It's a fair point though. I've spent hours looking for pictures of titties on the internet. PM me if you want details of the super secret websites I have found where one can view a nip or two.John Greg wrote:So, Yemministyfisty says:
Chrsit. She's thicker than a bag of bricks and dumb as a hammer, I think she honestly is completely unaware of what the points regarding her doing exactly the same kind of censorship that the semi-nude picture is supposed to be criticising is all about. I think she honestly feel that folks are complaining only because they do not have a set of boobs to look at.My blog is not a playing pit for adults with a sense of entitlement to tits.
Stupid as a dead cat.
Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
-
- .
- Posts: 6555
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
*shrug* I'm assuming it's just a coincidence.Pitchguest wrote:Wait. Near Earth Object? Paul Fidalgo? :confusion-confused:
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I can't tell if that's meant for me or for the article itself.AndrewV69 wrote:Metalogic42 wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/wh ... of-shezow/
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:It's a fair point though. I've spent hours looking for pictures of titties on the internet. PM me if you want details of the super secret websites I have found where one can view a nip or two.John Greg wrote:So, Yemministyfisty says:
Chrsit. She's thicker than a bag of bricks and dumb as a hammer, I think she honestly is completely unaware of what the points regarding her doing exactly the same kind of censorship that the semi-nude picture is supposed to be criticising is all about. I think she honestly feel that folks are complaining only because they do not have a set of boobs to look at.My blog is not a playing pit for adults with a sense of entitlement to tits.
Stupid as a dead cat.
Could she really? I am having a hard time thinking that it would not have sunk in by now. I dunno man. Possibly what happened is she did not notice what was happening at the time and/or she got the blurred image from a mainstream site.
Next, someone points out the image is incongruous to the point, and rather than owning up to it ... well the rest is history now.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
For me actually. Just like I stopped calling myself a feminist, I can see myself eventually doing the same about being a MRA at some point ...Metalogic42 wrote:I can't tell if that's meant for me or for the article itself.AndrewV69 wrote:Metalogic42 wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/wh ... of-shezow/
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Aunt Ophelia might have the cat factor, but she isn't calculated and cruel, and sadistic enough, but Zvan actually appears to have those characteristics.John Greg wrote:Well, ya. That's what I started calling Ophie about a year or so ago because of her penchant for recasting the words and intent of anyone she disagreed with. But it got too long to keep typing, Ophelia Umbrage, or Ophelia Delores Benson, etc.Stephanie Zvan lately reminded me of Dolores Umbridge of the book version of Harry Potter.
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Humanism has always been good enough for me, you should try that out.AndrewV69 wrote:For me actually. Just like I stopped calling myself a feminist, I can see myself eventually doing the same about being a MRA at some point ...Metalogic42 wrote:I can't tell if that's meant for me or for the article itself.AndrewV69 wrote:Metalogic42 wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/wh ... of-shezow/
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Huh. Myers doesn't know the difference between a review and a book report.
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
-
- .
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I noticed that too. I figure we can delete anyone from the list who contacts us to retract their name (FB page and email are at bottom). Since we're not requiring birth certificates and social security numbers we'll just have to do it retroactively.Jack wrote:On the http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement sign list is a certain 'Ophelia Benson'
Hmmm.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I assume that is whoever is behind the Twitter accounts "@OpheliaBenson_" and "@OpheIiaBenson". The parodies are fine on Twitter, but as a signature on the statement, someone might actually mistake it for the real thing; and parodies signing it artificially inflate the numbers anyway. I hope this signature is removed.Jack wrote:On the http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement sign list is a certain 'Ophelia Benson'
Hmmm.
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Shame? In the immortal words of King Leonidas, "pray they're that stupid."John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Hey, at least you're getting named as a harasser on twitter. I just suggested we'd all get turned on by the image of Rebecca Watson on fire and haven't gotten a fucking peep out of those miserable bastards.Mykeru wrote: GOD DAMN IT! As far as I know there's only one person who consistently refers to Ophelia Benson as "Oafie" on Twitter, and that person is ME.
Fuck, once again, I'm leading the way in being a truly reprehensible human being and someone else gets all the credit. It's Reap's photoshops all over again.
This is really beginning to porcupine my stink-hole.
Currently my hypothesis is along these lines:
Individual's prominence (and potential of their name to generate publicity) x seriousness of their "offense" = Baboon Batshit Freakout (BBF - measured in Surlyamys per hour)
Examples:
Ron Lyndsay (Head of CFI) x Brief, mild suggestion that dogmatic feminism should be subject to skepticism by self-described skeptics = attempted public lynching
Mykeru (Slymepit's Adam Curtis impersonator and Twitter ninja) x Calling Ophelia Benson names = mention in dispatches from Baboon GHQ
Gefan (who?) x suggesting the Slymepit would attain a collective hard-on / wide-on at the image of Rebecca Watson of in flames = sound of crickets.
