Periodic Table of Swearing

[Michael K Gray]

Right. Kiss?
Fuck off. (Sub section 2C)

These Aunty-Harassment policies are such a boon!

Well that's all right then. I can take no for an answer. While we are still in the elevator though... coffee?

Yeah, OK.
But only if you have Dilmah loose-leaf Tea.
I will vomit all over you (with your written consent) if I have even a wee dram'o'coffee, Jimmy.

[AndrewV69]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were the courtiers convinced by PZ the King to spy on Hamlet, using their claimed friendship with him to gain his confidence, so that: according to one W. S. Gilbert's comedy where Rosencrantz schemes Guildenstern to screw Hamlet into the ground, so that Rosencrantz can marry Orphwelia.
To me, it is crystal clear, as p'raps it was to you, good sir?

Alas! I was under the impression that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead!

You give me too much credit sir, I had no spur (prithee forgive me),

To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on th'other. . . .

[Michael K Gray]

To prick the sides of my intent,
but only Vaulting ambition,
which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on th'other. . .

Yep. I used to ride them dang horses too, buddy. (spit)
Never could get them spurs right 'till ma Pa tells me that youse wear 'em on the outside o' yer boots, and not in yer posin' pouch.
"To prick the sides of my intent"? You got that rite bud!
Hey! Here's a Yankee joke: "the sides of my intent"?
You an A-rab or summin'?
Geddit?
"in-tent"!!?
We Merkins got the best sense-o-humor this side of the Pecos! Yeehah!
(Gotta sign up with Fox for ma 25 year ca-rear as a rival to that there Carson, or whoever his replacement be. Conan the Librarian?)

[AndrewV69]

(Gotta sign up with Fox for ma 25 year ca-rear as a rival to that there Carson, or whoever his replacement be. Conan the Librarian?)

I think you have displaced a side of the pond sir! In any event I am off to grab some sleep.

Oh BTW, you did remember Newton and his passion for alchemy? Not quite the same as your Einstein but still, a bit of a shame really. All that time spent on it.

Well, we all have our manic obsessions I suppose. Good night sir! And Good Day!

[Michael K Gray]

I think you have displaced a side of the pond sir!

It's due to 'quantum'.
Ask Mrs. Cosmopolite.

Oh BTW, you did remember Newton and his passion for alchemy?

And kooky theology.
He spent MORE paper on showing that the god-head could not really be conceived of as a trinity than he did on all of his ground-breaking physics combined!

Not quite the same as your Einstein...

I do not understand that remark.

Well, we all have our manic obsessions I suppose.

What is wrong with a harmless innocent playful interest in the cryohydric subgelatinisation of politicians?

And that's another thing.
Shared with franc is my hatred of the apparent need of 'smilies', is the hatred of the feeling that I should put the Latin [sic] to indictate that an apparent mistake is, in fact, deliberate.
cf:
"For surely your excellent barb was sharpen'd on the whit-stone of learned literature;"
with
"For surely your excellent barb was sharpen'd on the whit-stone[sic] of learned literature;"
I know that it is "whetstone".
So the hell should you.

There'll be a test later.
What's that Carter?
"It's an Ocarina, sir"
Bring it up here. The man now starts making thrusting movements with his pelvic area, moving the penis up and down inside the vagina, so-- Put it there, boy. Put it there on the table.
While the wife maximizes her clitoral stimulation by the shaft of the penis by pushing forward,-- Thank you, dear. Now, as sexual...

[Michael K Gray]

Thunderf33t has a new post:
Skepchick: Embrace Victim-hood!
snippet

If you are banging your head on the desk in disbelief at the moment I just want to remind you that this is a girl who blogs regularly on skepchick, and has been supported by freethoughtblogs. She’s also the girl who makes those little ceramic pendants that many people wear (or maybe used to wear at conferences before Amy’s crying over a Tshirt antics). Indeed the only way I think you might have a chance of explaining her self-centered position to Amy is though the concept of reciprocation.

My comment is Copyright©

[DownThunder]

I just have to say that thunderfoot being invited to fftb was one of the greatest things ever. He jumped in the deep end and he's now walking on water, doing a tap dance for good measure.

[Michael K Gray]

I just have to say that thunderfoot being invited to fftb was one of the greatest things ever. He jumped in the deep end and he's now walking on water, doing a tap dance for good measure.

Yep.
It is the classic Frankenstein's Monster, created by a power-crazed loon, now on an unstoppable course to destroy its creator.
It is almost biblical, as in the Hebrew Golem.

