If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

I couldn't believe all the crap Dawkins took for making a very reasonable point. Rebecca, was propositioned (according to her anyway), in an elevator in Dublin. She said no. Nothing happened after that.

All Dawkins did was say that this is nothing compared to what women, Muslim women in particular have to deal with every day of their lives. He's excoriated.

I wonder if he has anything to do with the FfTB'ers anymore? I know at one time PZ made a big deal about he and Dawkins being friends (friendly?). Of course now I know it was just to push up his page views.

Dawkins also said it was “zero bad” which isn't nearly the same as saying it pales in comparison to third world problems. Almost everything we deal with pales in comparison to third world problems, so that's not a helpful metric.

d4m10n wrote:Dawkins also said it was “zero bad” which isn't nearly the same as saying it pales in comparison to third world problems. Almost everything we deal with pales in comparison to third world problems, so that's not a helpful metric.

The point being, he eas vilified online for saying something that everyone there should by default have known: nothing happened here. Move on. Quit making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.

Outwest wrote: I wonder if he has anything to do with the FfTB'ers anymore? I know at one time PZ made a big deal about he and Dawkins being friends (friendly?). Of course now I know it was just to push up his page views.

After Atheism Plus came about Dawkins tweeted that we should "boycott blog networks that foment drama for page views" - something along those lines. He also retweeted Lucy Wainwright a few times, leading to the accusation he was engaging in "passive aggression" - although I don't see what's "passive" about it. I think it's pretty clear how he feels about FtB these days.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=labelist

Labelist

An asshole who continuously labels people, regardless of if they actually are that label or not.

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

Guest wrote:

Outwest wrote: I wonder if he has anything to do with the FfTB'ers anymore? I know at one time PZ made a big deal about he and Dawkins being friends (friendly?). Of course now I know it was just to push up his page views.

After Atheism Plus came about Dawkins tweeted that we should "boycott blog networks that foment drama for page views" - something along those lines. He also retweeted Lucy Wainwright a few times, leading to the accusation he was engaging in "passive aggression" - although I don't see what's "passive" about it. I think it's pretty clear how he feels about FtB these days.

I havent been on twitter until very recently so I missed that info. I looked at his site to determine if he had written anything about all of this and was unable, at first glance, to find anything.

d4m10n wrote:AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Precisely none. The "drama" was coming from FftB/Skepchick about poor Becky having to endure 8 seconds in an elevator at 4 a.m.

Outwest wrote:

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Precisely none. The "drama" was coming from FftB/Skepchick about poor Becky having to endure 8 seconds in an elevator at 4 a.m.

That's my view as well. I would like him to justify his statement, in case I missed something.

Altair wrote:

Guest wrote:Re: PZ's latest post on abortion:

I'm genuinely interested, does anyone know what the A+ or FtB position is on post-viability abortion? I would ask in the comments section over there, though I imagine I'd just be shouted down as a misogynist for wanting to take away the rights of women to decide. Personally, I'm unashamed of my position on the issue and at that stage I do see the 'rights' of the viable foetus as entering the equation and in some (even many) cases, overriding the rights of the woman.

That's just another unfortunate result of their ever being tenets of an atheist group. I am quite convinced that God is non-existent, but I don't feel that the "socially just" position which results from that has to be one way or the other.

I don't know if they have an official position, the best I could find was the position of one of the forum members called ImaginationTheory. At least one of the persons there seemed not to agree, so apparently they're allowing some dissent now and then.

Britain - jailed for 4 years (abortion)

http://imageshack.us/a/img521/817/temp1q.th.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img528/233/temp2i.th.png


They also have an interesting thread on a man's right to abdicate parental responsibility. They also have dissenting opinions, maybe some of the members are getting tired of it being an echo chamber :think: ?

Just read that thread you linked. Have to say, what some of these people are advocating is just horrific. There's at least one guy there saying abortion should be allowed up to full term as the woman's bodily autonomy outweighs the rights of the child. That's FULL TERM - right up to due date. Can they actually imagine what that would entail? Dashing a full term baby's brains out? I'd like to see any of them face up to something like that in real life. I'm no religious moralist but I have no problem calling this murder. If they're trying to give the anti abortion crowd ammunition they're going the right way about it.