[Shakes fist] I'm not quitting you fuckers!
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 8006_n.jpgAneris wrote: Stephanie Zvan lately reminded me of Dolores Umbridge of the book version of Harry Potter.... she probably appears a bit more like a female version of Karl Rove.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
interesting.Gefan wrote:
Hey, at least you're getting named as a harasser on twitter. I just suggested we'd all get turned on by the image of Rebecca Watson on fire and haven't gotten a fucking peep out of those miserable bastards.
Currently my hypothesis is along these lines:
Individual's prominence (and potential of their name to generate publicity) x seriousness of their "offense"
I was sure they were going to make a scene about it, more like a "look what the pitters advocate!", than focusing on you specifically.
franc's "self-immolation" comment (quite a while ago) caused an uproar, and that was a much more benign comment in my opinion.
Personally I thought your comment was funny,
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I think Skep Tickle should ask her politely, and straight, via mail she has. Something like: Hello, I have seen your name on this petition. We are unsure if this was really signed by you, could you please confirm. If I do not hear from you, we remove it in three days. If you state it wasn't from you, we remove it immediately and make sure your name stays off. Something like that.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
-
- .
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
That looks good to me, if Skep would be so kind.Aneris wrote:I think Skep Tickle should ask her politely, and straight, via mail she has. Something like: Hello, I have seen your name on this petition. We are unsure if this was really signed by you, could you please confirm. If I do not hear from you, we remove it in three days. If you state it wasn't from you, we remove it immediately and make sure your name stays off. Something like that.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
And you don't think that she would immediately yell: "Unsolicited contact! Harrassment!"curriejean wrote:That looks good to me, if Skep would be so kind.Aneris wrote:I think Skep Tickle should ask her politely, and straight, via mail she has. Something like: Hello, I have seen your name on this petition. We are unsure if this was really signed by you, could you please confirm. If I do not hear from you, we remove it in three days. If you state it wasn't from you, we remove it immediately and make sure your name stays off. Something like that.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
That's what she claims are @tweeting her amounts to.
Monitor the IPs and if unverified signatures like this appear from locations far from their likely vicinity it's safer to simply remove them from the list.
Don't make it an active process where Ophelia has to contact you - she is bound to claim it as harrassment.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Steersman wrote:That was probably in reference to Jason’s suggestion (#31) that racism and sexism directed against Richard Dawkins doesn’t count because, well, “Patriarchyâ€. Same sort of mental fiddle that allows people to cheat the government and businesses and insurance companies. But I had been planning on asking him if thought, analogously, that the murder of a white person was less odious than the murder of a black person because of the history of slavery in the US.Pitchguest wrote:Accidentally posted this at another thread. Anyway, this in moderation over at Lousy's:
"Using the dictionary definition of words, are you, Jason?
<snip>
You fucking clownshoe."
And while it’s his blog of course, that he and others have such a restrictive commenting policy really only gives the lie to the claim of “freethoughtâ€.
Businesses (some), the Government (especially) and Insurance companies (by default) are fair game for cheating IMHO....the fuckers. Swings and roundabouts and all that.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I agree with you that whoever can do it, checks the IP and makes an educated guess before anything else. But then I believe in the priciple of treating people like they are capable adults. If Skep Tickle writes her, she can already see from where it is coming, and doesn't have to open the mail. If she reads it, she can still just sit back and it goes in her interest. And should she really publicize it on her page of harassment... well, I don't think it helps her in any way (or harms Skeppers).Dick Strawkins wrote:And you don't think that she would immediately yell: "Unsolicited contact! Harrassment!"
That's what she claims are @tweeting her amounts to.
Monitor the IPs and if unverified signatures like this appear from locations far from their likely vicinity it's safer to simply remove them from the list.
Don't make it an active process where Ophelia has to contact you - she is bound to claim it as harrassment.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Yeah, I didn't see it as discrimination either - it's just targetting the most likely group at this point for that particular cancer. I did notice though when looking it up that it was only approved (in NZ) for men between 4-26 - see http://www.hpv.org.nz/patient/hpv_vaccine.htm#whoDick Strawkins wrote:I think that article was mostly fair.ReneeHendricks wrote:Yeah, yeah. I know a majority of you aren't keen on AVfM. However, there is a recent post put out there I find extremely interesting. The menz and those with male-type children might also be very interested in reading this - http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-he ... kills-men/.
I bring this up because this is *exactly* the kind of cancer my guy just dealt with.
I wouldn't, however, conclude that the fact that Gardasil is only routinely offered to girls is a form of discrimination against men. Immunization against HPV is relatively new in medical terms and as such they are likely to begin with the group most at risk (in which case it is females, who are at risk of HPV related cervical cancer.) Remember, women, like men, are at risk for HPV associated throat cancers but it's not those that the Gardasil is meant to prevent. But the vaccine is a good preventative for many HPV related tumors.
So yes, Gardasil should be offered for all children, regardless of sex.
