Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

[katamari Damassi]

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Was it ever determined that that was oolon? IIRC that same person posted a couple of really bad jokes about domestic violence. It reeked set up from the beginning.

[Scented Nectar]

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

Brilliant! :D

Thank you. :)

I think that's why PZ was able to mention that he's had women plus one gay man try to pick him up at conferences and no one said boo to that. That would have been slut shaming the women or gays, and they knew it. Yet they have opposite rules when the sexes are flipped and it's a man offering sex to a woman. Then the man becomes a potential rapist and/or creep.

[Submariner]

Okay, scratch my previous post in favour of this. Noel (also one of the hated for having the temerity to think for himself) has summised it quite well. I'll add though that the reason this rumble will continue is that they won't just fuck off. Their sense of entitlement prevents them from doing so. They will stay and keep insisting that this movement serves their politics.

http://noelplum99.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0 ... t.html?m=1

I found that blog to be very well reasoned as are many of Noelplum's arguments (another reason he is despised at FfTB's and A+). Having read some of his interactions with the baboons, he has much more patience than I do for the crap they fling at him.

[Mykeru]

Thank you for this. Since the 7 tweets last night from Eucliwood sort of begging me to find out what was going on, I've been conflicted on how to respond. On the one hand, I have a guy at home who's sleep has been so bad due to his surgery, he's having visual and auditory hallucinations. So, to be frank, I could really give a flying fuck about what's going on with her. On the other hand, I'm left with this feeling that I'm some sort of "really nice" gal as she went directly to me on Twitter to find out what was up. I don't want to be a dick...well, not really.

For sale:

http://johno16.edublogs.org/files/2012/ ... cn0scp.jpg

Cheap.

Mykeru is sending me unsolicited videos of himself jerking off over images of Greg Laden in a blue wig.

Get a wish list like everyone else.

pics or it didn't happen.

Hyper-skepticism!

[Lsuoma]

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Was it ever determined that that was oolon? IIRC that same person posted a couple of really bad jokes about domestic violence. It reeked set up from the beginning.

No, I know who it was and had an email discussion with them about it. I genuinely believe it was a mistake on their part, but I could be wrong. Definitely not colon. He DOWNloaded it.

[Apples]

The substitution of the term "kyriarchy" for "patriarchy" (which seems to be losing some credibility among younger folks) is revealing because kyriarchy is basically a marxist woo concept. You can no longer be a middle-of-the-road feminist or social-justice advocate in this conversation because it's now a Setarian extreme-left struggle against every invisible power axis in society. It's like the war on terror -- amorphous, borderless, endless, and impossible to win (which of course suits the professional ideological arms-dealers and A+ security apparatchiks and language surveillance police just fine).

Well, I think that kyriarchy/intersectionalism is a bit more than that, personally. It's not just the understanding of all the various power axis in society. It's also understanding that those power axis are often dimorphic, with power going in all directions depending on the given situation. Somethings, you can or may want to fix, and some things you can't or may not want to fix because the price is too high.

If you're trying to have an intersectionalism based worldview, then the extreme-left starting point, quite frankly, is just fail IMO.

Fair enough - I wasn't trying to claim that kyriarchy theory is nothing more than marxism, more like marxism plus critical theory plus the kitchen sink plus hair balls -- i.e., it's the 'internalized class-consciousness" extended to include every other "internalized" axis of privilege/oppression -- key point being the impossibility of transcending these structures (without the help of your friendly local kyriarchy plumber - i.e., Crommunist, Setar, or Ceepolk).

From the wiki on kyriarchy:

'Schüssler Fiorenza (2009) describes interdependent "stratifications of gender, race, class, religion, heterosexualism, and age" as structural positions assigned at birth. She suggests that people inhabit several positions, and that positions with privilege become nodal points through which other positions are experienced."'

Well, no duh. It's commonsensical and not even wrong. What are you doing, in real life, when you have an "intersectionalism based worldview?" Ideally, you're trying to be a decent and empathetic person who isn't blind to the fact that people are different and face varying challenges, privileges, obstacles, and opportunities, based on innumerable factors. In which case everyone who isn't a clueless asshole is already an expert, for all practical purposes, on kyriarchy theory. When applied by SJWs, the "intersectionalism based worldview" seems to involve an obsession with focusing exclusively on perceived, sometimes invented, dominance/oppression dynamics in every situation, which leads to ... A+. Paradoxically, the absolute domination of the "global moderators" is never to be questioned.

