Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Sulman]

MELODYWALKAWAY.jpg

Am I a bad person for preferring this:

http://i.imgur.com/iU3RBq2.jpg

Please explain - I have no idea about the reference...

A pretty jarring scene in The Walking Dead where that character executes a psychotic child.

[Skep tickle]

Still no posts straightforwardly addressing the PTSDgate issue on FTB, but Svan has decided to weigh in by offering a condescending open letter to twitter advising them on how to manage their "harassment":

So here’s a little suggestion about how to make your own lives easier while still cleaning up your service to keep people on it long enough to see your sponsored tweets. And it will only take three easy steps.
You already have an algorithm that detects spikes in the use of phrases or hashtags. It’s what you use to create your trending topics. Use that algorithm to detect when people’s mentions spike. Sure, it will take a little bit of fine-tuning, because the spikes are smaller, but it will be worth it.
Why? Because your next step is to set someone in Twitter support on the job of looking through that person’s mentions. Again, this will be an easy job, because all this person needs to do is determine whether this person’s mentions are full of something benign, like congratulations, or full of the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse. The difference is easy to spot. Go take a look.
Once you’ve identified a thread with a high degree of abuse, go through and clean it out. Ban your repeat offenders and accounts freshly created for the purpose of abusing someone. Suspend and/or warn your first-timers depending on their degree of depravity, and mark their accounts as having been warned so you know when you see them again.
That’s it. You’re done

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... asy-steps/

tl;dr Hire PZ and the ministry of truth to ban anyone tweeting "the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse."

It sounds like Zheeee is volunteering to do all of this extensive 24/7 work for free. It's so easy, after all.

Funny, she didn't mention the Daily Mail.

Oh, wait, the Daily Mail does moderate their comments (claims the line above the comments, "The comments below have been moderated in advance"), so that's good, right?

Oh, wait again, the Daily Mail probably isn't moderating to her specifications.

C'mon Ms. Zvan. Put up a blog post telling the Daily Mail they should do a better job moderating their comments. Offer to help them, given your extensive experience.

[Ape+lust]

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/svijet/zbog-t ... 32257.html
Our Melody gets around.

Reddit's TiA finally noticed:

[deLurch]

Also, added --spider and --server but no joy in getting the length

Code: Select all

andrewv@Asp7i:~$ wget --spider --server-response --referer="http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=177981#p177981" http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2014/04/12/help-miri-speak-at-cons/
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2014-04-17 16:55:31--  http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2014/04/12/help-miri-speak-at-cons/
Resolving freethoughtblogs.com (freethoughtblogs.com)... 108.162.196.185, 108.162.197.185
Connecting to freethoughtblogs.com (freethoughtblogs.com)|108.162.196.185|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 
  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
  Server: cloudflare-nginx
  Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 23:55:31 GMT
  Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
  Connection: keep-alive
  Set-Cookie: __cfduid=d3342b9431daaa940f3a811492713f65f1397778931618; expires=Mon, 23-Dec-2019 23:50:00 GMT; path=/; domain=.freethoughtblogs.com; HttpOnly
  X-Powered-By: PHP/5.2.17
  X-CF-Powered-By: WP 1.3.13
  X-Pingback: http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/xmlrpc.php
  Link: <http://wp.me/p2WIFs-UY>; rel=shortlink
  X-Cacheable: YES:Forced
  X-Varnish: 1887419765 1887417939
  Age: 133
  Via: 1.1 varnish
  CF-RAY: 11cc8dd29e14051a-SEA
Length: unspecified [text/html]
Remote file exists and could contain further links,
but recursion is disabled -- not retrieving.

Screw this shit. She made an honest offer. Let's play by honest rules. One honest click per dollar. You don't need to play technical games to make this fun for us. We just need to collect statistics and hold her to her promise. This will be over in a month when she doesn't fork up fully.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Madam, it is your money.
As if anyone here cares what she does with it.

I think she's expecting what has happened before, where the MRAs go off and sulk.

She's not used to dealing with assholes.

I just think they're not...very big thinkers.

As in, think it through, Miri. We're all here to shoot the shit. Present an oppportunity to empty your own pockets in the service of some grandiose bullshit and I guarantee virtually anyone would say "knock yourself out."

Nobody cares.

Does anybody have the spoons to monitor this, and make sure she follows through on her promise?

[Gefan]

Meanwhile, Ron Lindsay finally springs into action in the CFI board room...

[youtube]3txRySd2g4E[/youtube]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

First off, why is Miri upset that Slymepitters visit her blog? I hope Miri reads my blog, especially the post where I wrote about her.

Second, don't they get a few pennies each for hits? Thought Free Blogs was PZ and Ed's get-rich quick scheme, after all.

Third, I want more people to learn about SecularWomen.org. I want sane, rational skeptics hear them declare how discussing abortion is off-limits. I want people to see how hard SecularWomen are working to promote issues at the heart of skepticism, like:
* Trans**** rights;
* Stopping inmate sterilization;
* The Voting Rights Act;
* Ending "Abortion Stigma";

. and, last but not least ...

* Stalking Justin Vacula.


I've contributed about $15 so far toward these fine goals, courtesy of Miri Mentalcasesky

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Yeah, well, according to the Daily Fail Melody runs CFI too. She's movin' on up.

She's got a twitch on their lip. So for all intents and purposes: yeah, she does.

[deLurch]

Wonder what the back channel (private forum) at Secular Woman is like right about now.
Also, how the plans for WiS3 are going, 29 days from the conference.

What makes me sad is that WIS could be a very good positive thing. It just has the wrong people at the helm.

[JackSkeptic]

Wonder what the back channel (private forum) at Secular Woman is like right about now.
Also, how the plans for WiS3 are going, 29 days from the conference.

What makes me sad is that WIS could be a very good positive thing. It just has the wrong people at the helm.