Who should be vaccinated and when?
Gardasil is licensed for females between 9 and 45 years and males between 9 and 26 years, ideally prior to starting sexual activity and therefore before being exposed to the virus.
Not quite sure why that is.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Absolute douchebag power corrupts douchebags absolutely.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Nope! :snooty:Aneris wrote:I think Skep Tickle should ask her politely, and straight, via mail she has. Something like: Hello, I have seen your name on this petition. We are unsure if this was really signed by you, could you please confirm. If I do not hear from you, we remove it in three days. If you state it wasn't from you, we remove it immediately and make sure your name stays off. Something like that.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
1) It sounds like a reasonable idea, but my contacting her for ANY reason will be seen as harassment. The internet will run out of space as she puts up multiple new posts about me, and about how awful I was to mention the possibility of that she might consider getting help for possible paranoia.
2) Not my problem. ;) Anyone can post any name, I think (should I not have pointed that out?); will I be contacting Stephanie Zvan and Greta Christina? PZ's wife? Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann next? Where does it end???
If certain names or types of names are going to be a problem, the petition overseer will need to consider some mini-policy on how to deal w/ them. Probably best not to leave OFB up but I don't have a great solution for what to do w/ it & similar "signatures" that might come in.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Ophelia F Benson is most probably "Ophelia F'ing Benson", aka @OpheliaBenson_
I would delete the signature anyway, why would Benson sign this letter?
I would delete the signature anyway, why would Benson sign this letter?
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Svan attacks the slymepit again:
I guess her doxxing action is beginning to hit home.
I guess her doxxing action is beginning to hit home.
http://www.freezepage.com/1370416649BAYKMKAMHRI am ever so helpfully informed sometimes that I shouldn’t complain about the kind of crap that gets posted about me at the slime pit. After all, these self-described rational people say, I don’t have to go there to see it.
Then things like this happen:
How lovely. Your “healing the rift†effort required a sharing of email addresses at least one of which has been distributed to Ophelia Benson, who, as I type this, is gleefully doxxing an atheist woman who’s not ‘out’ in her real-life community.
And this:
You replied to a different email address than the one Skeptickle usually posts here with. She hasn’t used the one you emailed for on this blog for approximately a year. Why did you reply to her with that email address rather than the one she currently uses to post here?
The first was a comment left on Michael Nugent’s blog last week. The second was a comment left for Ophelia on a post documenting the lies of the first comment. Then came this, on my blog:
First, you betrayed a trust. Skep participated in Nugent’s talks in good faith, as did you. You may think that is just fine to break that trust and dishonor that good faith, but you have sent a clear message to anyone who is not already squarely in your camp that you cannot be trusted with sensitive information.
I’d already said in that comment thread that I’d recommended Eliza for the dialogue by name to Michael as someone who served on an atheist group’s board, so this continued insistence that I’d taken her information from the dialogue was bizarre. There was an ongoing insistence from apparent multiple parties that there had been something nefarious done in order to get Eliza’s identity into Ophelia’s hands (there wasn’t), and specifically, that I had used the dialogue process to gain and spread Eliza’s identity.
Funny aside, because this post could use a moment of humor. Know how I found out who Eliza was? One morning, I woke up to a comment that ended, “If you want to discuss it further, face to face, “like a man†so to speak, I think Stephanie or Josh can tell you where you can find me. -Skep tickle (aka skeptixx)†First time anyone called “Skep tickle†or “skeptixx†had left a comment on my blog. I had probably seen “skeptixx†in the Twitter frenzy over the Atheism+ forum. Probably. Maybe.
I was supposed to know who this person was and be able to set up a face-to-face meeting? How? Was this someone I knew in real life? So I did some quick research based on the email and IP addresses, found another comment she’d left under the name “Elizaâ€. When I was done all I knew was that this was some OB-GYN from Seattle who was or had been on her local atheist board. I still didn’t know her. I was halfway through a comment with all that information when I realized Eliza probably didn’t mean it. I deleted it when I realized, but I had almost outed her eight months ago accidentally. Now, I would guess that I was supposed to know that Eliza had moved into the slime pit, but what can I say, I hadn’t had any coffee yet.
Tonight, however, after seeing a pattern in the comments, I had a pretty good idea where to go. Based on the timing of the comments above, I even knew the date I was going for. And lookie what I found from Eliza:
Okay, so let’s just say that Ophelia Benson emails me at an email address* that isn’t the one under which I posted at her site, one which I haven’t used it at FtB in many months (if not a year or so), and in that email addresses me by my professional title & last name, chastising me for my post(s) at her site today.
If that happened, would it be fair game for me to post the content of that email here? (With her email address, and mine, redacted. But without having sought, or gained, her permission to post it.)
*It’s also not the email address I use for communication about the Nugent site…but it IS the email I use for the Slyme pit. Hmmm…
Then just a little further down the page:
I would guess that Stephanie Zvan was Ophelia’s source (but that’s just a guess).