The reason I brought up marxism is that it seems like the way kyriarchy theory is applied in the skeptical movement is by pressing for an intellectual "dictatorship of the disprivileged" (the new proletariat - now with more genderqueer and less white male class-consciousness!).

tl;dr: Thus proving your point -- that the extreme-left approach to intersectionality is a fail.

[Lsuoma]

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Good point on Mabus, however wasn't the other user allowed to return on another account once it was made clear s/h/it's behaviour was unacceptable? My memory could be faulty on that, it is on most things.

Yeah, you're right - faulty memory on my part. I offered to allow that person to return with another account provided they made it clear that they fessed up and identified their RL name. They chose not to, and I think I would have made the same decision.

On a more board-tech related note lsuoma, i seem to recall that after posting a response to another user, the UI would ping you back to the post you were responding to, rather than the last comment on the board? (again false memory disclaimer) If so could that be re-instated? If not, is it possible?

I don't ever remember it doing that.

[LMU]

Ah I see you've confused me with the tameless Dick Strawkins.

Wrong stick entirely I'm afraid. No forgiveness necessary.

I would like to hand in my membership to the Slyme Pit effective immediately

I am obviously too thick to continue, I have obviously been reading about the Baboons for too long and it has taken it's toll

:confusion-helpsos:

Well we'd be sad to see you go, but you may be eligible to debate Svan. Any interest? :mrgreen:

[LMU]

The reason I have been reluctant to disclose why I banned Eucliwood is that to give what I regard as a fair explanation of my action would require disclosure of personal information. Eucliwood has sent me four emails since the ban, including one giving me permission to publish this information.

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

You may note that I am using the pronoun "her" to refer to Eucliwood. This is because for purposes of this discussion, I am taking at face value Eucliwood's claim to be a female minor. This is axiomatic in my reasoning: I can't afford to be wrong about this.

It's 07.19 where I am: I expect to be checked out of my hotel and home by around midday, and to have made all the necessary board changes by 14.00 local time.

I'm trying to be as fair and open as I feel I safely can, and if the facts I have can be demonstrated to be wrong, I may change my mind about the ban. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Your capricious host, Lsuoma.

After watching the A+ forum for so long, that a mod would make such an effort to be fair is shocking. :shock:

For the record I vote for not banning anyone unless it is absolutely necessary, but I shall trust your judgement on when that might be.

[lurking coward]

Atheismplus.
Last 15 days = 38 new subscribers.
How many of those are banned users signing in under new sock accounts?

Oops. Make that 18 days.

I don't know what the number of subscribers really means. It seems to me that their forums generally have at most 6 active participants (usually all the same ones) and usually half of them are mods.

Some are probably just signing on so they can see more info about the mods. Or something.

I don't really see them as a significant faction. It is kinda interesitng however to be able to sort of eavesdrop on a cult like this. You know, without having to worry about being forced to drink lethal Kool Aide and stuff. :popcorn:

[jjbinx007]

Re: Eucliwood,

After following some breadcrumbs that Renee just dropped I've had a look and it's my judgement that she is who she says she is (reasons: her Facebook account was setup 2 years ago and Youtube is full of comments on vids that teenage girls would watch). It's also possible that it's a fake online identity set up by some dude, of course.

Eucliwood also strikes me as having "issues". But does that mean she shouldn't have the right to post here? In my view, she should have the right. The Slymepit is NOT atheismplus and it's not Freethoughtblogs. That means we should give someone the right to speak even if we disagree with much of what they say. It also gives us the right to reply to that person if we think they're talking a load of shit.

So my vote is let Eucliwood back unless she posts something which could result in legal action against you. If she does, ban her.

[jjbinx007]

And for the record, Eucliwood irritates the shit out of me.

[jjbinx007]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

[d4m10n]

The schism isnt going to be healed because it has jack shit to do with atheism/feminism/skepticism/etc, thus no amount of discussion, however reasonable, about atheism/feminism/skepticism is going to 'heal' it.

Its "You were mean to my friend, so I dont like you." "You called Rebecca a bitch!" "You warned Jen she was going to turn into a loser!" "You are mad that Greta bought shoes!"

Its personal vendettas using 'causes' as a shield.

A shield, a sword, a forward-operating base, and a recruitment campaign for fresh volunteers back on the home front.

