabbing what it is best to assume was a loaded gun, making it get waved around a carriage full of people risking an innocent bystander, man, woman or child getting killed?Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Too bad nobody had a rubber band to slap around his nuts.BarnOwl wrote:
Funny how they wrap him up with a cord, like a rodeo steer. Was waiting for one of them to throw an arm up to stop the clock. :mrgreen:
Having said that, once it started, I would have stomped on the fucker's head.
Thanks, Ape+lust! Both for your kind words, and for saving me from the crayon-muncher brigade by properly embedding the link.Ape+lust wrote:Your breezy overview of the duct tape and rubberband origins of Christianity's superhero is a fine reminder of why "sophisticated" theology is necessary: to divert everyone into the weeds while this stuff lies around in plain sight.
But, clinical studies show text links are only slightly less repellent to potential readers than Yemministy poetry. This entertaining piece deserves all the attention it can get:
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Nativity, But They Were Afraid to Tell You
That's pretty much my Frankenjesus thesis, except I see an amalgam of tidbits from several successive messianic claimants/revolt leaders along with standard traits of any popular deity for that time & era.paddybrown wrote: I think the gospels are the result of several decades of his followers arguing about what all the stuff he said meant in light of his death.* You can take all kinds of messages from the gospels.... The Jesus Seminar excluded anything that sounded apocalyptic (the world's gonna end soon, so son't worry about earthly matters, just make sure you're pure) as inauthentic, even though that thread's definitely there, and informs most of the rest of the New Testament. Then there are the handful of hints that the Romans were right and he was planning armed revolt ....
*I think basically what happened was you had a guy** who either claimed to be or was hailed as the Messiah, understood as being the rightful, annointed king who would lead Israel to independence. Then he got killed. Some of his followers remained so convinced he was the Messiah that they had to come up with some kind of rationalisation.
That's a glaring point that the ultra-mythicists like Price and Dick whatshisname ignore.**Yes, I do think there was a real person at the origin of the Jesus of the New Testament. The two nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are the smoking gun. They're both such obvious bullshit, but they're obvious bullshit in different and contradictory ways. ... They're two separate and incompatible attempts to solve the same problem - how can a man from Galilee be the Messiah, when everybody knows the Messiah's supposed to be a descendant of David from Bethlehem? If there wasn't a man from Galilee, why go through these contortions?
Apologies for the poor quality of the image below (it's a photo of photo, no access to a scanner today), but I think it demonstrates "never underestimate the burning stupid of young sport tourists" quite well. It's a much younger me, with very short hair, on my first backpacking trip in the Oregon Cascades. My level of physical fitness at the time was quite good, with lots of swimming and running ... at sea level, in a semi-tropical climate. There are at least 10 visible things in the photograph that I'm doing completely wrong, many of which made the hike in to base camp extremely exhausting. I didn't feel prepared to climb the next day, so I stayed behind at base camp and drew wildflowers and watched insects all day (probably the only smart thing I did).Mykeru wrote: <snip>
You have a group of very young sport tourists doing the 1950s Soviet version of "extreme sports". They are literally "off the map" because no one had taken this route before. They are cold, tired, hungry, just getting ready to eat and bed down, having taken off their boots and awkward cloth wrapping and other primitive, mostly home-grown gear, laid out their packs to insulate the tent floor, when this big-assed bit of hard layered snow slide takes out three of them resulting in horrible, painful injuries. They bug out, having to cut the tent from the inside and although fearful, they make an orderly retreat, perhaps doing something "dumb" but no dumber than what people do on a regular basis, re: a series of dumb errors that results in some guy having to cut his own arm off and they make a movie about it, for example. By the time they figure out they are weighed down with injured and everyone else is dying too and the feared avalanche didn't come to pass, it's just too late.
<snip>
That's a 5150* right there. In the US, if a mental health professional hears a client advocate harm to themselves or to others, they are required by law to have them immediately committed. Not that the rest of their cray-cray doesn't merit it.Jan Steen wrote:Some more insanity from witchwind and her commentariat.
we do have a fundamental right to kill our torturers, rapists and abusers – especially given that they never stop finding new victims as long as they’re alive, we’re certainly doing other women a service too, on top of saving our own lives.