I’d used my full name in communications behind the scenes with Michael Nugent & Monette Richards for Nugent’s atheist/skeptic dialogue site, and know that each of them communicated with Stephanie Zvan about various aspects of the process. I also posted maybe 2-3 times more than a year ago at Stephanie’s site using my real first name and, I think, the email address Ophelia used. (The one I’ve used at FtB for posting since then is long-defunct; I confirmed that before posting her email above. And she didn’t use the email address I’d used for the Nugent effort.)
Seems less likely to have come from remote other posts at FtB, or from PZ’s interactions with the group I belong to that had him give a talk here a couple of months ago.
Just a guess posted to the site that manufactures narratives about me, Ophelia, and a few other people daily. Just a guess posted to the site where, once it’s been said, it will be passed around as the gospel truth no matter what the actual facts of the matter are.
What happens in the pit doesn’t stay there, because the pitters are evangelically anti-us. They don’t just sit around and get their hate on, though they do plenty of that. Once they’ve gotten themselves or each other worked up, they wander around spreading their favorite stories, better to them than the truth.*
Then, if that happens to you and you want to able to demonstrate the origin of the myth, you go to the pit. When you go to the pit, you trip over crap like this:
I’m going to do my bit for the pit pr campaign.
A fact fucking cunt, is, a fat fucking cunt. Insane staffy is a fat fucking cunt.
That’s supposed to be talking about me, in case you hadn’t figured it out. Had Ophelia gone to the pit to check out the weirdness showing up in her comments, this is what she’d have seen:
Regarding Skep Tickle, I am too dense/do not read enough to have seen the alleged subtle outing of you already, but FUCK YEAH. EXPOSE THAT DRIED UP VAGINA TO THE WINDS OF TRUTH, AND WATCH THEM SCOUR AWAY THE DUST OF AGES.
Ahem. Or something.
So, no, we don’t have to go to the pit to be affected by it. The pit comes after us. And if we go to look at how the stories have been cobbled together out of quote mines, failures of reading comprehension, wishful thinking, and long games of telephone, that’s what’s waiting for us. So let’s knock off this “It isn’t harassment if it happens in the pit†nonsense yesterday.
*Okay, one more funny story. Did you know that I my name is a pseudonym? You can totally tell it’s true by the fact that two first-time commenters showed up in the last couple of days to suggest I’d never say what I say if I were using my real name. Or you can go over to the pit and see the idea be proposed, rejected, and retconned into the shape it showed up here. Cute, huh?
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
The safest way to figure out the safest way to interact with Ophelia Benson is to ask yourself:
"What would Justin Vacula do?"
...and then do the fucking opposite.
"What would Justin Vacula do?"
...and then do the fucking opposite.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Whats the safest way to get an edit button? :DDick Strawkins wrote:The safest way to figure out the safest way to interact with Ophelia Benson is to ask yourself:
"What would Justin Vacula do?"
...and then do the fucking opposite.
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
The error in the letter (sent by email) really was minor, but caught my eye right away (emphasis added here):
...but on the other hand maybe some of the other 12 people who signed the letter might want the opportunity to know that it went out with that error and consider with the group whether or not to correct it. You know, 'cuz, like, their signatures are on it.
That's not a reason I spelled out in my post; like I said, it was brief. Really, I knew as I hit submit to the comment (which is, surprise surprise, still in moderation) that she probably would not be inclined to accept it as a heads up, but instead a slam.
So, now: Should I bother pointing out the (IMO pretty obvious) factual error that I noticed on briefly skimming her new post aboutSatan me? :think:
(I'm thinking not - pretty hilarious that I might help her fact-check to avoid presenting erroneous information)
- WiS2 was held May 17-19th
- Letter was dated June 3rd (a Monday)
- First line of letter said "We write to you as speakers at the Women in Secularism conference last weekend..."
...but on the other hand maybe some of the other 12 people who signed the letter might want the opportunity to know that it went out with that error and consider with the group whether or not to correct it. You know, 'cuz, like, their signatures are on it.
That's not a reason I spelled out in my post; like I said, it was brief. Really, I knew as I hit submit to the comment (which is, surprise surprise, still in moderation) that she probably would not be inclined to accept it as a heads up, but instead a slam.
So, now: Should I bother pointing out the (IMO pretty obvious) factual error that I noticed on briefly skimming her new post about
(I'm thinking not - pretty hilarious that I might help her fact-check to avoid presenting erroneous information)
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
What a coincidence! Steffi Umbridge looks into the pit just after the tri-monthly "Let's shoot into our own foot" event. Okay, I already gave her the top spot on my list (see above). Looks like she wants to dig in there.