Yep. I never quite grasped why atheist women don't put a stop to their crap. I'd be spitting bullets if groups regularly misrepresented me.

[Ape+lust]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

[JackSkeptic]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

Benson must be furious right now.

[John D]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

Yep - Read 100 Years of Solitude. Freaky book about incest set in a tropical fantasy South America. Hmmmmmm. Not sure his writing is what matters either. but... okay... if you say so.

[Ape+lust]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

Benson must be furious right now.

I know! The FT hack put her own byline on that cut and paste job. Benson gets shellacked every time she merely forgets to source her crap with an URL.

[Southern]

Meanwhile, Ron Lindsay finally springs into action in the CFI board room...

[youtube]3txRySd2g4E[/youtube]

Oh, God, IT Crowd. This scene always crack me up.

[Skep tickle]

Wonder what the back channel (private forum) at Secular Woman is like right about now.
Also, how the plans for WiS3 are going, 29 days from the conference.

What makes me sad is that WIS could be a very good positive thing. It just has the wrong people at the helm.

Seems to me that it's also misnamed.

The conference topics touch on but don't particularly focus on "secularism", definitions of which include "the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society" or "the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries".

There are plenty of women in secular areas of society - in the US at least, women are the majority of public school teachers & staff, and probably the majority of staff at secular health facilities (also at the religious ones but that doesn't diminish their involvement in the nonreligious ones), and while not the majority of government employees (44% are women in the US) that's still pretty significant involvement (at least at lower to mid levels).

If the focus were "secularism" then partnership with religious people who favor the separation of church & state would fit perfectly, but that's not the focus of "Secular Woman" or "Women in Secularism", which instead seems to be about "Progressive Liberal Feminists in Atheism". Which is fine but IMO they should call a spade a spade & not assume that every "secular woman" shares their ideology, means, or ends.

[welch]

Still no posts straightforwardly addressing the PTSDgate issue on FTB, but Svan has decided to weigh in by offering a condescending open letter to twitter advising them on how to manage their "harassment":

So here’s a little suggestion about how to make your own lives easier while still cleaning up your service to keep people on it long enough to see your sponsored tweets. And it will only take three easy steps.
You already have an algorithm that detects spikes in the use of phrases or hashtags. It’s what you use to create your trending topics. Use that algorithm to detect when people’s mentions spike. Sure, it will take a little bit of fine-tuning, because the spikes are smaller, but it will be worth it.
Why? Because your next step is to set someone in Twitter support on the job of looking through that person’s mentions. Again, this will be an easy job, because all this person needs to do is determine whether this person’s mentions are full of something benign, like congratulations, or full of the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse. The difference is easy to spot. Go take a look.
Once you’ve identified a thread with a high degree of abuse, go through and clean it out. Ban your repeat offenders and accounts freshly created for the purpose of abusing someone. Suspend and/or warn your first-timers depending on their degree of depravity, and mark their accounts as having been warned so you know when you see them again.
That’s it. You’re done

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... asy-steps/

tl;dr Hire PZ and the ministry of truth to ban anyone tweeting "the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse."

Twitter ain't pork loin Zvain, you don't have a clue what you're actually talking about.

[Ape+lust]

Still no posts straightforwardly addressing the PTSDgate issue on FTB, but Svan has decided to weigh in by offering a condescending open letter to twitter advising them on how to manage their "harassment":

So here’s a little suggestion about how to make your own lives easier while still cleaning up your service to keep people on it long enough to see your sponsored tweets. And it will only take three easy steps.
You already have an algorithm that detects spikes in the use of phrases or hashtags. It’s what you use to create your trending topics. Use that algorithm to detect when people’s mentions spike. Sure, it will take a little bit of fine-tuning, because the spikes are smaller, but it will be worth it.
Why? Because your next step is to set someone in Twitter support on the job of looking through that person’s mentions. Again, this will be an easy job, because all this person needs to do is determine whether this person’s mentions are full of something benign, like congratulations, or full of the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse. The difference is easy to spot. Go take a look.
Once you’ve identified a thread with a high degree of abuse, go through and clean it out. Ban your repeat offenders and accounts freshly created for the purpose of abusing someone. Suspend and/or warn your first-timers depending on their degree of depravity, and mark their accounts as having been warned so you know when you see them again.
That’s it. You’re done

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... asy-steps/

tl;dr Hire PZ and the ministry of truth to ban anyone tweeting "the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse."

Twitter ain't pork loin Zvain, you don't have a clue what you're actually talking about.

Steve Martin's How to Not Pay Taxes on a Million Dollars:

"First... get a million dollars."

[deLurch]

Hey Look!
Miri's 4/16't blog on PTSD. Not that good but click it so that she donate a dollar to Women in Secularism!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... sychology/

Make sure you click this link so that we know if Miri has welched on her promise.
http://bit.ly/SlymepitForMiri

And you can check the dollar count here:
https://bitly.com/SlymepitForMiri+

[acathode]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

I'm really curious to why they keep writing "she's been diagnosed with PTSD" instead of "she claims to have been diagnosed with PTSD".

Have any journalists actually confirmed that yes, a real, live doctor has actually given her a PTSD diagnosis? Considering that it seems that they haven't actually gotten to speak with Melody, it seems dubious that they've actually been able to confirm any of her claims, as I imagine neither CFI or her doctor (or whoever would give her such a diagnosis) would be free to comment or leave details about her medical history.

TBH, when I'm reading the news-pieces about this, I'm getting the impression that she's being treated really nice, they come across more as "look at this poor woman who've suffered online abuse"-articles rather than "ROFL batshit crazy woman claims twitter gave her PTSD!!!"...