So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

http://alstefanelli.files.wordpress.com ... rigger.png

Altair wrote:I don't know if they have an official position, the best I could find was the position of one of the forum members called ImaginationTheory. At least one of the persons there seemed not to agree, so apparently they're allowing some dissent now and then.

Britain - jailed for 4 years (abortion)

They also have an interesting thread on a man's right to abdicate parental responsibility. They also have dissenting opinions, maybe some of the members are getting tired of it being an echo chamber :think: ?

The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.

Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.

The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.

Al Stefanelli wrote:So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

http://alstefanelli.files.wordpress.com ... rigger.png

And you did well to do so. WTF happened to the US since I last was there?!? (1996)

There was also Dawkins defence of Paula Kirby. Dawkins is obviously too busy and too important to care about FfTB, and sees them as a minor irritation. He recognises that the Baboons are not representative of the Atheism/Skeptic movement, and not even representatitive of humanism or feminism, either. Because of that, he can merrilly ignore and occasionally pwn them in a subtle tweet.

I remember Stefunny suggesting "the pushback was getting him down", gleefully referring to the Baboon's constant badgering of Dawkins, but I reckon Dawkins could not care less, and judging by the amount of whaling and gnashing of teeth over at FfTB and Skepchick, it is they who are "getting down from the pushback".

The difference is, pushback towards the Baboons is considered "misogyny", "hatred of women", "cyberstalking", etc. Pushback towards Dawkins is considered fair game.

justinvacula wrote:LeftSidePositive in usual form:

[img

"a forum that is frothing with rape and death threats"

"Posting someone's HOME ADDRESS [...] a misogynist action"

More lies about AVFM being a hate site...

tweeting = misogynist action

Thats pretty good actually. Must be pretty disapointing for people who actually check themselves though.

I believe that Dawkins, in general, is too busy to worry about these gnats that buzz about to the annoyance of everyone. And that's all they really are, gnats.

None of the people we've been discussing has done a thing, from what I can tell, to advance secularism or atheism. All they do is sit behind their screens (hmmmm... :doh:), and criticize those, like Justin Vacula, that are actually involved in activism.

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

AndrewV69 wrote:I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

AndrewV69 wrote:I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

Although I'd like to see the back story on this it doesn't matter if there have been 600 rapes on Campus and the guy fits the description of the prime suspect. It doesn't matter because the woman in the report IS NOT A VICTIM. Asking somebody "do I know you?" IS NOT ASSAULT.

I don't care if the guy is seven feet tall with a scarred face, tattoos on his forehead and a voice like a cave troll. I don't care if the woman in question literally shit herself in terror at the man's appearance, asking a question is not assault and the woman is not a victim of assault simply because "she felt threatened".

Where did you find that BTW?

AndrewV69 wrote:I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

Guys. Don't do that! :hand:

On a serious note, it sounds a bit creepy to me, especially the fact that there seems to be more than one incident.
I wouldn't describe it as assault but it is certainly bordering on harrassment or threatening behavior and is likely to make people wary of being alone in those places.

Jonathan wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

Steers, oh my Steers:

I haven't heard from you about my answer to your query WRT "nigger" vs "cunt". http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... ger#p23965

This isn't baiting or anything, I'd just like to have your opinion on my train of thought. Checking myself, sort of...

Just another anagram, folks. Nothing to see here. I was bored this morning. Move along. But if you do watch it, it's nicer at full screen and high resolution.

[youtube]iA800PmWUwU[/youtube]

acathode wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

Scented Nectar wrote:Just another anagram, folks. Nothing to see here. I was bored this morning. Move along. But if you do watch it, it's nicer at full screen and high resolution.

[youtube]iA800PmWUwU[/youtube]

I bet you kick arse in Scrabble!

Anything missing?
http://images.4chan.org/soc/src/1351615213005.png

You missed "posted something at the SlymePit" but it's hilarious all the same! Well done! Now we can have our own argumentum ad bingo fallacies!

Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

Jonathan wrote:Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Jonathan wrote:Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult. :doh:

Here's mine:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8138 ... b6b2f7.jpg

Jonathan wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Jonathan wrote:Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult. :doh:

I've said it many times. How the fuck can a sceptic dislike people asking questions????

AnimalAndy wrote:Anything missing?

I like it!
I was going to suggest 'splaining and other variants, but there's just so many, you'd need a separate card.

Jonathan wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Jonathan wrote:Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult. :doh:

Yup. To be fair, there might be a pattern in certain internet trolls "just asking questions". But I have to wonder what is the best response:

-Telling them they're "JAQing off", thus feeding the troll.

-Answering the bloody questions, thus maybe feeding the troll, but also most probably informing the onlookers as to what one's view is.

Guess what they prefer...

Al Stefanelli wrote:So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

http://alstefanelli.files.wordpress.com ... rigger.png

Via Coyne:

http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpre ... jpeg?w=550

Tony Parsehole wrote:Here's mine:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8138 ... b6b2f7.jpg

So close!

AnimalAndy wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:Here's mine:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8138 ... b6b2f7.jpg

So close!

It's gonna be a few days before we can have a bingo. "Soft Trolling" is pretty new and needs to get its stride.

Jonathan wrote:

acathode wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

Battery requires contact. Assault can best be described as an attempt to commit battery.

mikelf unplugged wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

acathode wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

Battery requires contact. Assault can best be described as an attempt to commit battery.

Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Outwest wrote: Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Like the sort of threats that Grag Laden makes?

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:Just another anagram, folks. Nothing to see here. I was bored this morning. Move along. But if you do watch it, it's nicer at full screen and high resolution.

[youtube]iA800PmWUwU[/youtube]

I bet you kick arse in Scrabble!

I use an anagram program to find these, but with Scrabble, I once read a book with some tips in it, and that made me win by miles, but then no one wanted to play it with me anymore. :cry:

Jonathan wrote:Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

Well, it's not like he's actually convicted, or even charged of third degree assault for either of the incidents yet? At this stage it seems it's just the police who've slapped some labels on the cases, I'm guessing it's then up to persecutor to make a judgment on what to actually charge him for? Very likely, the second case will not be deemed as any sort of assault, since he didn't even make any sort of threat, and thus be dropped, but what happened will still be used as evidence in the first case. Or at least that's what would happen in a sane world...
Not an expert on USA police-work and legal system, but I'd imagine the process would be something like that.

Jonathan wrote:HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult. :doh:

That's why they are "skeptics" (or septics (tanks) if you want), and not skeptics.

It's kinda sad to watch, so much of the shit they pull is the very anti-thesis of skepticism and free though, and yet there's so many gullible fools in this so-called skeptic movement who gratefully gobble up the bullshit FTB/SC is peddling, and then, when PZ is done taking a dump in their mouths, they lick it up and waddle over to Ophelia or Steffuny and asks for seconds. I guess it's to much to ask for, that people running around on skeptics conferences and otherwise involved with the A/S community would actually be capable of skepticism... but I guess they were just there for the booze and getting fake fellatio by the Skeptichicks?

Lsuoma wrote:

Outwest wrote: Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Like the sort of threats that Grag Laden makes?

Absolutely! Usually, though, the threat has to be made in person. Some states/countries may have the law written to include online threats as well. It seems to me, anecdotally, that I read/hear about those changes due to the internet age.

Outwest wrote:Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Yes, but he didn't threat the women, just asked her if they knew each other, so I'd say it's extremely unlikely that incident will be considered assault. Granted, it's not like the legal system hasn't provided me with plenty of WTF-moments, so I could be proven wrong...

real horrorshow wrote: The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.

Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.

The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.

I agree, it's a hard line to draw, even though I consider myself pro-choice I would'nt think putting the desires of the mother above the fetus' at all times is the right way to go.

I would personally draw the line at the ability to survive outside of the womb, even if the pregnancy could continue after that (I think 6 months tends to be the viability limit?). At that point, I would find an abortion only defensible in cases of grave malformations or risk to the mother.