Just what we needed, Peezus tone policing the atheist movement on behalf of Ken Ham. Fuck PZ Myers. Who will rid us of this meddlesome neckbeard? Can some benevolent cannibal please eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?nich wrote:At first I was also in the “What’s the big deal†camp but then I thought about it further. This smacks of “Well you said all men were rapists so how about I…†bullshit followed by a “Well GOSH I was trying to SATIRIZE the other side, cantcha take a joke†bullshit response. Just because you and your little buddies see it as non-threatening does not mean the intended target is going to be in on your shitty joke. Sort of like how no woman wants to read graphic descriptions of disgusting crap posted by some Slymepit denizen under the bullshit guise of a joke, I really doubt Ken Ham wants to read “satire†by some cut-rate Swift about being boiled in hot oil and cannibalized by an atheist. Making your opponents angry is one thing, but making them squirm uncomfortably is quite another.
Except, whereas the witchwinds are lesbians, Twisty is sexually attracted to ranidae.Hunt wrote:but like you say, it ain't all that far from Twisty.Jan Steen wrote: There’s lots more where this came from. It’s only slightly crazier than the stuff written by Twisty Faster, who is admired by Peezus, but not that much.
Fuck, don't waste good Chianti. Give the cunt some PBR or Kokanee.Jan Steen wrote:
Just what we needed, Peezus tone policing the atheist movement on behalf of Ken Ham. Fuck PZ Myers. Who will rid us of this meddlesome neckbeard? Can some benevolent cannibal please eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... t-do-this/
Hey, it's not Peezus who will be drinking the chianti! It's the good guy (and it would spoil my Silence of the Lambs reference).Lsuoma wrote:Fuck, don't waste good Chianti. Give the cunt some PBR or Kokanee.Jan Steen wrote:
Just what we needed, Peezus tone policing the atheist movement on behalf of Ken Ham. Fuck PZ Myers. Who will rid us of this meddlesome neckbeard? Can some benevolent cannibal please eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... t-do-this/
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive -- imo, both are at play.VickyCaramel wrote:... you have a very real possibility that Jesus is the product of a Jewish cult, and that he is a remnant lesser god that may have well have roots much further back than orthodox history suggests. If this is so then the Jesus figure would have undergone transitions anyway, and religion was undergoing an evolution.
So we have two possibilities.
1) Jesus was a real historical figure ~ his story is being changed to make him fit OT prophecy.
2) Jesus is a lesser god ~ his story is being changed to make him seem historical and fit OT prophecy.
In both cases, it seems that OT prophecy isn't OT prophecy and the writers of the bible are showing very little understanding of the OT because they aren't Jews. They are in fact creating a Hellenistic deity for a European audience.
First, we have to acknowledge that there are really two Pauls -- the one in the Epistles, and one in Acts who speaks & behaves much differently. Second, 'Paulie Epistle' makes a lot more sense when you realize his spartan, ethereal Christ came out at least a century before the detail-rich Jesus biography found in Luke and Matthew. Since the Epistles were first produced by Marcion, and the author of Luke-Acts closely based Luke on Marcion's gospel, it's easy to see how an earlier, gnostic christ cult was much later 'polluted' with man-god elements. It's not even necessary for the gnostic christ to have originated with stories of a Galilean prophet/freedom fighter named Jesus. The two could have evolved independently, then merged into a V'Ger -like hybrid.Paul never really alludes to Jesus ever being a historical figure and it is quite possible that he never believed he was.
At first glance I thought that bright spot on the right was a city in the distance, or else a Close Encounters of the third Kind-type landing pad for the mothership. :) I guess that's Mount Hood in the distance?BarnOwl wrote: Apologies for the poor quality of the image below (it's a photo of photo, no access to a scanner today), but I think it demonstrates "never underestimate the burning stupid of young sport tourists" quite well. It's a much younger me, with very short hair, on my first backpacking trip in the Oregon Cascades.