[Karmakin]

Still no posts straightforwardly addressing the PTSDgate issue on FTB, but Svan has decided to weigh in by offering a condescending open letter to twitter advising them on how to manage their "harassment":

So here’s a little suggestion about how to make your own lives easier while still cleaning up your service to keep people on it long enough to see your sponsored tweets. And it will only take three easy steps.
You already have an algorithm that detects spikes in the use of phrases or hashtags. It’s what you use to create your trending topics. Use that algorithm to detect when people’s mentions spike. Sure, it will take a little bit of fine-tuning, because the spikes are smaller, but it will be worth it.
Why? Because your next step is to set someone in Twitter support on the job of looking through that person’s mentions. Again, this will be an easy job, because all this person needs to do is determine whether this person’s mentions are full of something benign, like congratulations, or full of the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse. The difference is easy to spot. Go take a look.
Once you’ve identified a thread with a high degree of abuse, go through and clean it out. Ban your repeat offenders and accounts freshly created for the purpose of abusing someone. Suspend and/or warn your first-timers depending on their degree of depravity, and mark their accounts as having been warned so you know when you see them again.
That’s it. You’re done

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... asy-steps/

tl;dr Hire PZ and the ministry of truth to ban anyone tweeting "the kind of toxic crap my friend Melody Hensley is still receiving two days after I documented an onslaught of abuse."

Twitter ain't pork loin Zvain, you don't have a clue what you're actually talking about.

Maybe I'm being too harsh here, but my kneejerk reaction is that Twitter SHOULD do this...then suspend the account of the toxic person who is inciting all the anger. Or at least warn them to not be such an asshole.

This whole situation is why I much prefer my model of internet conflict. Hensley is a troll. She is inciting conflict (and it seems like it's pretty fucking intentional) The people who give her that conflict, are the fish. Both being a troll and being fish are wrong. If you want a happier community, you have to do something about BOTH.

Note that by being a fish, I really mean responding in an angry/non-constructive fashion. There's plenty of ways to respond to trolls that are very constructive. You can even still be a total asshole and still not be a fish. Trolls are looking for you to respond in ANGER, so they can claim the moral high ground. Don't give them that. (Not that anybody here does. I'm just saying).

[Really?]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

I'm really curious to why they keep writing "she's been diagnosed with PTSD" instead of "she claims to have been diagnosed with PTSD".

Have any journalists actually confirmed that yes, a real, live doctor has actually given her a PTSD diagnosis? Considering that it seems that they haven't actually gotten to speak with Melody, it seems dubious that they've actually been able to confirm any of her claims, as I imagine neither CFI or her doctor (or whoever would give her such a diagnosis) would be free to comment or leave details about her medical history.

TBH, when I'm reading the news-pieces about this, I'm getting the impression that she's being treated really nice, they come across more as "look at this poor woman who've suffered online abuse"-articles rather than "ROFL batshit crazy woman claims twitter gave her PTSD!!!"...

You're being very kind with your definition of "journalist." It's 2014. "Journalism" now means "finding a bunch of tweets from a crazy fucking person."

[deLurch]

As a side note, I finally get off my ass for something, to alert Michael Hawkins about pz myers accusation no the day we noticed it. I did not specifically request a response back, nor did I receive one. For all I know it got caught in his spam filter. Take that information for what little it is worth.

[John D]

Hey Look!
Miri's 4/16't blog on PTSD. Not that good but click it so that she donate a dollar to Women in Secularism!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... sychology/

Make sure you click this link so that we know if Miri has welched on her promise.
http://bit.ly/SlymepitForMiri

And you can check the dollar count here:
https://bitly.com/SlymepitForMiri+

I did my clicking! I feel the power! Patriarchy power-up... Up.... UP! Privilege Power 6000!

[Ape+lust]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

I'm really curious to why they keep writing "she's been diagnosed with PTSD" instead of "she claims to have been diagnosed with PTSD".

Have any journalists actually confirmed that yes, a real, live doctor has actually given her a PTSD diagnosis? Considering that it seems that they haven't actually gotten to speak with Melody, it seems dubious that they've actually been able to confirm any of her claims, as I imagine neither CFI or her doctor (or whoever would give her such a diagnosis) would be free to comment or leave details about her medical history.

TBH, when I'm reading the news-pieces about this, I'm getting the impression that she's being treated really nice, they come across more as "look at this poor woman who've suffered online abuse"-articles rather than "ROFL batshit crazy woman claims twitter gave her PTSD!!!"...

Could be no one bothers to check because it's a Man Bites Dog story and not worth the trouble. The "reporter" for this article couldn't even be arsed to find relevant links for her story -- the WAR VETERANS url is about a gut-shot vet who chased his civilian attackers for a mile and the POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER url leads to an article about real life werewolves :lol:

[JacquesCuze]

Maybe I'm being too harsh here, but my kneejerk reaction is that Twitter SHOULD do this...then suspend the account of the toxic person who is inciting all the anger. Or at least warn them to not be such an asshole.

This whole situation is why I much prefer my model of internet conflict. Hensley is a troll. She is inciting conflict (and it seems like it's pretty fucking intentional) The people who give her that conflict, are the fish. Both being a troll and being fish are wrong. If you want a happier community, you have to do something about BOTH.

Note that by being a fish, I really mean responding in an angry/non-constructive fashion. There's plenty of ways to respond to trolls that are very constructive. You can even still be a total asshole and still not be a fish. Trolls are looking for you to respond in ANGER, so they can claim the moral high ground. Don't give them that. (Not that anybody here does. I'm just saying).

I was actually thinking something very similar based on some dubious advice I was once given as a parent, which is that if the two kids are fighting and you didn't see it, don't take sides. They both get timeouts, or whatever.

That would fix a lot of problems: twitter doesn't need a lot of staff, doesn't need to be judge and jury, doesn't need to ban accounts, it can just give people timeouts. And hey maybe if you report too often, or are reported too often your timeouts increase a bit.

So far twitter is a very optional service and there is almost never a NEED to post, so twitter doesn't have any great ethical duty to preserve your account or judge right and wrong.