Imagination Theory's point seems to me to stem more from a desire to keep women from being "controlled" or held responsible rather than a serious consideration of the topic of abortion, though.

acathode wrote:

Outwest wrote:Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Yes, but he didn't threat the women, just asked her if they knew each other, so I'd say it's extremely unlikely that incident will be considered assault. Granted, it's not like the legal system hasn't provided me with plenty of WTF-moments, so I could be proven wrong...

It was an "Assualt 3" complaint. Correct? Depends on how the the statute is written. Sometimes, they are written to encompass a lot of things.

Altair wrote:

real horrorshow wrote: The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.

Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.

The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.

I agree, it's a hard line to draw, even though I consider myself pro-choice I would'nt think putting the desires of the mother above the fetus' at all times is the right way to go.

I would personally draw the line at the ability to survive outside of the womb, even if the pregnancy could continue after that (I think 6 months tends to be the viability limit?). At that point, I would find an abortion only defensible in cases of grave malformations or risk to the mother.

Imagination Theory's point seems to me to stem more from a desire to keep women from being "controlled" or held responsible rather than a serious consideration of the topic of abortion, though.

I'm pro-choice because I firmly believe that a woman should have that choice, whatever limits she does or does not put upon herself. Me? It's a personal line that has moved over the years.

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

d4m10n wrote:

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

Dawkins has always been supportive of outspoken atheism, something that Crackergate could, I guess be described as. He is still supportive of outspoken atheism.
Elevatorgate and the whole Rebecca Watson drama have nothing to do with this so I think it is a mistake to say his stance has changed.

d4m10n wrote:

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

I can actually see his rationale for wanting to preserve a united front against the intrusiveness of religion. We're few and scattered and schisms do not help our common cause.
There's no doubt that, over the years, Dawkins has improvidently endorsed a number of people who turned out to be more of a liability than an asset. I'm still puzzled at his handing over a prize for scientific distinction to a purveyor of quackery such as Maher, for instance. But we cannot ultimately hold him responsible for the actions of others.

Dick Strawkins wrote: Dawkins has always been supportive of outspoken atheism, something that Crackergate could, I guess be described as. He is still supportive of outspoken atheism.
Elevatorgate and the whole Rebecca Watson drama have nothing to do with this so I think it is a mistake to say his stance has changed.

If I remember correctly, he remained eloquently silent, so to speak, over that one.

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

I can actually see his rationale for wanting to preserve a united front against the intrusiveness of religion. We're few and scattered and schisms do not help our common cause.
There's no doubt that, over the years, Dawkins has improvidently endorsed a number of people who turned out to be more of a liability than an asset. I'm still puzzled at his handing over a prize for scientific distinction to a purveyor of quackery such as Maher, for instance. But we cannot ultimately hold him responsible for the actions of others.

I don't think it was Dawkins himself that decided the award would go to Maher. Wasn't it the foundation that voted that?

decius wrote:

d4m10n wrote:AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Here- http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/on-ric ... versial-si
You can see where there is some debate over blog hits and drama. Dawkins concedes the point but it is based on flawed/misleading data from a link provided by Greta.
I discussed it with Maria Maltseva on The Angry Atheist #101 w/ Maria Maltsevahttp://angryatheist.info/?p=904

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Al Stefanelli wrote:So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

http://alstefanelli.files.wordpress.com ... rigger.png

And you did well to do so. WTF happened to the US since I last was there?!? (1996)

George Bush

Outwest wrote:

I don't think it was Dawkins himself that decided the award would go to Maher. Wasn't it the foundation that voted that?

Yeah, but it bore its name and he handed it over in person. It's fair to expect that he has some influence over the process. My impression was that he didn't research the subject with due diligence and then it was too late to step back without causing a political commotion.

Sorry, I meant "it bore his name".

Tony Parsehole wrote:Here's mine:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8138 ... b6b2f7.jpg

Shouldn't 'schrodinger's rapist' be in the center and already marked?

Reap wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:Here's mine:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8138 ... b6b2f7.jpg

Shouldn't 'schrodinger's rapist' be in the center and already marked?

Only for men. We'd need a different one for women with "Chill Girl" in the center, already marked. Or "sister punisher".

Lol.

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