...once the golem had been physically made one needed to write the letters aleph, mem, tav, which is emet and means "truth," on the golem's forehead and the golem would come alive. Erase the aleph and you are left with mem and tav, which is met, meaning "death."

Quite a prophetic metaphor.
Erase the truth from your creations' heads, and it means death to your entire cause.

[Za-zen]

I disagree with tf insofar as i do not believe that you could demonstrate the stupidity of it to her. In the same way that when you tell a believer that they are an atheist with regards to all the other gods, and you simply extend your disbelief to encompass their god, their eyes glaze over as they pronounce that it's different because their god is the real god.

Special pleading is at the very heart of the fftb/skepbabe cult. It's why no questioning of the dogma is tolerated, it has to be accepted a priori.

Example:
Premise; females feel unsafe in groups dominated by males
Circumstance; A convention where female attendance numbers are below average
Proposition; males must change the environment to make it feel safer for females.
Conclusion; An environment that feels safer will attract more females.

If we reject the premise of this example, the proposition is legless. The circumstance of below average female attendance could be caused by a number of factors, upon which the proposition would have no effect whatsoever. You may argue that the conclusion stands on it's own merit, but it is not neccesarily so:

"safer" is subjective and relative. One persons version of safe is an exclusion zone of ten feet between them and the next person, and safer has no meaning out of context of an identifiable threat. If the threat is unsubstantiated then zero change has to be made, nor could it be made to create a "safer" environment. That brings us neatly back to the need for an a priori premise.

secondly feels safer, does not equate to safer. The conclusion standing on it's own suggests that females need the illusion of safety in order to feel safe, kind of like proposing a child needs a security blanket to protect them from the monster under their bed.

This is all why the conclusion cannot stand on it's own, in order to be safer from X, we must first identify X and agree that is it a viable danger that requires protection from. Again we go back to the need for an a priori premise!

This really should have been a blog post.

[Michael K Gray]

Monkeyman_thumb2.jpg

bin Laden's recently revoked Passport Photo

(40.63 KiB) Downloaded 331 times

[Michael K Gray]

gangstaChimp24.jpg

(75.8 KiB) Downloaded 288 times

How insane FfTB spew-crew See Laden.

bizarre_pic_2586.jpg

(64.27 KiB) Downloaded 334 times

How the sane world see him.

[CommanderTuvok]

Those pictures are a lot more family friendly than those of Osama bin Laden himself!

PS - PZ thinking he could become a horseman? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Za-zen]

Im on twitter and already got blocked by dillahunty :lol:

[Za-zen]

How long do you think it will take me to get the full house, all i had to do was ask dillahunty why i was banned from axp

[Michael K Gray]

OK Folks!
Competition time.
Time to win points!
And we all know what points mean don't we audience?
YES! Points means Prizes!
Simply accurately match the descriptions to the monkey photos.
Can our assistant Abbie please wave her hand over the prizes whilst grinning inanely, as though this were a skill deserving of a 6 figure pay-packet?
1st Prize is a weekend in Dubbo, Australia!
2nd Prize is two weeks.
3rd Prize is an all expenses paid knight out with the ost-meister himself, Ass. Prof. Paul Zachary Myers!
4th Prize is a half-used Travelodge Ballpoint pen with a bit of the desk chain still attached.

It'll be neck-and-neck between grabsees for the 3rd & 4th prizes here tonight, folks!

OK.
Match the following names to to the appropriate photographs.
(Fill in your screens with crayon or lipstick, and post to:
The Taliban Execution Committee
43 Alton Towers,
Ipswitch, DRCongo
by the end of post, Aug 1988)

a) Bansome
b) Surely Aimee
c) Watson

With:
1)

monkeyface (2).jpg

(87.54 KiB) Downloaded 313 times

2)

Monkeymodel_thumb2.jpg

(48.28 KiB) Downloaded 313 times

3)

uglymonkee.jpg

(14.3 KiB) Downloaded 314 times

Not as easy as you thought, eh?
An Order of the Australian Koala Stamp for the first person to answer cheekily.

[franc]

Improved version -

http://i.imgur.com/9kJCp.jpg

[Za-zen]

First one is cry baby
Second one is the going down babe
Third one is dotty old bat

[Michael K Gray]

First one is cry baby
Second one is the going down babe
Third one is dotty old bat

Damn.
Thanks for blowing that cliffhanger out of the water for all of the kiddies out there.
How did you guess?
You saw my secret files, didn't you, you bastard.
At least you won't find my diamond mine!