[Old_ones]

Maybe I'm being too harsh here, but my kneejerk reaction is that Twitter SHOULD do this...then suspend the account of the toxic person who is inciting all the anger. Or at least warn them to not be such an asshole.

This whole situation is why I much prefer my model of internet conflict. Hensley is a troll. She is inciting conflict (and it seems like it's pretty fucking intentional) The people who give her that conflict, are the fish. Both being a troll and being fish are wrong. If you want a happier community, you have to do something about BOTH.

Note that by being a fish, I really mean responding in an angry/non-constructive fashion. There's plenty of ways to respond to trolls that are very constructive. You can even still be a total asshole and still not be a fish. Trolls are looking for you to respond in ANGER, so they can claim the moral high ground. Don't give them that. (Not that anybody here does. I'm just saying).

I don't use twitter but from what I know of it, it seems like implementing svan's suggestions would be difficult, and probably lead to more problems than were solved. I'm guessing the svan approach would require a lot of moderators. Then, once twitter had decided to add a bunch more full time staff for moderation, they get to figure out how to ensure any kind of fairness in defining and interpreting abuse. We already know what sort of definition the SJL will want, but I'm guessing twitter doesn't want to risk losing users by banning people for unsolicited dongle jokes, and use of ableist slurs like "lame". On the other hand if they just banned smellody, they'd presumably have to ban Colbert (or whatever third party account caused #cancelcolbert) for inciting Suey Park, and her band of tumblr nut cases.

Personally I don't see that trying to moderate the service really helps anyone that much.

[guest]

Just saw Dr Rachael Skeptic Zone Dunlop mouthing off to her Facebook frienz on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erans.html

wimin sure don't stick together. It'll be fun when the skepchicks do TAM Australia.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/7 ... AA300_.png

[Brive1987]

Just saw Dr Rachael Skeptic Zone Dunlop mouthing off to her Facebook frienz on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erans.html

wimin sure don't stick together. It'll be fun when the skepchicks do TAM Australia.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/7 ... AA300_.png

In 2010 I was really bummed at missing TAM Aust. This time I couldn't be bothered to even check the booking options.

I'm pretty sure 2010 was when RW went on to Melbourne and shared a stage with Brian Dunning, right around the time Bug Girl hit the candle, but probably just before RW had fully given up hope of a group-off with Dunning and his wife.

[JacquesCuze]

Ah, hot from twitter, a coherent explanation of shemalegate.

Trigger Warning [Serious]: Link goes to BoingBoing

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html
http://i.imgur.com/LPBNOGH.jpg
http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

[Michael J]

Just saw Dr Rachael Skeptic Zone Dunlop mouthing off to her Facebook frienz on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erans.html

wimin sure don't stick together. It'll be fun when the skepchicks do TAM Australia.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/7 ... AA300_.png

As she is a working scientist (recently published an important paper) who also finds time for a podcast and fight real problems such as anti-vaxers - they are going to hate her anyway.

[Really?]

Just saw Dr Rachael Skeptic Zone Dunlop mouthing off to her Facebook frienz on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erans.html

wimin sure don't stick together. It'll be fun when the skepchicks do TAM Australia.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/7 ... AA300_.png

As she is a working scientist (recently published an important paper) who also finds time for a podcast and fight real problems such as anti-vaxers - they are going to hate her anyway.

I'm not sure why women scientists are wasting their time doing sciencey shit when they could be doing something to HELP women, like writing blog articles about how there aren't enough women in science because of Patriarchy.

I'm not going to enact the labor to tell you why you're wrong.

[James Caruthers]

Ah, hot from twitter, a coherent explanation of shemalegate.

Trigger Warning [Serious]: Link goes to BoingBoing

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html
http://i.imgur.com/LPBNOGH.jpg
http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

"Imagine a drag queen breaking a taboo!"

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Sums it right up.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

<snip>
While I’ll agree that Hensley seems to be over-reacting in characterizing disagreement as harassment, one might also argue that more than a few “dudebros” have actually crossed a line into some actual harassment. You may wish to take a look at this Storify from Zvan for details. ...

Thanks Steers. Until I read Zvan's storify I never realized there were dumbass dudebros on the Intarweb.
http://i.imgur.com/3r7BHqb.jpg

No problemo - always ready willing and able to leap into the breach to help ensure that a brother doesn't go off the rails ....

However, if you're prepared to concede that there are no shortage of "dumbass dudebros on the Intarweb" then maybe you'll be willing to consider the possibility that the shear number of them might have led more than a few women to justifiably characterize all of that as some serious harassment if not actual misogyny and to be justifiably bent out of shape about it.

(Aaaaaarrrgh! I'll never manage to catch up!!!)

Steers: in my opinion, if all those tweets directed at her had come out of the blue, I'd readily agree with you that she's being unfairly treated, with maybe even the possibility that it could be viewed as (mild) harassment. As it turns out, though, the flak she's enduring didn't spontaneously come into existence ("because she's a woman/feminist/other victim cred..."), it is a somewhat expected response to the stupid shit she's been spewing for quite some time now, including, but not limited to, belittling people ("educate yourself") and threatening peoples' employment because they dare question her PTSD bullshit. And yes, it is bullshit, or at least I'll consider it bullshit until I am presented with a series of serious peer-reviewed papers confirming that someone can actually suffer PTSD from tweeter exchanges (yet still decides to spend a huge chunk of their life on the very media that caused said PTSD in the first place). Again, we don't live in a world where you can do and say whatever you want without consequences. You can do say whatever you want, but don't expect people to not take you to the cleaner if it's a stupid/illegal/despicable action or words.

Again, Hensley is not being taken to task because she's a woman/feminist, she's being taken to task because she's an arse whose favorite pastime is posito pede in eius os suum (google translate, probably dog-Latin). I have no hope that these SJWs will one day understand the difference, although I suspect they already understand it but keep on lying and misrepresenting in order to boost their own agendas. Which is deplorable.