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
The protection it offers is for new infection w/ the strains covered by the vaccine (cancer-causing ones covered by Gardasil are HPV 16 &18, which cause ~70% of cervical cancers; the other ~12 "high-risk strains aren't covered by the vaccine).rayshul wrote:Yeah, I didn't see it as discrimination either - it's just targetting the most likely group at this point for that particular cancer. I did notice though when looking it up that it was only approved (in NZ) for men between 4-26 - see http://www.hpv.org.nz/patient/hpv_vaccine.htm#whoDick Strawkins wrote:I think that article was mostly fair.ReneeHendricks wrote:Yeah, yeah. I know a majority of you aren't keen on AVfM. However, there is a recent post put out there I find extremely interesting. The menz and those with male-type children might also be very interested in reading this - http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-he ... kills-men/.
I bring this up because this is *exactly* the kind of cancer my guy just dealt with.
I wouldn't, however, conclude that the fact that Gardasil is only routinely offered to girls is a form of discrimination against men. Immunization against HPV is relatively new in medical terms and as such they are likely to begin with the group most at risk (in which case it is females, who are at risk of HPV related cervical cancer.) Remember, women, like men, are at risk for HPV associated throat cancers but it's not those that the Gardasil is meant to prevent. But the vaccine is a good preventative for many HPV related tumors.
So yes, Gardasil should be offered for all children, regardless of sex.
Who should be vaccinated and when?
Gardasil is licensed for females between 9 and 45 years and males between 9 and 26 years, ideally prior to starting sexual activity and therefore before being exposed to the virus.
Not quite sure why that is.
There's no benefit to getting vaccinated against a strain once a person already has the infection.
Were there other parts you were you wondering about?
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Thanks. I'd set it up rather carefully, being very specific that I was referring only to an image or an effigy. Earlier on, in two separate threads here I'd taken care to mention that I would consider it a humanist duty to help anyone on the other side if they were in actual physical peril.sacha wrote:interesting.Gefan wrote:
Hey, at least you're getting named as a harasser on twitter. I just suggested we'd all get turned on by the image of Rebecca Watson on fire and haven't gotten a fucking peep out of those miserable bastards.
Currently my hypothesis is along these lines:
Individual's prominence (and potential of their name to generate publicity) x seriousness of their "offense"
I was sure they were going to make a scene about it, more like a "look what the pitters advocate!", than focusing on you specifically.
franc's "self-immolation" comment (quite a while ago) caused an uproar, and that was a much more benign comment in my opinion.
Personally I thought your comment was funny,
What happens? The Stefalump just waddles past in search of (even) lower hanging fruit.
From her words just quoted by Strawkins, I now realize my mistake. I forgot to bait the trap with the word "cunt".
Rookie mistake.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
A couple of years ago I discussed the question of HPV with a group of researchers that were examining the rates amongst teenagers.Skep tickle wrote:The protection it offers is for new infection w/ the strains covered by the vaccine (cancer-causing ones covered by Gardasil are HPV 16 &18, which cause ~70% of cervical cancers; the other ~12 "high-risk strains aren't covered by the vaccine).rayshul wrote:Yeah, I didn't see it as discrimination either - it's just targetting the most likely group at this point for that particular cancer. I did notice though when looking it up that it was only approved (in NZ) for men between 4-26 - see http://www.hpv.org.nz/patient/hpv_vaccine.htm#whoDick Strawkins wrote:I think that article was mostly fair.ReneeHendricks wrote:Yeah, yeah. I know a majority of you aren't keen on AVfM. However, there is a recent post put out there I find extremely interesting. The menz and those with male-type children might also be very interested in reading this - http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-he ... kills-men/.
I bring this up because this is *exactly* the kind of cancer my guy just dealt with.
I wouldn't, however, conclude that the fact that Gardasil is only routinely offered to girls is a form of discrimination against men. Immunization against HPV is relatively new in medical terms and as such they are likely to begin with the group most at risk (in which case it is females, who are at risk of HPV related cervical cancer.) Remember, women, like men, are at risk for HPV associated throat cancers but it's not those that the Gardasil is meant to prevent. But the vaccine is a good preventative for many HPV related tumors.
So yes, Gardasil should be offered for all children, regardless of sex.
Who should be vaccinated and when?
Gardasil is licensed for females between 9 and 45 years and males between 9 and 26 years, ideally prior to starting sexual activity and therefore before being exposed to the virus.
Not quite sure why that is.
There's no benefit to getting vaccinated against a strain once a person already has the infection.
Were there other parts you were you wondering about?
The research group was basid in Sweden, I think, and they found that an incredibly high percentage of teenagers had been infected by the time they were mid to late teens (something like 80%) I can't quite recall the methods they used - is there a way to screen for antibodies against the virus?