I have to agree that much of what has been happening (at the level of public speakers and popular bloggers like yourself) is being driven by longstanding personal alliances and vendettas. However, it seems to me that the troops in the trenches have been volunteering for duty and taking sides based on who puts out the most appealing propaganda campaign promoting and explaining their cause.

One side offers a sort of pre-utopian narrative of self-righteous feminist fury crusading against the evil monopod-wielding cis-privileged women-harassing rape-apologists intent upon reducing an entire gender to nothing but fuck toys and eye candy. This approach is designed to appeal to young lefty keyboard revolutionaries looking to smash some sort of oppressive system, the sort of folk who could have camped out with Occupy but for the unpleasant fact of winter chill.

The other side has hilarious videos making fun of the authoritarian posturing of their opponents, along with the only truly safe-space for applying genuine skepticism to the various claims of feminism.

It is obvious to me who will eventually win this struggle among skeptics. Atheists, however, are another matter entirely. Many of them got to where they are without ever learning how to do skepticism in general (“Dude, have you seen Zeitgeist?”) and remain susceptible to being manipulated by clever rhetoricians.

[LMU]

Re: Eucliwood,

...

So my vote is let Eucliwood back unless she posts something which could result in legal action against you. If she does, ban her.

I think that's exactly the concern. I am not a lawyer, but (IIRC) Lsuoma said that he had a relative who is that he consulted, and they said that there might be issues. It sounds like Lsuoma came across something additional that lead him to believe that banning was prudent.

[Lsuoma]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.

I'll be posting caps when I make my post later.

[jjbinx007]

I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.

Indeed. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place right now.

[Scented Nectar]

Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)

"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."

Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?

Now then, let's try...
"The Matriarchy hurts womenz too." Yep, feminists try to run other women's sex lives, telling them they are not consenting when the woman knows damn well she was. Eg; drunk sex being said to always be rape. Another eg: Willing workers in the sex industry (dancing, prostitution, porn acting, phone sex operators, etc) are told by many feminists that they are raped every time they do their job.

Feminists want to control other people's sexual transaction choices. Some consider all sex with men rape, but outside of those ones, even moderate radfems try and control the transaction choice. If you are trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure, they are fine with that. If you are trading sexual pleasure for a promise of monogamy, they are fine with that. However, a fun drinking night ending in a fun one night stand of trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure? Nope! Rape rape! Even though he was drunk too, they won't say the woman raped the man, but if she was drunk (and I don't mean passed out), it get's called rape. Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better. She needs rescuing. Same story for sex work. Most feminists believe there is no way to consent to sex work, so it is all rape. Even if a woman carefully draws up her business plan, advertises and runs everything herself. Nope, she was raped. Sex for money transaction not allowed, unless it's in the form of already bought items, such as wedding rings, expensive dinners, a house, car, etc. Cash itself MAY be acceptable only in the form of financial support or allowance IF she is also living with him.

[Lsuoma]

I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.

Indeed. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place right now.

I am. BTW, the information I'll be sharing is open for discussion, but the decision to ban rests solely with me. I value the opinion of many here, which is why I've decided to share the information now that Eucliwood has given explicit permission, and it can't be considered doc dropping.

[Scented Nectar]

Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)

Personally I don't much care for that reversal of the sexes thing, the Mrs. never uses enough lube. :shock:

Hahahahaha!!!!

There are some areas where too much lube is way better than not enough! :D

[Scented Nectar]

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

Funny you should mention that, i was somewhat put out(read amused) to read a trans* friend of ben svan's threatening to come at CiS guys with a pickaxe handle, and suggest to metalogic that he place his balls in a vice.
So i tweeted by way of return 'trans* don't do that'
I think it has killed my account, 24hrs and still 'suspended.' At a guess for 'transphobia'.
The iota this bothers me was caught up in a draught and is now floating around the room with the other dust mites, the account was created simply to engage. It is indicative of the remarkable double standard of the Indolent Hand-wringers behaviour though.
Bonus points for actually giving me time to catch up on my tax returns and start my blog though.