[Brive1987]

Now would be a good time for new members to review Avicenna's white knighting of Melody and his official warning of Pinchguest late last year.

You know, given he is in a world-wide minority of 1.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... itchguest/

[JackSkeptic]

No, not the Fashion Times! Oh, the ignominy! I'm so sorry, Melody.

(Meanwhile, in the world that matters: Gabriel Garcia Marquez died today)

I'm really curious to why they keep writing "she's been diagnosed with PTSD" instead of "she claims to have been diagnosed with PTSD".

Have any journalists actually confirmed that yes, a real, live doctor has actually given her a PTSD diagnosis? Considering that it seems that they haven't actually gotten to speak with Melody, it seems dubious that they've actually been able to confirm any of her claims, as I imagine neither CFI or her doctor (or whoever would give her such a diagnosis) would be free to comment or leave details about her medical history.

TBH, when I'm reading the news-pieces about this, I'm getting the impression that she's being treated really nice, they come across more as "look at this poor woman who've suffered online abuse"-articles rather than "ROFL batshit crazy woman claims twitter gave her PTSD!!!"...

It morphed into PTSD only recently, before then she said she had 'PTSD like symptoms' A bit like a runny nose is like flue and something you would expect from a medical person wanting to keep taking her dollars or just to keep her happy.

[JacquesCuze]

[.quote="Steersman"]
<snip>
While I’ll agree that Hensley seems to be over-reacting in characterizing disagreement as harassment, one might also argue that more than a few “dudebros” have actually crossed a line into some actual harassment. You may wish to take a look at this Storify from Zvan for details. ...[./quote]
Thanks Steers. Until I read Zvan's storify I never realized there were dumbass dudebros on the Intarweb.
http://i.imgur.com/3r7BHqb.jpg

No problemo - always ready willing and able to leap into the breach to help ensure that a brother doesn't go off the rails ....

However, if you're prepared to concede that there are no shortage of "dumbass dudebros on the Intarweb" then maybe you'll be willing to consider the possibility that the shear number of them might have led more than a few women to justifiably characterize all of that as some serious harassment if not actual misogyny and to be justifiably bent out of shape about it.

(Aaaaaarrrgh! I'll never manage to catch up!!!)

Steers: in my opinion, if all those tweets directed at her had come out of the blue, I'd readily agree with you that she's being unfairly treated, with maybe even the possibility that it could be viewed as (mild) harassment. As it turns out, though, the flak she's enduring didn't spontaneously come into existence ("because she's a woman/feminist/other victim cred..."), it is a somewhat expected response to the stupid shit she's been spewing for quite some time now, including, but not limited to, belittling people ("educate yourself") and threatening peoples' employment because they dare question her PTSD bullshit. And yes, it is bullshit, or at least I'll consider it bullshit until I am presented with a series of serious peer-reviewed papers confirming that someone can actually suffer PTSD from tweeter exchanges (yet still decides to spend a huge chunk of their life on the very media that caused said PTSD in the first place). Again, we don't live in a world where you can do and say whatever you want without consequences. You can do say whatever you want, but don't expect people to not take you to the cleaner if it's a stupid/illegal/despicable action or words.

Again, Hensley is not being taken to task because she's a woman/feminist, she's being taken to task because she's an arse whose favorite pastime is posito pede in eius os suum (google translate, probably dog-Latin). I have no hope that these SJWs will one day understand the difference, although I suspect they already understand it but keep on lying and misrepresenting in order to boost their own agendas. Which is deplorable.

Ah, thanks, Steers posted this after I was trying to turn the damn computer off last night and this is the reply I wanted to give.

Other ways to frame the issue:

+ One Does Not Simply Tweet into Twitter

and

+ And when you troll long enough into Twitter, the Twitter also trolls unto you

She chose, ... poorly

How many easily identified women on Twitter did not get / do not get harassing messages? How many men do?

[AndrewV69]

Ah, hot from twitter, a coherent explanation of shemalegate.

Trigger Warning [Serious]: Link goes to BoingBoing

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html
[.img]http://i.imgur.com/LPBNOGH.jpg[/img]
http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

BoingBoing ... lol a few years ago I got myself on the watch list and shortly afterwards banned after saying Obama was Bush in blackface.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Selenite, stealing money from the till falls in the crime category. What Melody did doesn't. Apples, oranges and all that.

She did attempt theft though, depending on how you view it. If you consider that a wrongfully fired person has had all their future career income taken from them, that's as bad as theft. Also, they may lose cars and homes that are not yet fully paid for.

Theft is the only crime, be it the theft of gold, land, life or innocence. (-Sam Vimes, paraphrased)

[JacquesCuze]

Ah, hot from twitter, a coherent explanation of shemalegate.

Trigger Warning [Serious]: Link goes to BoingBoing

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html
[.img]http://i.imgur.com/LPBNOGH.jpg[/img]
http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

BoingBoing ... lol a few years ago I got myself on the watch list and shortly afterwards banned after saying Obama was Bush in blackface.

I found it ironic that what Andrea James complained about at Boing Boing regarding the SJW actually applies to Boing Boing.

That said her essay was really interesting and enlightening, not just about the trans community, but about almost all of these battles with the SJW in any domain, as well as an acknowledgement we see them more in more at media sites as SJW mentality (and laziness) spreads in our journalist class.

[paddybrown]

I'm really curious to why they keep writing "she's been diagnosed with PTSD" instead of "she claims to have been diagnosed with PTSD".

Have any journalists actually confirmed that yes, a real, live doctor has actually given her a PTSD diagnosis? Considering that it seems that they haven't actually gotten to speak with Melody, it seems dubious that they've actually been able to confirm any of her claims, as I imagine neither CFI or her doctor (or whoever would give her such a diagnosis) would be free to comment or leave details about her medical history.