Anyway their finding indicated that the vaccination would need to be done very early - probably pre-teens - for it to have the maximum effect. As you say, if are already infected it is pointless to get vaccinated.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Everyone knows FeeFee did not sign that, just delete her name.curriejean wrote:That looks good to me, if Skep would be so kind.Aneris wrote:I think Skep Tickle should ask her politely, and straight, via mail she has. Something like: Hello, I have seen your name on this petition. We are unsure if this was really signed by you, could you please confirm. If I do not hear from you, we remove it in three days. If you state it wasn't from you, we remove it immediately and make sure your name stays off. Something like that.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Whoa, I just thought of something. What if she did sign it, in the hopes that it would be deleted, so she could claim further harassment?sacha wrote:Everyone knows FeeFee did not sign that, just delete her name.curriejean wrote:That looks good to me, if Skep would be so kind.Aneris wrote:I think Skep Tickle should ask her politely, and straight, via mail she has. Something like: Hello, I have seen your name on this petition. We are unsure if this was really signed by you, could you please confirm. If I do not hear from you, we remove it in three days. If you state it wasn't from you, we remove it immediately and make sure your name stays off. Something like that.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
She's waaaatching usssss
I no longer feel safe and welcome on the 'pit!!!
I no longer feel safe and welcome on the 'pit!!!
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Gefan I don't know why you're bitching about not getting noticed, my icon since the new 'pit started has been a hot chick with her tits out. In every post I am objectifying teh womenz!
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Oh, my. Well, maybe that's how she remembers it. (It does seem to be a pattern, of her presenting herself as the modest-but-effective initiator/leader of events; I hesitated a bit to write that, and of course acting in that capacity may be exactly her forte, but that impression has struck me repeatedly over the time I've been following all this stuff.)Dick Strawkins wrote:Svan attacks the slymepit again:
I guess her doxxing action is beginning to hit home.
Stephanie Zvan wrote:... I’d already said in that comment thread that I’d recommended Eliza for the dialogue by name to Michael as someone who served on an atheist group’s board, so this continued insistence that I’d taken her information from the dialogue was bizarre. There was an ongoing insistence from apparent multiple parties that there had been something nefarious done in order to get Eliza’s identity into Ophelia’s hands (there wasn’t), and specifically, that I had used the dialogue process to gain and spread Eliza’s identity. ...
And I suppose it's possible she said something to Michael, but it also seems likely that the communications below had something to do with it:
1) Michael Nugent asked at his blog to hear from people who were interested in participating.
2) I posted a comment on his blog saying that I was interested.
3) Something like a few weeks later, on March 21, he emailed me to say that he was getting the process going. He mentioned a few things including that there would be a moderation team, but didn't suggest or ask my involvement in that role. He welcomed input on the process.
4) I replied on the same day and have copied below part of the email that I authored back to him, in which it looks pretty clear to me that I offered to be considered as a mod, and then provided information I felt was relevant and supportive, which (oh lookee) does not include any mention (even in the stuff I clipped) about my being on the board of an atheist organization:
From my sent-mail folder (bolding & ellipses added here, were not in original):
So I suppose the next step will be outing me on that other site, where I use another 'nym (one I've used for ~5 years and had not wanted to "carry" over to FtB/A+/Skepchick or here). :naughty:In my email to Michael Nugent on March 21, I wrote: Hi Michael,
If it would be useful, you could consider me as a potential "Slymepit side" moderator. I have relevant background, see the next 2 paragraphs, then I put a couple of ideas about process & first topics down below that. Main drawback is time available; I work full-time & have a family & have other A/S activities going on (but - this is so important to the A/S community).
...
Re moderating:
I've been a mod then admin for ~3 yrs at {an atheist/skeptic site I haven't previously mentioned in all of this because it's trying not to be drawn into the whole mess}, and in real life I spend part of my time as an administrator.... I'm a rule-follower and on various occasions a rule-writer, understanding that the spirit and goal of the rules is crucial, but the letter of them is what's available to look at on an equal basis to all participants; and preferring that the rules make sense and are fairly and clearly presented with opportunity for people to decide ahead of time whether or not they want to participate under those constraints. Also I write long sentences. ;-)
I use a different 'nym at {that other atheist/skeptic site}, and would prefer that that site & that 'nym not be linked to "Skep tickle" as I would like to maintain my presence there as neutral in "the schism". ...
Or, she could look for that factual error in her post. (I mean the one besides that she's the one who got me the mod job.)
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Rayshul, you are embodying teh womenz! And last I checked, that verb was still okay. ;)rayshul wrote:Gefan I don't know why you're bitching about not getting noticed, my icon since the new 'pit started has been a hot chick with her tits out. In every post I am objectifying teh womenz!
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Josephine Baker was neither white, nor middle class. Ergo, she's not an actual priority of the baboons.rayshul wrote:Gefan I don't know why you're bitching about not getting noticed, my icon since the new 'pit started has been a hot chick with her tits out. In every post I am objectifying teh womenz!
Oh, and CUNT! CUNT! CUNT!
Yo! Stefalump! Over here! CUUUUUNNNNNTTTTT!!!!