I was thinking when I uploaded the photo that the bright spot from the flash looked like a UFO hovering.SkepticalCat wrote:At first glance I thought that bright spot on the right was a city in the distance, or else a Close Encounters of the third Kind-type landing pad for the mothership. :) I guess that's Mount Hood in the distance?BarnOwl wrote: Apologies for the poor quality of the image below (it's a photo of photo, no access to a scanner today), but I think it demonstrates "never underestimate the burning stupid of young sport tourists" quite well. It's a much younger me, with very short hair, on my first backpacking trip in the Oregon Cascades.
Honestly, I made a big deal of how crazy she sounded, but what this insane blogger is raving about is pretty much pulled from the Dworkin/Solanis party line. There's this very weird thing in feminism. With MRAs, there's a line at which most MRAs will say "okay, that's just nutters." But I've noticed this thing feminists do. When someone points out how nutty Dworkin, Solanis and the PIV crowd are, they will say "yeah, that's not my feminism." But when you're not looking, suddenly they come back with an idea or argument pulled from the crazy radfem crowd, like mansplaining or an implication that PIV sex is bad and people with penises should feel ashamed for having them.Hunt wrote:It's about on par with Valerie Solanas stuff--men are parasite beings feeding off women. Men have enslaved women because they're secretly deficient in some key ingredient to a meaningful existence and require some sacred quality that only women hold...etc. etc. It's basically the mirror image of the craziest of the crazy MRA stuff. I hope (hope!) PZ would find it execrable, but like you say, it ain't all that far from Twisty.Jan Steen wrote: There’s lots more where this came from. It’s only slightly crazier than the stuff written by Twisty Faster, who is admired by Peezus, but not that much.
Yes, this describes the phenomenon perfectly.debaser71 wrote:This. Exactly. from http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-oneHunt wrote: The mode of interaction between radfem and more moderate (i.e. sane) feminism is covered by the same framework Harris set forth in End of Faith for religion, the fact that moderate religions (or in general ideologies) run interference for the more radical elements. A few things will almost always be observed:
* The moderates will say they are "not like" the radicals and that the radical elements are not the defining faction.
* When carefully interviewed, there will be surprisingly little difference between the rad/moderate creeds on technical issues. It's just that the rads are more vocal/violent or active.
* The moderates will rarely attack the radicals and perhaps even vicariously revel in their actions.
* The moderates soften public perception of the religion (ideology) and shield it from active rejection by greater society.
So moderates facilitate, often actively, the more radical elements.
"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance—and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question—i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us—religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness."
First: Dork. Second. I don't think they were that stupid. They did undercut the slope to level out for their tent, and maybe use being a little sunk in for wind cover, but Mountain 1029 just isn't avalanche country and the sliding snow shelf has never really been replicated even after attempts to reconstruct the tour, so it really was an unexpected one-off freak accident if it did indeed happen. Fear of an avalanche after that, even if unfounded, would be pretty justified.BarnOwl wrote:
Apologies for the poor quality of the image below (it's a photo of photo, no access to a scanner today), but I think it demonstrates "never underestimate the burning stupid of young sport tourists" quite well. It's a much younger me, with very short hair, on my first backpacking trip in the Oregon Cascades. My level of physical fitness at the time was quite good, with lots of swimming and running ... at sea level, in a semi-tropical climate. There are at least 10 visible things in the photograph that I'm doing completely wrong, many of which made the hike in to base camp extremely exhausting. I didn't feel prepared to climb the next day, so I stayed behind at base camp and drew wildflowers and watched insects all day (probably the only smart thing I did).
Is feminism more or less extreme in France? My understanding of French culture is that everyone protests in a radical way all the damn time over the slightest little things. :lol: I can't tell by looking if these feminists are any more or less radical than the ones at my college campus.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:For those who can understand my barbarian language:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societ ... 09246.html
(Short story: a Femen activist symbolized abortion at a church in Paris by leaving a piece of veal liver on the altar, then started pissing on it. Go figure...)
Now you know how vegans get their vitamin B12! :rimshot:Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Vegans need a snack sometimes, too.ERV wrote:... why was Poppy picking her ears and nose and wtf? It made me sick.