[AnonymousCowherd]

Andrewv69: I wasn't saying that philosophy was outright useless. Rather I was attempting (as MKG's comments show) a somewhat elliptical defence of at least its glorious past, while lamenting its current state.

MKG: I was aware of your argument re Einstein and Mach etc, but I was contrasting the general approach of the physicists of Einstein era with the mathematically adroit “technicians” of today, rather than claiming that adherence to any one particular theory (scientific or philosophical) drove (or hindered) scientific progress.

Obviously, clinging to one or another theory in the face of evidence to the contrary is exactly the opposite of both science and, done properly, of philosophical analysis as well. Adherence to Mach did get Einstein some way, but then he went past him, perhaps on the basis of evidence, but perhaps on the basis of pure conjecture. Is that science? Yes, as we now define it, it is. But if it was pure conjecture, why wasn't that a philosophical contribution? If, as a philosopher, I sat down and had a Big Think and came up with a Grand Unified Theory or the cure for cancer etc etc, would I have done science? Once upon a time if you played with triangles and hypotenuses, you were a philosopher. Now, you might be called mathematician (at least if you progress beyond Pythagoras). Nothing wrong with that unless one is (oh la de da!) trying to establish the non-usefulness of philosophy, because every time an example of some utility is given, it is defined as “not philosophy”. Again, I have no problem with that, but the argument doesn't make the case. On one view, the whole of mathematics can be seen as just a branch of philosophy (cue the “numbers are real!” crowd, but then deciding that issue is a philosophical matter, and it's way above my pay grade).

And I'm not trying to suggest that philosophy has much to teach science. I agree completely that having philosophers tell you how to do your science is not only annoying, but typically a waste of time for both parties. In fact, if the name of a subject begins with “The Philosophy of ...” it can usually be safely ignored, anything of value it might have had to say will just turn out to be a special case of some epistemological, metaphysical or ethical argument and you will have heard it already if you were paying attention.

But not everyone is a wizard science type. Arts types (whose subjects you seem to agree do not need to provide examples of their superior-to-science-utility in order to be valuable) are at the mercy of any kind of tosh if their critical faculties are not somehow engaged beyond the level of “why is the busticket literature, in exactly the same way Dickens is”? Because you said so, Mr Authority Figure. Do I pass now? Philosophy was (and I emphasise was) one method for doing that, though I think the current practice of it is well short of its best. Nunc dimittis.

I know you'll think I've squibbed by not giving you a concrete example, despite what I've said above and the fact that I think it's a loaded question. So I'll give one example of where philosophy comes into my (ex) area of (arguably) science.

In trying to come up with a theory of cognition, the dominant idea is some mix of physiology and its “emergent” properties or some undefined notion of “software” somehow running on the wetware. Now science tells us that brains are universal Turing Machines, so your iPhone is an equivalent machine (allowing for limitations of memory). The temptation to see mental functioning as a program running in the brain is overwhelming and, of course, such a program would be formally equivalent to that mental functioning so any useful result I want to obtain can, in theory, be found by following this through and working out the program. (In practice, this doesn't work out so well.)

The trouble is that the brain (or the person, or the subject, whatever) knows things about the real world but if it does this by manipulating some form of representation (brain state, sensory datum yada yada) then, as the philosophers point out, the whole scheme collapses to solipsism since the object of knowledge is the representation, not the world itself.

That doesn't tell you the answer in some “utility” sense, but it does tell you that a new answer is required and it ought to look a bit different to the one that is going around. While not a direct corollary, it suggests that building detailed internal representations of environments may not be the best way to get a robot to move around it, and that suggestion (coincidentally) seems to be bearing out lately. So from my point of view, if I'd stayed in the field, a philosophical point might have saved me twenty years of faffing about with the wrong approach to modelling cognition.

Aren't you glad you asked?

I can think of other, more specific examples from discussions of the work of various friends of mine in assorted areas of science, but I suspect you would not consider my input to be actual philosophy. After all, I'm not a philosopher, eh.

Anyway, I'm not strongly disagreeing about the value of much of current philosophy, but your request for an example of the superior utility of philosophy sounds a little like Dudley Moore asking to see one of the ravens Peter Cook has trained to fly under water.

[CommanderTuvok]

Im on twitter and already got blocked by dillahunty :lol:

The fall of grace of Dillahunty is sad to watch. "Facts don't matter" will haunt him forever. Fancy him getting nobbled by the Baboons like that.