From my experience of the psychiatric profession, I wouldn't be at all surprised if an actual mental health professional had diagnosed her with PTSD. Thanks to the DSM, psychiatric diagnoses are made by checklist, and ticking boxes is hardly scientifically rigorous. If you were that way inclined, it would be pretty easy to look up what symptoms you need to display, perform them in front of a professional, and get your diagnosis. And Melody is nothing if not a performer.

I no longer have the book so I can't look it up, but I remember a bit in Harry Harrison's The Stainless Steel Rat Gets Drafted where the hero realises he's being given a psychiatric evaluation by checklist by an army recruitment person, and trolls it mercilessly. That was (looks up Wikipedia) 1987.

[Skep tickle]

... Steers: in my opinion, if all those tweets directed at her had come out of the blue, I'd readily agree with you that she's being unfairly treated, with maybe even the possibility that it could be viewed as (mild) harassment. As it turns out, though, the flak she's enduring didn't spontaneously come into existence ("because she's a woman/feminist/other victim cred..."), it is a somewhat expected response to the stupid shit she's been spewing for quite some time now, including, but not limited to, belittling people ("educate yourself") and threatening peoples' employment because they dare question her PTSD bullshit. And yes, it is bullshit, or at least I'll consider it bullshit until I am presented with a series of serious peer-reviewed papers confirming that someone can actually suffer PTSD from tweeter exchanges (yet still decides to spend a huge chunk of their life on the very media that caused said PTSD in the first place). Again, we don't live in a world where you can do and say whatever you want without consequences. You can do say whatever you want, but don't expect people to not take you to the cleaner if it's a stupid/illegal/despicable action or words.

Again, Hensley is not being taken to task because she's a woman/feminist, she's being taken to task because she's an arse whose favorite pastime is posito pede in eius os suum (google translate, probably dog-Latin). I have no hope that these SJWs will one day understand the difference, although I suspect they already understand it but keep on lying and misrepresenting in order to boost their own agendas. Which is deplorable.

:clap: :clap:

I actually don't think it's important whether or not she has, or believes she has, or has been told by someone with psych credentials that she has, PTSD - that's her business and I certainly hope she has some good help getting through this. What's notable is how she has acted, not only not willing to be questioned (a key lapse given her public role with CFI and the loose boundaries between that & her private activity on Twitter), but also throwing fuel on the fire (and in other people's directions) while claiming victimhood. That'll take insight to address.

Some of you may remember that when she got some flak a while back for her comments (not sure if it was 6 months ago or 1.5 years ago), she made her Twitter account private - so she knows that's an option, but this time she seems to have chosen not to do that.

Diverting for a bit to your requent for peer-reviewed papers - Miri has 6 up on her site at the page delurch linked above, and I've looked at them (the abstracts for the ones behind a paywall, and skimmed the 2 papers for which the full text was available).

IMO they're not all that relevant: all but one is about in-person harassment that people can't get away from, including workplace sexual harassment or bullying (with the latter found, in the paper Miri linked, to get better once people were able to get out of the situation); being stalked long-term with threats of, and actual, physical violence; being a kid & bullied in school.

The one that's about cyberstalking is about stalking that uses electronic means to gather data and/or repeatedly contact the person but spills over into meatspace, and it gives the NZ definition of harassment, which requires "watching, loitering, preventing, following, making contact (whether by telephone, correspondence or any other way), giving, leaving, bringing attention to any offence material, entering, interfering with property, that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety." (That's the meatspace part - actually fearing for actual safety.)

It seems like quite a few reasonable people have expressed a disbelief that poking at people on Twitter and escalating it "would cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety". I'd add that having previously set up then later removed and never reinstated privacy on one's personal Twitter account while continuing to do this from said personal Twitter account would seem to take the steam out of the fearing for safety part. (Now, just in the past two days or so, she might have more reason to actually fear for her safety.)

Anyway, Miri basically says she posted the links to the published papers up to build some cred, because gender discrimination. She then goes on to say, in the best "freethought" fashion, well even if it doesn't meet the criteria of PTSD, it occurred after experienced trauma and it's stress and she's pretty sure eventually someday that'll be considered PTSD (bolding added):

The key is this: it’s called posttraumatic. Stress. Disorder. If trauma has occurred, and is now causing all of these symptoms, then it makes sense to refer to the illness as PTSD. I’ve written before that I think it’s harmful to refer to clearly non-clinical problems with mental illness terms, because that really does dilute the meaning of words like “depression” and “OCD.” However, if your psychological experience literally looks like the psychological experience of someone who served in combat and now has the same symptoms as you, I’m absolutely comfortable with calling that PTSD whether or not the DSM strictly agrees or not. Then it’s less appropriation and more self-diagnosis, which is often the only option for some people. The DSM is constantly evolving, and I predict that as more and more research is published that examines PTSD symptoms in victims of sexual harassment, bullying, and online abuse of various kinds, the DSM criteria will accommodate this evidence.

Er, but it doesn't yet.

People keep referencing the DSM-IV, but in fact DSM-5 came out last year and specifically says the trauma is "actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence" - that part's not much changed - but also DSM-5 specifically disqualifies online media and video reminders of the trauma as being sufficiently traumatic unless exposure to them is required for work (e.g. you can't simply turn it off, presumably). "CFI-does-not-endorse" her private tweeting, right, so that wasn't for work.

Here's the latest diagnostic criteria for PTSD, hot off the press (I've removed most of the stuff about kids and bolded the parts I see as most relevant):

Diagnostic Criteria
309.81 (F43.10)
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Note: The following criteria apply to adults, adolescents, and children older than 6 years.

A. Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways:

1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s).

2. Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others.

3. Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. In cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent or accidental.

4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse).

Note: Criterion A4 does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related.

B. Presence of one (or more) of the following intrusion symptoms associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning after the traumatic event(s) occurred: (5 items clipped out, not relevant to this discussion)

C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning after the traumatic event(s) occurred, as evidenced by one or both of the following:

1. Avoidance of or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s).

2. Avoidance of or efforts to avoid external reminders (people, places, conversations, activities, objects, situations) that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s).