:lol:
Oh no, they don't like any other variations of "...'s don't do that"s. Only men have to yield as a group to the authority of another group, (radfem women and male lackeys). Saying "don't do that" to the wrong group is a cardinal sin. :D

[Scented Nectar]

Adressing premise 2: If an ordinary event [let's be honest, we are talking about EGate here] was recounted by a man, you would not question it. But we would question it! We'd be giving that man (Mr. Watson) a lot of shit for publicly slut-shaming the woman who offered him coffee in the elevator. By saying to women, gals don't do that, he is slut-shaming women for their right to be sexual beings. Elevator Gal did not harass the man. She politely offered coffee, probably hoping for sex too, but she accepted his "no" with no fuss. Zero harm happened to Mr Watson. Maybe he has some personal hangups against women who make the first move and he thinks they are slutty, or maybe he is uncomfortable with pickups when they are by women he considers unattractive, but he shouldn't try and make others conform to his individual preferences by making policies against it ("uninvited sexual talk" would have gotten EGal kicked out of the conference if that conference had had a policy).

Conclusion: Ms/Mr Watson creep-shamed/slut-shamed Elevator Guy/Gal.

OHMYGOD

I know, eh? I think this means that we are supposed to pre-report Watson to every conference for her sexist behaviour at previous conferences. What would Melody do? :D

[Gefan]

Now, remember my prediction here.

Everyone knew that Melody Hensley, et. al. would put out feelers to determine the best way to block your attendance, even thought it would be the stupidest thing they could do. They just can't help being petty.

Now that you have met your goal, they will still block your attendance but in a way to

1. Maximize drama, playing victim and working the threat narrative.

2. Block you at the door, metaphorically if not literally (see #1). This will also serve to waste your time and cause you to expend funds. The goal, being petty, would not be served by turning you away before you left. This way you get all the time, trouble, expense, the TSA anal search, bad airplane food, lost luggage, a big freaking hole in your wallet and get turned away regardless.

Place your bets.

I'm picturing Melody as George Wallace standing in the University of Alabama doorway. Those of you with greater photoshop skills than me (which is basically everyone), you're welcome.

[AbsurdWalls]

Mykeru, forgive me, I didn't fully understand how your file problem unfolded, but I think I have an inkling of what might have occurred.

Video editor files normally come in two flavours - one with embedded footage, the other as a container for external footage which is merely referenced and not saved as an internal copy. This second type helps to save on storage, but if any of the external material gets edited, the container files are affected as well.

I hope this helps.

Normally Magix Movie Edit Pro saves as an .MPV file, which is a container that links to external files. Often when it can't find the external file it will prompt to locate it. This is something different, perhaps related to having more than one editing widow open.

I did a video capture off a Google Earth sequence and loaded it in a seperate window to reverse it, outside the main editing. When the main was saved, it saved the whole kit and caboodle as this clip. It's some weird thing with saving conventions. I've noticed that magic carries over file labels in a way that is inexplicable. For instance, I would often, in the older version, open my title sequence (myk_ani_sequence) and add stuff to it then save it under a different name (Decius_fucks_goats.mvp). This wasn't a problem, but in the new version of the program it tends to carry over that label "myk_ani_sequence" regardless of what I save it as.

It's weird. I will figure it out some day.

The actual trick is to get in and out doing a video, because if something takes more than a few days, disaster tends to follow.

I use open-source graphing software (xmgrace) that has this bug. I have a whole bunch of rituals I go through whenever I open it, whenever I fork a file, etc. otherwise it will eat work. I can usually recover from the previous version when that happens, but it is such a pig to use that I want to avoid that whenever possible.

It's still the best graphing software I have found though.

[Scented Nectar]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

[katamari Damassi]

I think that's why PZ was able to mention that he's had women plus one gay man try to pick him up at conferences and no one said boo to that. That would have been slut shaming the women or gays, and they knew it. Yet they have opposite rules when the sexes are flipped and it's a man offering sex to a woman. Then the man becomes a potential rapist and/or creep.

Someone solicited sex from PZ Myers? Do you think they were attracted to his rugged good looks, his white hot charisma, or his charming personality?

Wait. Were these prostitutes?

[Apples]

It is obvious to me who will eventually win this struggle among skeptics. Atheists, however, are another matter entirely. Many of them got to where they are without ever learning how to do skepticism in general (“Dude, have you seen Zeitgeist?”) and remain susceptible to being manipulated by clever rhetoricians.

QFT and many good points above it. Fuck PZ.

[windy]

Yes, I am a proud Norwegian. Viking power and death to the Swedes and all that :mrgreen:

Have you been following the recent Sweden vs. Norway journalistic catfight? The way the labels "racist" or "extreme right" are thrown around has some interesting parallels to the labeling of "MRAs" and "sexists" in the skeptical community... I thought this was a good response:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/artik ... d=10113487

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

That sounds fair. I get your concern, but banning someone for undisclosed reasons seemed too contrary to the spirit of the 'pit.