Now that the sun's out again, I want to revisit this.Mykeru wrote: ... the solution involves human psychology as much as physical evidence. If you read the work on "woodshock" by Lawrence Gonzales, people in these situations often do what seems, in hindsight to be terribly irrational things by people who have a long time to ponder a situation they themselves are not in.
... They bug out, having to cut the tent from the inside and although fearful, they make an orderly retreat, perhaps doing something "dumb" but no dumber than what people do on a regular basis, re: a series of dumb errors that results in some guy having to cut his own arm off and they make a movie about it, for example. By the time they figure out they are weighed down with injured and everyone else is dying too and the feared avalanche didn't come to pass, it's just too late....
I started reading that and thought it was some idiotic comment from someone who stopped taking their meds and was spending her time ranting on the Internet. Then I saw it was written by Amanda Marcotte, which explained everything.another lurker wrote:So I was perusing The Raw Story and I came across this interesting little article...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... w+Story%29
Apparently, people say mean things about cats because misogyny
Amanda Marcotte has really outdone herself this time. The bonus, she links to a R. Watson article...While all sorts of people have pets of both types, cats are associated with not just women, but single, childless women. A lot of what people are doing when they insist that you cat doesn’t really love you and you must be fooling yourself is a kind of mansplaining: Silly cat ladies, who think that their cats love them! It fits into this larger narrative about how women are dumb and needy and cling to cats, unlike sure-footed, bright men who pick a pet they know loves them: dogs. (Never mind that men have cats and women have dogs, too. There’s no doubt that these pet choices are imagined as gendered in the public imagination. I get at least 10 people a week sending me “clever†jokes about how I must be a lonely woman who only has cats for comfort.)
I think anyone could be an SJW. Just read the news, and blame Teh Patriarchy for everything, as the Pit has been saying, for months...
http://sarahgignac.com/wp-content/uploa ... -today.jpg
Not to belabor the issue (much), but I think that that is still sort of missing the point, i.e., that your original comment was based on some pejorative connotations to the word, that somehow taking money for sexual services is way-beyond the pale.Brive1987 wrote:I apologise to all for suggesting Mykeru was half a whore for an incomplete Patreon setup. Or that e-begging on Patreon was a form of solicitation for services (or 'whoring'). A concept so overblown as to be almost comical. Almost. I now see I was inconsiderately hurting the cause because a SJW might see it.JackSkeptic wrote: <snip>
By the way guys, calling people bitches and whores plays right into their narrative.
Now let me confirm for future reference, cunt is still a magically ambiguous term? And people do realise my avatar is an ironic reference to an amusing comment made up page, plus a fingers up to Cunt (oops sorry), plus an allusion to my antipathy to RW, plus an amusing comment on how a mad sign-bum might see the schism? Are we ok now - hugs?
In striking down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, the top court ruled Friday that the laws were over-broad and "grossly disproportionate."
Holy shit, Peez's 'horde' have short memories. Any of them recall 'go die in a fire?', 'eat broken glass and die' etc. etc.? I do note the worst offenders - Wowbagger, Josh Spokesgay & Brownian - appear to have had the decency to not comment on that thread. Here's hoping some of Peez's 'brave horde' do venture over to the Pontificator's blog in order to give him a stern finger-wagging, as it'll be a delight to post some links to Pharyngula's worst excesses by way of response.Jan Steen wrote:Poor Ken Ham! A vile atheist published a fantasy in which Ken is cooked alive and eaten for Christmas. No way it’s just a piece of unsubtle satire – it’s a credible threat. And what’s more, it’s not only dumb creationists who see it that way, no, even Peezus himself comes to Ken’s defence. He deems it “unpleasant. It’s threatening.†Moreover, “It is allowing a fundamentalist creationist claim the moral high ground.â€
Most of his zombie Horde agree, of course, sycophants that they are. Dimwits like this one:
Just what we needed, Peezus tone policing the atheist movement on behalf of Ken Ham. Fuck PZ Myers. Who will rid us of this meddlesome neckbeard? Can some benevolent cannibal please eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?nich wrote:At first I was also in the “What’s the big deal†camp but then I thought about it further. This smacks of “Well you said all men were rapists so how about I…†bullshit followed by a “Well GOSH I was trying to SATIRIZE the other side, cantcha take a joke†bullshit response. Just because you and your little buddies see it as non-threatening does not mean the intended target is going to be in on your shitty joke. Sort of like how no woman wants to read graphic descriptions of disgusting crap posted by some Slymepit denizen under the bullshit guise of a joke, I really doubt Ken Ham wants to read “satire†by some cut-rate Swift about being boiled in hot oil and cannibalized by an atheist. Making your opponents angry is one thing, but making them squirm uncomfortably is quite another.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... t-do-this/
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Hey -- read my Nativity post!