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Seems there's a check-mark beside her name indicating "verified by e-mail" .... refreshed moments ago ....sacha wrote:Everyone knows FeeFee did not sign that, just delete her name.curriejean wrote:That looks good to me, if Skep would be so kind.Aneris wrote:I think Skep Tickle should ask her politely, and straight, via mail she has. Something like: Hello, I have seen your name on this petition. We are unsure if this was really signed by you, could you please confirm. If I do not hear from you, we remove it in three days. If you state it wasn't from you, we remove it immediately and make sure your name stays off. Something like that.Jack wrote:People like oolon would not hesitate to do that. However that is the risk. Of course if anyone contacted her to confirm they will be accused of stalking.John Greg wrote:Yes, and to be precise, Ophelia F Benson. I don't think I have ever seen her sign as Ophelia F Benson.
What a shame it would be if the FfTB / Skepchick / A+ circus start destroying the petition for shitz 'n' giggles.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Josephine Baker was such a strong, intelligent and independant figure. Anybody picking on you for using her image would be a fucking moron (ableism!!!)rayshul wrote:Gefan I don't know why you're bitching about not getting noticed, my icon since the new 'pit started has been a hot chick with her tits out. In every post I am objectifying teh womenz!
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I think she has a point – there have been more than a few dickhead statements made here, that “fat fucking cunt†probably being a credible example (my own expression of that being in response to a direct provocation, i.e., “assholeâ€). And I expect that there are more than a few who pass through here who are only looking for ammunition and aren’t too particular whether what they pick up carries any weight or not.Dick Strawkins wrote:Svan attacks the slymepit again:
I guess her doxxing action is beginning to hit home.
http://www.freezepage.com/1370416649BAYKMKAMHRI am ever so helpfully informed sometimes that I shouldn’t complain about the kind of crap that gets posted about me at the slime pit. After all, these self-described rational people say, I don’t have to go there to see it.
<snip>
*Okay, one more funny story. Did you know that I my name is a pseudonym? You can totally tell it’s true by the fact that two first-time commenters showed up in the last couple of days to suggest I’d never say what I say if I were using my real name. Or you can go over to the pit and see the idea be proposed, rejected, and retconned into the shape it showed up here. Cute, huh?
However, where I think she goes badly wrong [“hello Stephanie. Too bad you don’t have enough ‘courage-of-your-convictions’ to either pull up a chair and join the conversation here or to allow a real one on your own blogâ€] is in failing to notice that it is hardly a case of all of us agreeing with such comments or with the actions and comments of all who post here as well as on Twitter or on various FTB sites. Really a case, I think, of deliberate obtuseness if not one of egregious demagoguery in trying to tar us all with the same rather questionable brush.
In addition, she seems to be rather disingenuous – being charitable as per Michael Nugent’s suggestion – in failing to note, among many similar cases, some rather egregious comments on her own blog – Setar’s for example – which are even more so since she obviously exercises editorial control – such as it is – over what sees the light of day and so has to accept some responsibility for them.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
that isn't even an interesting conspiracy theoryMetalogic42 wrote:
Whoa, I just thought of something. What if she did sign it, in the hopes that it would be deleted, so she could claim further harassment?
I agree it is most likely from the Twitter account Ophelia F'ing Benson: https://twitter.com/OpheliaBenson_ (PARODY)
regardless of the motive, it needs to be removed. If more names from FfTB/Skepchick/A+ or their well know supporters appear, those names should be deleted immediately as well.
What are the chances a woman with the same name as one of them is a sceptic/atheist who agrees with what is written in the petition, and wants to sign? I invoke Occam's Razor here
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
That might just be an automated thing, like "confirm your registration" when you create an account on a site.Steersman wrote: Seems there's a check-mark beside her name indicating "verified by e-mail" .... refreshed moments ago ....
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Nope, you have to enter your email, then go to the email the site sends you and click a link
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
I was just throwing it out there as a possibility. I agree that it's probably the parody account.sacha wrote:that isn't even an interesting conspiracy theoryMetalogic42 wrote:
Whoa, I just thought of something. What if she did sign it, in the hopes that it would be deleted, so she could claim further harassment?
I agree it is most likely from the Twitter account Ophelia F'ing Benson: https://twitter.com/OpheliaBenson_ (PARODY)
regardless of the motive, it needs to be removed. If more names from FfTB/Skepchick/A+ or their well know supporters appear, those names should be deleted immediately as well.
What are the chances a woman with the same name as one of them is a sceptic/atheist who agrees with what is written in the petition, and wants to sign? I invoke Occam's Razor here
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
That's what I meant - that the site automatically sends you an email with a confirmation link, instead of a moderator talking to you via email to confirm it's really you.Skep tickle wrote:Nope, you have to enter your email, then go to the email the site sends you and click a link
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
It seems a flawed procedure - because it gives the impression that the identity of the person who signed has been verified.Metalogic42 wrote:That might just be an automated thing, like "confirm your registration" when you create an account on a site.Steersman wrote: Seems there's a check-mark beside her name indicating "verified by e-mail" .... refreshed moments ago ....