[Lsuoma]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

I agree with this last paragraph entirely, but I think the latter: if she's trying entrapment, she's fucking shit at it.

[jjbinx007]

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

Perhaps a compromise can be achieved - ban her until she turns 18.

[Lsuoma]

When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.

That sounds fair. I get your concern, but banning someone for undisclosed reasons seemed too contrary to the spirit of the 'pit.

Exactly why I am glad, given permission, to be able to publish personal details explaining my reasons.

[Scented Nectar]

I think that's why PZ was able to mention that he's had women plus one gay man try to pick him up at conferences and no one said boo to that. That would have been slut shaming the women or gays, and they knew it. Yet they have opposite rules when the sexes are flipped and it's a man offering sex to a woman. Then the man becomes a potential rapist and/or creep.

Someone solicited sex from PZ Myers? Do you think they were attracted to his rugged good looks, his white hot charisma, or his charming personality?

Wait. Were these prostitutes?

Well, so PZ claims, anyways. He said a number of women and even a man has come on to him at conferences. As for the prostitutes, he's probably on a banned blacklist of clients. "Avoid this guy. he wants you to don a blue wig and then...[ :shock: ]...which should cost a fortune, right? But then he won't pay even a basic rate, says he's waiting to strike it rich in the blogosphere and he'll get back to you. Blacklist Rating: nutter and thief"

[Cunning Punt]

The fundraiser launched to help send me to the upcoming Women in Secularism 2 conference has reached its goal thanks to 24 generous donors who, in total, contributed $1500 with 28 days remaining for the project!

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... -goal-met/

Thanks to all of those whom Stephanie Zvan apparently wants me to renounce...helping to send the 'wrong man' to the Women in Secularism 2 conference can surely now be added to list of horrible things about this community/forum.

Now, remember my prediction here.

Everyone knew that Melody Hensley, et. al. would put out feelers to determine the best way to block your attendance, even thought it would be the stupidest thing they could do. They just can't help being petty.

Now that you have met your goal, they will still block your attendance but in a way to

1. Maximize drama, playing victim and working the threat narrative.

2. Block you at the door, metaphorically if not literally (see #1). This will also serve to waste your time and cause you to expend funds. The goal, being petty, would not be served by turning you away before you left. This way you get all the time, trouble, expense, the TSA anal search, bad airplane food, lost luggage, a big freaking hole in your wallet and get turned away regardless.

Place your bets.

Justin, get legal advice, make sure you have Ron Lindsay's agreement that you should be able to attend, and maybe get his cell #.

And lose the 'stache :twisted:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=249

[jimthepleb]

I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.

Indeed. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place right now.

I am. BTW, the information I'll be sharing is open for discussion, but the decision to ban rests solely with me. I value the opinion of many here, which is why I've decided to share the information now that Eucliwood has given explicit permission, and it can't be considered doc dropping.

If Eucliwoo-woo is a minor can she 'give explicit permission' without the intervention of her parents?

[jjbinx007]

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

[Submariner]

Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)

"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."

Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?

Now then, let's try...
"The Matriarchy hurts womenz too." Yep, feminists try to run other women's sex lives, telling them they are not consenting when the woman knows damn well she was. Eg; drunk sex being said to always be rape. Another eg: Willing workers in the sex industry (dancing, prostitution, porn acting, phone sex operators, etc) are told by many feminists that they are raped every time they do their job.

Feminists want to control other people's sexual transaction choices. Some consider all sex with men rape, but outside of those ones, even moderate radfems try and control the transaction choice. If you are trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure, they are fine with that. If you are trading sexual pleasure for a promise of monogamy, they are fine with that. However, a fun drinking night ending in a fun one night stand of trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure? Nope! Rape rape! Even though he was drunk too, they won't say the woman raped the man, but if she was drunk (and I don't mean passed out), it get's called rape. Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better. She needs rescuing. Same story for sex work. Most feminists believe there is no way to consent to sex work, so it is all rape. Even if a woman carefully draws up her business plan, advertises and runs everything herself. Nope, she was raped. Sex for money transaction not allowed, unless it's in the form of already bought items, such as wedding rings, expensive dinners, a house, car, etc. Cash itself MAY be acceptable only in the form of financial support or allowance IF she is also living with him.

Preach it Sister!

ummm-hmmm

[another lurker]

Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)

"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."

Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?