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Nativity, But They Were Afraid to Tell You
http://imaginaryfriendjesus.wordpress.c ... /nativity/
It's a deliberate tour de force, and contains lots of little bombs y'all can drop on your believer relatives at xmas dinner.
(Also guaranteed to cause steam to erupt from the ears of certain biblical literalist trolls.)
iirc, he was a gay man, and they married to save on rent. (He took up residence inside a fold of Dworkin's mu-mu.)James Caruthers wrote: The craziest thing about anti-sex feminism is where they end up. Dworkin made a career of saying heterosexual sex was evil and bad, and she ended up in a heterosexual relationship in a man while still claiming she was a lesbian. She married a man and presumably had sex with him regularly. But oh, she's a lesbian. So much facepalm.
Ah, so you're the mystery patreon who bought Becca that Naughty Elf Nightie from Frederick's of Hollywood!Steersman wrote:
Not to belabor the issue (much), but I think that that is still sort of missing the point, i.e., that your original comment was based on some pejorative connotations to the word, that somehow taking money for sexual services is way-beyond the pale.
An attitude, one might argue, that contributes to if not motivates various crimes against prostitutes – who happen to be 7 times more likely to be murdered than the next most dangerous profession, male taxicab drivers.
But somewhat apropos, I happened to notice that Canada’s Supreme Court has now struck down various provisions in the criminal code related to prostitution – which has, in itself, been legal for some time....
At least I come by my dorkiness naturally, rather than affecting it for the purposes of garnering a fan base to send me money for making crappy videos. (As an aside, I love how RW and the pharyngulanha horde frequently refer to their cars as "beaters," presumably to gain sympathy for their pitiable financial state. I don't think most of them know what a real beater car is ... they seem to think that a car that's got >150K miles, or is more than 5 or 6 years old, is automatically a beater.)Mykeru wrote: First: Dork. Second. I don't think they were that stupid. They did undercut the slope to level out for their tent, and maybe use being a little sunk in for wind cover, but Mountain 1029 just isn't avalanche country and the sliding snow shelf has never really been replicated even after attempts to reconstruct the tour, so it really was an unexpected one-off freak accident if it did indeed happen. Fear of an avalanche after that, even if unfounded, would be pretty justified.
Late as usual but that's hilarious.
Yeah, that was great Matt.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Thanks, Tribble.
:lol: Never underestimate the power of suggestion.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Ah, so you're the mystery patreon who bought Becca that Naughty Elf Nightie from Frederick's of Hollywood!Steersman wrote:
<snip>
But somewhat apropos, I happened to notice that Canada’s Supreme Court has now struck down various provisions in the criminal code related to prostitution – which has, in itself, been legal for some time....
Feminism in France, much like in many other parts of the world, does good and helps further push equality. Then there's the fucknuts, and that's where we get the lulz.James Caruthers wrote:Is feminism more or less extreme in France? My understanding of French culture is that everyone protests in a radical way all the damn time over the slightest little things. :lol: I can't tell by looking if these feminists are any more or less radical than the ones at my college campus.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:For those who can understand my barbarian language:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societ ... 09246.html
(Short story: a Femen activist symbolized abortion at a church in Paris by leaving a piece of veal liver on the altar, then started pissing on it. Go figure...)
Also, I really need to brush up on my French. It's been a good two years since I've used it.