I'm pretty sure that that is not the case.
I've never seen Ophelia Benson give her name as 'Ophelia F Benson' - only the 'parody' account does that.
The list should have a basic standard whereby it doesn't allow these types of dishones impersonations.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
The problem is not wether we agree or not with some stupid statement posted here, the problem is we don't actively condemn them. I've brushed the subject somewhere else (either at Nugent's or at Lindsay's, can't bother to remember).Steersman wrote:
However, where I think she goes badly wrong [“hello Stephanie. Too bad you don’t have enough ‘courage-of-your-convictions’ to either pull up a chair and join the conversation here or to allow a real one on your own blogâ€] is in failing to notice that it is hardly a case of all of us agreeing with such comments or with the actions and comments of all who post here as well as on Twitter or on various FTB sites. Really a case, I think, of deliberate obtuseness if not one of egregious demagoguery in trying to tar us all with the same rather questionable brush.
If I were to start condemning every comment I find stupid or offensive on the internet, I wouldn't have time to eat, sleep, well...do anything.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
mine is verified by email as well, however I could have signed with any name I like, and it still would be verified by email. It doesn't verify you are the person the name belongs to.Steersman wrote:Seems there's a check-mark beside her name indicating "verified by e-mail" .... refreshed moments ago ....sacha wrote:
Everyone knows FeeFee did not sign that, just delete her name.
I could have signed Cersei Lannister and it would still be verified because I clicked the link sent via email.
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
#PhilMustDenouncePhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:The problem is not wether we agree or not with some stupid statement posted here, the problem is we don't actively condemn them. I've brushed the subject somewhere else (either at Nugent's or at Lindsay's, can't bother to remember).Steersman wrote:
However, where I think she goes badly wrong [“hello Stephanie. Too bad you don’t have enough ‘courage-of-your-convictions’ to either pull up a chair and join the conversation here or to allow a real one on your own blogâ€] is in failing to notice that it is hardly a case of all of us agreeing with such comments or with the actions and comments of all who post here as well as on Twitter or on various FTB sites. Really a case, I think, of deliberate obtuseness if not one of egregious demagoguery in trying to tar us all with the same rather questionable brush.
If I were to start condemning every comment I find stupid or offensive on the internet, I wouldn't have time to eat, sleep, well...do anything.
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Yes, but it only means that the person who entered any email address has clicked the link in the mail, and not that it was Bensons mail. But this could be checked now.Skep tickle wrote:Nope, you have to enter your email, then go to the email the site sends you and click a link
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
:lol: :lol: :lol:Metalogic42 wrote:
#PhilMustDenounce
Good luck with that!
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Aneris wrote:Yes, but it only means that the person who entered any email address has clicked the link in the mail, and not that it was Bensons mail. But this could be checked now.Skep tickle wrote:Nope, you have to enter your email, then go to the email the site sends you and click a link
correct
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Yes, I agree. Although the fault still lies with Zvan in assuming that if we don't "actively condemn them" then we must - perforce!, indubitably! (so to speak) - agree entirely with them. :doh: :naughty:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:The problem is not wether we agree or not with some stupid statement posted here, the problem is we don't actively condemn them. I've brushed the subject somewhere else (either at Nugent's or at Lindsay's, can't bother to remember).Steersman wrote:
However, where I think she goes badly wrong [“hello Stephanie. Too bad you don’t have enough ‘courage-of-your-convictions’ to either pull up a chair and join the conversation here or to allow a real one on your own blogâ€] is in failing to notice that it is hardly a case of all of us agreeing with such comments or with the actions and comments of all who post here as well as on Twitter or on various FTB sites. Really a case, I think, of deliberate obtuseness if not one of egregious demagoguery in trying to tar us all with the same rather questionable brush.
If I were to start condemning every comment I find stupid or offensive on the internet, I wouldn't have time to eat, sleep, well...do anything.
As I said, tarring us all with that brush; hardly the actions and perspectives of anyone I would call a skeptic ....
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It
Yup, we've had that discussion before (many times over, but it's worth repeating for onlookers).Steersman wrote: Yes, I agree. Although the fault still lies with Zvan in assuming that if we don't "actively condemn them" then we must - perforce!, indubitably! (so to speak) - agree entirely with them. :doh: :naughty:
As I said, tarring us all with that brush; hardly the actions and perspectives of anyone I would call a skeptic ....
The thing is, the Pit is mostly unmoderated (except legal stuff, etc) and people are free to post what they want. FTB's main culprits, on the other hand, do heavily moderate their blogs, and by doing so they are responsible for their commentariat. So by Swan's logic, Benson agrees that some wacko should go and paint butterflies on someone's pavement as a "warning" (just like drug cartels). And of course Shwan herself is not innocent in these type of comments being allowed on her blog.
Am I repeating myself here?
Am I repeating myself here?