D. Negative alterations in cognitions and mood associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning or worsening after the traumatic event(s) occurred, as evidenced by two (or more) of the following: (7 items clipped out, not relevant to this discussion)

E. Marked alterations in arousal and reactivity associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning or worsening after the traumatic event(s) occurred, as evidenced by two (or more) of the following: (6 items clipped out, not relevant to this discussion)

F. Duration of the disturbance (Criteria B, C, D, and E) is more than 1 month.

G. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

H. The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., medication, alcohol) or another medical condition.

So - I don't see the diagnosis thing as important regarding MH, however I do find it interesting that Miri the budding psychologist feels it's okay to gestalt this particular diagnosis (even though for others, as she says, she has cautioned people not to), and that she implies that the DSM over time is going to lean in the direction she thinks it should....when the latest iteration clearly doesn't.

[James Caruthers]

I'm really curious to why they keep writing "she's been diagnosed with PTSD" instead of "she claims to have been diagnosed with PTSD".

Have any journalists actually confirmed that yes, a real, live doctor has actually given her a PTSD diagnosis? Considering that it seems that they haven't actually gotten to speak with Melody, it seems dubious that they've actually been able to confirm any of her claims, as I imagine neither CFI or her doctor (or whoever would give her such a diagnosis) would be free to comment or leave details about her medical history.

From my experience of the psychiatric profession, I wouldn't be at all surprised if an actual mental health professional had diagnosed her with PTSD. Thanks to the DSM, psychiatric diagnoses are made by checklist, and ticking boxes is hardly scientifically rigorous. If you were that way inclined, it would be pretty easy to look up what symptoms you need to display, perform them in front of a professional, and get your diagnosis. And Melody is nothing if not a performer.

I no longer have the book so I can't look it up, but I remember a bit in Harry Harrison's The Stainless Steel Rat Gets Drafted where the hero realises he's being given a psychiatric evaluation by checklist by an army recruitment person, and trolls it mercilessly. That was (looks up Wikipedia) 1987.

The Stainless Steel Rat is great stuff. IMO, Harrison is one of the great forgotten modern science fiction pioneers.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Hey, Skep tickle, just a brief correction...I believe Miri is wanting to be a Social Worker, not a psychologist. But excellent job in running down all her citations....you've got a lot of spoons!

[Skep tickle]

Hey, Skep tickle, just a brief correction...I believe Miri is wanting to be a Social Worker, not a psychologist. But excellent job in running down all her citations....you've got a lot of spoons!

Ha, right you are, and thanks for that: "B.A. in psychology and is currently working on a Masters in social work." I thought someone over there was working on a Ph.D. in psychology but maybe that's just a false memory that got implanted. :D

Zvan "co-signed" Miri's blog post in the first comment as a fellow degree-holder in psychology. Miri joked back about wanting to see her degree. (Without a BA in psychology you can't possibly interpret psychiatry papers, or at least abstracts from old ones, and with it your opinion is golden, including about what the DSM is going to be moving towards at some point in the future, I guess.)

I found the papers kind of interesting in how inapplicable they were (though, indeed, there's not much better). In the stalking paper Miri listed & linked, for example, half of the women had been physically attacked. Interestingly, 5% of the women reported female stalkers, and 3% reported having "multiple stalkers" (hmm). I liked the skepticism in the authors' discussion of limitations of their study, at the end:

Some limitations of this study deserve comment. First, as already noted, our respondents were a self-selected group of support-seeking female victims of stalking, which likely skews the reported distress to the more severe end of the spectrum. Further studies are needed to investigate whether the psychological distress experienced by self-referred stalking victims (as presented in studies thus far) differs in nature and magnitude from that in the community at large or among forensic samples. Second, without data about victims’ premorbid functioning and detailed histories of other life events or traumata, one cannot be too definite in attributing the victims’ current level of functioning to the impact of stalking on their lives. Finally, a mailing of self-report instruments invites some problems particular to the research field of stalking. One cannot entirely rule out that nonstalked individuals with paranoid features or so-called false victimization syndromes (13) erroneously reported stalking, but it seems unlikely that this substantially affected the present findings.

Ref 13 links to a citation for a chapter on "False victimization syndromes" in a 1998 book, which I don't find online, however this abstract of a paper from 2004 estimated false victimization claimants to be ~11.5% of the group of stalking victims they surveyed.

IMO it's always worth considering alternative explanations...as well as whether or not the research paper you're presenting as supporting your position might not really apply to the situation you were hoping it would.

[Jan Steen]

Standard. Rebecca writes a short piece about Cabbies and street creeps.
http://i.imgur.com/ZqdDogX.png

Her gift for rhetoric does impress me. She's got a fine awareness of exactly how to frame her message.

The specifics and/or veracity of her arguments have been done to death, but I will just say that city streets are nasty places for lone women, but they're also nasty places for lone men. It isn't really some great gender divide. It's just dangerous.

She just loves alienating her fans/people who are sympathetic. Rebopine is a hero.

A hero? Why? Strangers who approach you on the street at night are almost always annoying and sometimes threatening. Doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman (or whatever you identify as). It also doesn't really matter why they approach you. They should just fuck off and leave you alone. We're not talking about a 10 second elevator ride in a posh hotel here, we're talling about the Concrete Jungle. Who knows what can happen there? Guys who believe their right to hit on women trumps everything all the time are social retards. Repobine is a social retard, not a hero.

[Jan Steen]

As a side note, I finally get off my ass for something, to alert Michael Hawkins about pz myers accusation no the day we noticed it. I did not specifically request a response back, nor did I receive one. For all I know it got caught in his spam filter. Take that information for what little it is worth.

Did you email him or post a comment on his blog?