Here are some tent comments. The reference to 'more documentation' leads to (duh) Russian documents.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
A few questions:
* Is there any better insight as to whether the tent was stove in, or cut open from the inside?
* Nearby radio transmitters were mentioned as a possible source of infrasound. Has the presence of those been confirmed? Can they indeed produce infrasound? What other plausible sources of infrasound exist?
* Any other plausible sources for something affecting the entire group's judgement?
http://www.ermaktravel.com/Europe/Russi ... Syakhl.htmTent of Dyatlov group is ripped from the inside. Initially the fact was overlooked, but a woman who worked for the police department laundry services clearly identified that the damage came from the inside. Her explanation was simple and ingenious. She looked on the inside of the Dyatlov Group tent and saw several cuts made to the inside surface. Not all of these cut made all the way through the canvas, but it gave an idea the location of a person or persons who did it. Further expertise proved her hypothesis to be correct (scans from the criminal investigation analysis of the tents is available here Additional Documentation). However no one was able to identify who and why made these cuts. Lack of eye witnesses to the Dyatlov Pass Incident left many people speculate that where was some one else on the slopes of the Dyatlov Pass. Additionally search and rescue party admitted that they increased existing holes by increasing pre- existing cuts. We can't even tell for sure if Dyatlov Group members used this alternative way to leave the tent. Some theories about Dyatlov Pass Incident claim that these cuts were made by whoever forced the group out of the tent and used these holes to keep an eye on the slope of Kholat Syakhl mountain.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:iirc, he was a gay man, and they married to save on rent. (He took up residence inside a fold of Dworkin's mu-mu.)James Caruthers wrote: The craziest thing about anti-sex feminism is where they end up. Dworkin made a career of saying heterosexual sex was evil and bad, and she ended up in a heterosexual relationship in a man while still claiming she was a lesbian. She married a man and presumably had sex with him regularly. But oh, she's a lesbian. So much facepalm.
Sex seems heavily implied from these "love of my life" and "live together and love each other and are each other's life partner" bits. Sure, they both claim to be gay, but c'mon, how does that even work? Seems to me that feminism is once again changing the meanings of words to avoid an admission of hypocrisy. It doesn't sound like this was solely a marriage of convenience.Relationship with John Stoltenberg
In 1974 she met feminist writer and activist John Stoltenberg when they both walked out on a poetry reading in Greenwich Village over misogynist material. They became close friends and eventually came to live together.[30] Stoltenberg wrote a series of radical feminist books and articles on masculinity. Although Dworkin publicly wrote "I love John with my heart and soul"[31] and Stoltenberg described Dworkin as "the love of my life",[32] she continued to publicly identify herself as lesbian, and he as gay. Stoltenberg, recounting the perplexity that their relationship seemed to cause people in the press, summarized the relationship by saying, "So I state only the simplest facts publicly: yes, Andrea and I live together and love each other and we are each other's life partner, and yes we are both out."[30]
Dworkin and Stoltenberg were married in 1998; after her death Stoltenberg said, "It's why we never told anybody really that we married, because people get confused about that. They think, Oh, she's yours. And we just did not want that nonsense."[32]
There's more than two options here. But let's take a couple up front.Steersman wrote:Not to belabor the issue (much), but I think that that is still sort of missing the point, i.e., that your original comment was based on some pejorative connotations to the word, that somehow taking money for sexual services is way-beyond the pale.Brive1987 wrote:I apologise to all for suggesting Mykeru was half a whore for an incomplete Patreon setup. Or that e-begging on Patreon was a form of solicitation for services (or 'whoring'). A concept so overblown as to be almost comical. Almost. I now see I was inconsiderately hurting the cause because a SJW might see it.JackSkeptic wrote: <snip>
By the way guys, calling people bitches and whores plays right into their narrative.
Now let me confirm for future reference, cunt is still a magically ambiguous term? And people do realise my avatar is an ironic reference to an amusing comment made up page, plus a fingers up to Cunt (oops sorry), plus an allusion to my antipathy to RW, plus an amusing comment on how a mad sign-bum might see the schism? Are we ok now - hugs?