Bolded mine. That's the thing, and this is how I believe the FTBers manage to sucker in noobies such as myself. As a casual reader/poster at FTB, I just assumed that they were talking about the REAL PATRIARCHY and not the imaginary conspiracy one. So, when they said horrible things about MRA's and the Slymepit, I once again, wrongly assumed, that the pit and MRA's were *suppporting* misogynist fucks like Rick Santorum and Todd Akin. The thing is, since they lump anyone who disagrees with them into the same basket, it's really difficult to discern truth from propaganda unless you look deeper. So yeah, I was an 'unquestioning' supporter, at the start, b/c who *would* want to take away women's rights, or subjugate anyone who is not a cis-white-male?

Now if only more people would visit the pit, and see that it's a nice place...

And in the end I do think that they will burn themselves out. They are too hostile to newcomers, and their 'movement' will only shrink, not grow. I also suspect that in the broader spectrum, most modern 'feminists', are more likely to be funfems than radfems. Millenials want to enjoy sex, and enjoy men, not sit in a corner hating everyone who says bad words!

[Angry_Drunk]

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.

[jimthepleb]

<---- I got it back....now leave it alone!
Damn I am far more handsome than I remember!

[Parge]

...

They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).

The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter are that the person renounce the slymepit, and as a result no longer be considered a slymepitter. The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter is if they weren't a slymepitter. Therefore there are no terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter.

I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.

Mind you, I'm not advocating abandoning this little klatch of ours. I'm just trying to nip any optimism in the bud. You can't really clean up this mess. You're better off putting a fence around it and warning other people away.

[Lsuoma]

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.

And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.

[Lsuoma]

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.

And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.

To convince me to rescind the ban.

[jimthepleb]

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.

And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.

repeating my previous question lsuoma, can a minor give permission to release her info without her parents say so?
I've stayed out of this brouhaha until now, but it's beginning to look like she is some sort of agent provocateur.

[Submariner]

I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.

The point that they often make to the "privileged" yet refuse to see in themselves, is that if one views the world through a particular lens (biblical glasses?) then every piece of evidence, every innocuous post, every uttered thought not polarized in the same direction appears to that person as a validation of their worldview.

[UnbelieveSteve]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

I just found it too. I think i'll steer clear of her if she returns. Block/ignore whatever it takes. She a fucken weird one.

[Reap]

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/canuckchio.jpg

[acathode]

Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better.

The fucking scary thing is that you're not hyperbolic, this is actually how some of them thing and reason:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/201 ... mment-4765

Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head. I mean, common...

Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).

Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)

Was it ever determined that that was oolon? IIRC that same person posted a couple of really bad jokes about domestic violence. It reeked set up from the beginning.

No, I know who it was and had an email discussion with them about it. I genuinely believe it was a mistake on their part, but I could be wrong. Definitely not colon. He DOWNloaded it.

There were some other really sketchy shit going on with Oolon though, like the completely new poster who shortly after Oolon joined and started poster here showed up and after 3-4 posts went and doxxed Oolon (iirc from Oolons website/domainname info). IIRC though, you said that there was nothing linking the account with Oolon's, but in my book still sketchy as fuck.

[Mykeru]

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.

And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.

Why are you agonizing over this?

You have a person who came in here posting in either an intentionally annoying and obsessive manner who then claims to be an underage girl who solicited dick pictures and sent weirdo slash/fic to someone so they could point to the weirdos the Pit houses, and then threatened to get the pedo-cops after anyone who didn't kiss their child/troll ass.

We have had enough people come in here with "What say to a woman with a black eye" crap, obviously intending to plant something in the forum that can be used to smear the membership in general. My first impression was that Eucli was intentionally trying to get themselves banned for serial spamming so they could run off and make a claim that The Pit was just as ban-happy as the Atheism Plus Forum.

This person did that and more. S/h/it pushed every botton it could reach.

Considering that being banned from this forum is nearly impossible, to me, makes the decision to actually ban someone when they have not only crossed the line from several direction, but pretty much circled the globe to cross it again, that much easier.

If you don't want to be the "bad guy" in this you can blame me. If s/h/it asked who did it just say, in time honored fashion, that I was to blame...

"Because he's the asshole The Pit deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Mykeru."

[Cue Hans Zimmer]

[Apples]

Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head.

My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
OMG men make women bleeeeeed by forcing them to shave their legs!!!!