[Steersman]

<snip>
However, if you're prepared to concede that there are no shortage of "dumbass dudebros on the Intarweb" then maybe you'll be willing to consider the possibility that the shear number of them might have led more than a few women to justifiably characterize all of that as some serious harassment if not actual misogyny and to be justifiably bent out of shape about it.

Steers: in my opinion, if all those tweets directed at her had come out of the blue, I'd readily agree with you that she's being unfairly treated, with maybe even the possibility that it could be viewed as (mild) harassment. As it turns out, though, the flak she's enduring didn't spontaneously come into existence ("because she's a woman/feminist/other victim cred..."), it is a somewhat expected response to the stupid shit she's been spewing for quite some time now, including, but not limited to, belittling people ("educate yourself") and threatening peoples' employment because they dare question her PTSD bullshit. ....

More than some justification for that position, and I’ll quite agree than many of her behaviours and actions leave a great deal to be desired. And one of the most egregious and odious of those was her apparent insistence, in effect if not in fact, that any criticism of her supposed PTSD constituted harassment. Considering that one of CFI’s main claims-to-fame is that they supposedly “foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry [‘ha!’], and humanist values”, I figure that they should bloody well be reading the Riot Act to Hensley and many of her fellow travelers. Which, considering that we haven’t heard a peep or a tweet from the former in some 48 hours, may well have already happened.

However, I also think it appropriate to cut her a little bit of slack. For instance, as even Dick Strawkins has argued, she does seem to have done some good work even if there’s some evidence that she’s been badly misled by some of the “nattering nabobs of negativism” and deluded postmodernists in the “feminist” movement. In addition, as I’ve argued earlier here and on Patheos, the trauma that seems characteristic of PTSD also seems to have some analogous correspondences to other types:

... (PTSD) may develop after a person is exposed to one or more traumatic events, such as sexual assault, serious injury, or the threat of death. .... Most people having experienced a traumatizing event will not develop PTSD. Women are more likely to experience higher impact events, and are also more likely to develop PTSD than men. .....

Psychological trauma is a type of damage to the psyche that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event.

A traumatic event involves a single experience, or an enduring or repeating event or events, that completely overwhelm the individual's ability to cope or integrate the ideas and emotions involved with that experience.

Considering that the trauma associated with high school bullying leads more than a few students to commit murder, mayhem, and suicide, I hardly think it implausible that the supposed “harassment” and criticism and trolling that Hensley has been subjected to might well have “overwhelmed her ability to cope” and to have produced symptoms rather analogous to those experienced by many veterans – without that discounting or deprecating the objective severity of many of the latter, and only suggests that she may be overly sensitive and currently “unfit for duty”.

Again, Hensley is not being taken to task because she's a woman/feminist, she's being taken to task because she's an arse whose favorite pastime is posito pede in eius os suum ....

“Opening their mouths to change feet” is the most likely translation that I can come up with. :-) And probably a fairly accurate one too. Certainly some indication that they’re using neither feet, mouths, nor brains in their optimal manner. But taking her, and many of her cohort, to task is one thing; crucifying them is quite another – some manifestations of that “tasking” look rather counterproductive at best methinks.

[Snapfingers]

Who does this?

The kind of people that stuff things under their sofa and pronounce the room 'clean'.

The kind of person who waits until her coldsore has (almost) healed up before posting cutiepie pixs on timblr?

[deLurch]

As a side note, I finally get off my ass for something, to alert Michael Hawkins about pz myers accusation no the day we noticed it. I did not specifically request a response back, nor did I receive one. For all I know it got caught in his spam filter. Take that information for what little it is worth.

Did you email him or post a comment on his blog?

Private email. I didn't want to up the anti on the reputation damage if pz myer's allegation is false.

[Jan Steen]

As a side note, I finally get off my ass for something, to alert Michael Hawkins about pz myers accusation no the day we noticed it. I did not specifically request a response back, nor did I receive one. For all I know it got caught in his spam filter. Take that information for what little it is worth.

Did you email him or post a comment on his blog?

Private email. I didn't want to up the anti on the reputation damage if pz myer's allegation is false.

Thanks. That's what I guessed. It's also the reason I didn't post a comment myself. Still, Hawkins's silence is slowly becoming deafening.

[Za-zen]

Het stephalump, how's your tent rending coming?

[Tony Parsehole]

What a grand couple of days.
Pointing at somebody and saying "ha, ha, ha" in unison makes me glad to be a Slymepitter.

[Mykeru]

The Manatee:

"How Twitter Can Combat Harassment in Three Easy Steps"

APELUSTI4yalFJ.jpg

(170.73 KiB) Downloaded 194 times

Tone-deaf twat.

[Mykeru]

What a grand couple of days.
Pointing at somebody and saying "ha, ha, ha" in unison makes me glad to be a Slymepitter.

Pull up a lawn chair wheel barrow.

http://www.k3dav.com/020%20Redneck%20Lawnchairs.jpg

[Apples]

What a grand couple of days.
Pointing at somebody and saying "ha, ha, ha" in unison makes me glad to be a Slymepitter.

[youtube]ob0QTmYlVKA[/youtube]

[Tony Parsehole]

I'm with Stephanie Zvan on this one. Twitter should employ an extra two million people to trawl every popular hashtag and conversation, wade through all the jokes, sarcasm and pictures of Justin Bieber, and then they should PERMANENTLY BAN all those who say something that Stephanie Zvan wouldn't like, regardless of context.

It's a wonder that our Steph hasn't found a job as a high-flying corporate consultant yet.

[Kenteken]

The sense of accomplishment and fulfillment just by clicking on a link. Now I know how them slacktivists feel.

The power!

[James Caruthers]

What a grand couple of days.
Pointing at somebody and saying "ha, ha, ha" in unison makes me glad to be a Slymepitter.

All of the benefits of trolling without any of the work.

[rayshul]

Please. We troll simply by existing.