An attitude, one might argue, that contributes to if not motivates various crimes against prostitutes – who happen to be 7 times more likely to be murdered than the next most dangerous profession, male taxicab drivers.
But somewhat apropos, I happened to notice that Canada’s Supreme Court has now struck down various provisions in the criminal code related to prostitution – which has, in itself, been legal for some time:In striking down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, the top court ruled Friday that the laws were over-broad and "grossly disproportionate."
I read those exactly the opposite. But we'll never know, and everything about Dworkin was grody anyway. Here's how I imagine sex with her -- straight or gay -- must've been like:James Caruthers wrote:Sex seems heavily implied from these "love of my life" and "live together and love each other and are each other's life partner" bits. Sure, they both claim to be gay, but c'mon, how does that even work? Seems to me that feminism is once again changing the meanings of words to avoid an admission of hypocrisy. It doesn't sound like this was solely a marriage of convenience.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: iirc, he was a gay man, and they married to save on rent. (He took up residence inside a fold of Dworkin's mu-mu.)
Brive1987 wrote:I must have been gagging to miss the actual hard plug for skeptical Robot at the end of RW latest commercial offering. I knew the mention of Thor in the "substantive" had to be a weak segue to ... something
http://i.imgur.com/cfoqon1.jpg
She should wear the horned mask more often.
Did you get sunburned? Because I find most people who don't have experience with that kind of hiking/camping end up with nasty sunburns as they don't quite understand just how much the atmospheric UV protection drops, plus they seldom understand how much uv reflection they're getting off the snow.BarnOwl wrote:
Yes, there are many items awkwardly strapped to my backpack with bungie cords - lots of poorly-balanced and largely unnecessary weight. That's going to hurt the next day. Also, every item of clothing I'm wearing or carrying, including the stupid sweater tied around my waist, is cotton. Yes, cotton. So there are two of the mistakes ... the latter one might have killed me, had the weather changed.
Fortunately, I survived and developed much better outdoors skills over my years in grad school. Of course that's starting from Level Semi-tropical Dumbass. :mrgreen:
Yep, dumb things #3, #4, and #5. #3 - where the hell are my sunglasses? #4 - why am I not wearing sunscreen? #5 - where the hell is my hat?Tribble wrote:
Did you get sunburned? Because I find most people who don't have experience with that kind of hiking/camping end up with nasty sunburns as they don't quite understand just how much the atmospheric UV protection drops, plus they seldom understand how much uv reflection they're getting off the snow.
You could be, easily, getting 50% to 100% more UV depending on altitude and snow cover quality.
Yeah, that's a mortal blow, and I ought to have included it in my post. But Luke didn't know that (in fact, when copypasting Josephus, he proved he didn't even know what a tetrarch was.) Luke surely conflated the Quirinius census with the universal Roman census of of AD 74, when Galilee had become part of Judea. So, fairly firm evidence for AD 74 as the earliest possible terminus a quo for the census pericope.paddybrown wrote:Yep, it's very good and pretty comprehensive, but it misses one vital thing about the census. When Herod the Great died, his kingdom was divided between three of his sons, Herod Archilaus (Judaea), Herod Antipas (Galilee) and Philip (trans-Jordan), who ruled like their father as independent but beholden Roman allies. Ten years later the Romans removed Archilaus from power, annexed Judaea, and carried out a census census so they could tax it directly. Galilee remained independent under Antipas. If Jesus' parents lived in Galilee, they would not have been subject to the census.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Say, have you read Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Nativity, But They Were Afraid to Tell You
AHAHAHAHAAA!!11!!! Nice touch with the lampshade. :D
I didn't want to mention snow blindness. I figured you didn't since you were sketching.BarnOwl wrote:Yep, dumb things #3, #4, and #5. #3 - where the hell are my sunglasses? #4 - why am I not wearing sunscreen? #5 - where the hell is my hat?Tribble wrote:
Did you get sunburned? Because I find most people who don't have experience with that kind of hiking/camping end up with nasty sunburns as they don't quite understand just how much the atmospheric UV protection drops, plus they seldom understand how much uv reflection they're getting off the snow.