[lurking coward]

One of the most surreal exchanges I observed over at the A+sylum was where a creature called "Simpleflower" apparently misappropriated 'hugs' intended for another loon... er uh... marginalized being.

That Simpleflower is a real piece of work. She(?) describes herself as an "Autism Supremacist" and said that "super empathic autistics" such as herself were the "next step in evolution". In other words. The current strain of homo sapiens will be replaced with homo autisticus empathicus. The hilarious thing is howver this 'super empath' completely dismissed fellow loon "Kasianne" as not part of this evolutionary cutting edge and hence destined to go the way of the Dodo, and did so without irony. What empathy, lol!

Anyway, I wonder if any of the self described autistics over there have ever actually been diagnosed with the condition, or if it is just an attempt to make some claim to being "oppressed" or "marginalized". It's really weird; they talk about autistics over there like they're a race; autism identity politics. What a concept.

But I digress...

[LMU]

...

They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).

The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter are that the person renounce the slymepit, and as a result no longer be considered a slymepitter. The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter is if they weren't a slymepitter. Therefore there are no terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter.

I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.

Mind you, I'm not advocating abandoning this little klatch of ours. I'm just trying to nip any optimism in the bud. You can't really clean up this mess. You're better off putting a fence around it and warning other people away.

Bolding mine. I think that's sort of the goal of interacting with them. Assume you never posted on A+, what do you learn about A+ers when you look at the various arguments on A+ leading to bans and suspensions? You might learn that they are horrible to well meaning people for no good reason, and that you want as little to do with them as possible. How can we do this with baboons in general? Show up to interact with them, be as reasonable as possible, and let them be themselves.

[Submariner]

From PZ's latest :http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -skeptics/

Stop right there! That’s exactly what I mean! Atheism deals with empirical claims and the promotion of science. It’s what we do. Look at Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris and even me, although I’m not trying to rank myself in their same category: we talk and write about how religious claims fail to meet even the most minimal standards of evidence, how they fail to support their grandiose promises, how they cause harm and suffering to people. Seriously, you could take my last sentence and replace “religious claims” with “alt-med claims”, and you should be able to see that we’re doing exactly the same thing with different targets.

Hasn't it always been said that

science makes no comment on the supernatural

- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.

[Gefan]

My first impression of The Woo as also that "she" was, for whatever reason, trying to see what it would take to get banned.
As to what to do about her now, I don't have an opinion because:
a) I don't have all the facts that Lsuoma does.
b) It's not my board, I don't have skin in the game.
c) It's not me going to be getting a visit from the Party Van if we're dealing with an actual entrapment / crazed minor situation.
Lsuoma seems to be acting with responsibility and prudence. Let's step back and wait to see how it all shakes out.

[Mykeru]

From PZ's latest :http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -skeptics/

Stop right there! That’s exactly what I mean! Atheism deals with empirical claims and the promotion of science. It’s what we do. Look at Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris and even me, although I’m not trying to rank myself in their same category: we talk and write about how religious claims fail to meet even the most minimal standards of evidence, how they fail to support their grandiose promises, how they cause harm and suffering to people. Seriously, you could take my last sentence and replace “religious claims” with “alt-med claims”, and you should be able to see that we’re doing exactly the same thing with different targets.

Hasn't it always been said that

science makes no comment on the supernatural

- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.

At first I was annoyed, but considering that's an attempt at the ever-expansive blob-like definition of atheism from the most non-critical atheist around, I will just be amused.

[Lsuoma]

So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.

[Submariner]

My first impression of The Woo as also that "she" was, for whatever reason, trying to see what it would take to get banned.
As to what to do about her now, I don't have an opinion because:
a) I don't have all the facts that Lsuoma does.
b) It's not my board, I don't have skin in the game.
c) It's not me going to be getting a visit from the Party Van if we're dealing with an actual entrapment / crazed minor situation.
Lsuoma seems to be acting with responsibility and prudence. Let's step back and wait to see how it all shakes out.

I thought we were an autonomous collective....

[youtube]-8bqQ-C1PSE[/youtube]

[Mykeru]

We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?

[Reap]

To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.

How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.

Exactly.

[Mykeru]

To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.

How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.

Exactly.

Fuck you, assbag.

[AbsurdWalls]

So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.

I'm obviously curious as hell to find out what happened, but I trust whatever caused you to make this decision is good enough reason. I do wonder whether we will end up seeing her rejoin under a new name (especially if she's savvy enough to cover her tracks).