You could be, easily, getting 50% to 100% more UV depending on altitude and snow cover quality.
Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.
That was amazing.
:lol:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.
Others just do funny photoshops...
Herod's personality problems predated his illness, "but it might have made them worse. Chronic kidney disease can lead to depression (Herod attempted suicide during his illness), paranoia, and irritability," said Prof Hirschmann.
First, I got something wrong in a previous post: It was Rustem Slodobin who was the "rich kid" of the bunch.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Now that the sun's out again, I want to revisit this.Mykeru wrote: ... the solution involves human psychology as much as physical evidence. If you read the work on "woodshock" by Lawrence Gonzales, people in these situations often do what seems, in hindsight to be terribly irrational things by people who have a long time to ponder a situation they themselves are not in.
... They bug out, having to cut the tent from the inside and although fearful, they make an orderly retreat, perhaps doing something "dumb" but no dumber than what people do on a regular basis, re: a series of dumb errors that results in some guy having to cut his own arm off and they make a movie about it, for example. By the time they figure out they are weighed down with injured and everyone else is dying too and the feared avalanche didn't come to pass, it's just too late....
From the links y'all provided, I see nothing 'mysterious' or inexplicable about the details or course of events following the party's decision to leave the tent. As some of you have noted, fatal disasters like these usually result from a compounding of minor, seemingly trivial, misjudgments. The Donner Party was doomed even before they left St. Joe. Nor do I see signs of a cover-up by the Soviets.
All that remains unanswered with Dyaltov Pass is, what could have compelled not just experienced trekkers, but Russian ones, to flee in the middle of the night, in sub-zero weather, barefoot and in their underwear? That is no minor miscalculation, rather a drastic, high-risk expediency. They desperately felt the urgent need to either get away from the tent, or to somewhere else (their cache, presumedly.)
I find the injuries-from-avalanche theory unpersuasive. Even if that did occur, you give first-aid to the three (?) injured, then send two or three of your most able colleagues to reach the cache (for what, medical supplies??) And they first suit up properly. If you've determined that the tent site no longer provides adequate shelter, then you all first suit up properly.
No, they had to have been convinced that, if they did not flee the tent site that very instant, they would die. We can imagine one of them hurriedly pulling on one shoe, but judging that no time was left to put on the other (or find it). This strikes me less similar to Schackleton's compounding of errors than the group insanity of the Franklin Expedition. And so, I'm forced to consider the really bizarre options -- infrasound 'madness', weapons testing, etc.
A few questions:
* Is there any better insight as to whether the tent was stove in, or cut open from the inside?
* Nearby radio transmitters were mentioned as a possible source of infrasound. Has the presence of those been confirmed? Can they indeed produce infrasound? What other plausible sources of infrasound exist?
* Any other plausible sources for something affecting the entire group's judgement?
Yeah, there wasn't enough snow on the hike in for that to be a serious problem, but sunglasses would have cut the glare and UV exposure. Now I wear them even while out in the yard with the dogs, if it's sunny. I wear a broad-brimmed hat outdoors as well, and sunscreen every day.Tribble wrote:I didn't want to mention snow blindness. I figured you didn't since you were sketching.BarnOwl wrote:Yep, dumb things #3, #4, and #5. #3 - where the hell are my sunglasses? #4 - why am I not wearing sunscreen? #5 - where the hell is my hat?Tribble wrote:
Did you get sunburned? Because I find most people who don't have experience with that kind of hiking/camping end up with nasty sunburns as they don't quite understand just how much the atmospheric UV protection drops, plus they seldom understand how much uv reflection they're getting off the snow.
You could be, easily, getting 50% to 100% more UV depending on altitude and snow cover quality.
Here's the piece in question:"The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."
Sang that this afternoon. Piotr, the Polish member of our troupe, speaks excellent modern English but was quite baffled by the line "Don we now our gay apparel".Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:iT IS THE TIME TO BE JOLLY. LALALALAAAA LA LA LA LA.
Shut up, Phil.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:iT IS THE TIME TO BE JOLLY. LALALALAAAA LA LA LA LA.