[CommanderTuvok]

With regard to Osama Greg Laden's implication that he might yet have a future back FfTB in a couple of months time, it does remind me of (sorry non UK posters) Peter Mandelson's constant reappearance with the Labour Party after he was "forced to resign" after various scandals. He just kept coming back out of the shadows...

The Baboons are itching to get Dreg Laden back on board because he is their chief henchman.

[Scented Nectar]

Considering that many radfems incorrectly call all sex work 'rape', tell me, what on earth did Caine do in the porn business? Was he a fluffer? A cameraperson? An actor? (which the radfems will consider a rapist/raped)? An office-boy editing clerk sort of thing (which the radfems would consider being paid for women to be raped)? Or does he just run a bunch of 'free' traffic sharing sites (I know someone who made enough to retire on by getting in on that sort of internet business very early on)? And mostly, what on earth does Skeptifem think about Caine's work???

A couple years ago, I argued about porn with her. She claimed all actresses were really being raped, despite all consents to the contrary. She also admitted that she liked and watch porn until she began to believe in the radfem ideology that porn was always rape.

I asked her if she had been successful in getting her body to go along with her politics. In other words, can she no longer get horny from porn if she were to watch it again? She freaked out, called me a creep, which made a fellow commentor declare me the winner. Fun times! :)

That's all in a saved file I have, the original of which, PZ has now erased or hidden on his old SB site. The site where ever so conveniently, his comment sections all disappeared and he has NO idea why! Suuuurre, Peezy. This was at the start of, or during, the FfTBers attempts to complain about Abbies threads in hopes they'd get taken down. Peezy probably realized that his own comment threads at SB over the years broke the rules much worse than the things on Abbie's comments, many times over.

Now, the only question is, when it's blown over, will he re-open his comment sections? I doubt it. But, he might. Of course, he'll have absolutely NO idea of HOW they left and came back, being the lying toxic weasel that he is.

The formatting may be a little fucked up on all my saved htm files, but it's still easy to read which commenter says what, in the proper order. I also have the original 3 ElevatorGate threads from there (yes, PZ even tried to memory-hole that), where Dawkins commented 3 times. And, of course, I also have the full backup of all the SlimePit pages, even those first two before I discovered the SlimePit.

Hey, anyone remember when or by who, the name "SlimePit" was coined? I can't remember which FFTBer was so freaked out by our discussions that they called us that.

PZ, you there? Oh, of course you are. All of you who protest too much that you never come here, come here all the time. Well, this paragraph's for you, PZ. Heed it well. Freedom of speech contains, within it and as part of it, the freedom from FORCED speech. Doc dropping is forced speech. And it's even worse, because it also implies that someone is going to physically show up at one's residence/workplace or tell tattletales to their real life friends and acquaintances in hopes of making them look bad. You know this full well, so stop with your free speech nonsense. You yourself have docdropped many people, figuring them as fair game so long as you find reason to deem them bad.

Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

[Oxy]

Hello - new here.

Justin, I'm from your bailiwick: Were you around a few years ago when the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese had a conniption because Elton John was going to be appearing at a local venue on - gasp - Good Friday? Because there apparently shouldn't be any entertainment available to anybody on such a solemn Christian day. I note he didn't try to shut down movie theaters or bars - just poor old Elton. I got kind of a charge out of the fact that, a few years later, Elton came back to town - on Good Friday!! Again!! I don't remember any outcry that time though.

I first heard of Rebecca Watson when I started listening to the SGU, the year after Perry died. I went back and downloaded old episodes and I encountered Perry. I wondered what had become of him and was very sad when I found out. Watson, on the other hand, baffled me. I could not imagine what she was doing on the podcast. She came across to me as rather dimwitted and annoying; definitely the weak link. I didn't want to feel that way, because I applauded their decision to have a woman on the podcast, just not her.

I started reading Myers' blog about two years ago, I guess. I got more and more uncomfortable with him, for a couple of reasons. First, he tended to post rants about stuff he came across, without checking to see if he was falling for a scam. His minions had to tactfully tell him he'd been had. Not very skeptical of him. Speaking of the minions, they were the other thing that started to bother me. Such constant nastiness, done just for the pure joy of being obnoxious, or so it seemed to me. He really started to lose me when he began sneering at "dictionary atheists." He was entitled to his opinion about what atheism is, or should be, but there was no reason for name-calling and bad language directed at those who didn't agree. I didn't agree, even though I did give thought to his opinion. No, just no. After that, he really went off the rails with the whole Watson-elevator-extreme feminism nonsense. I stopped reading him. I stopped listening to the SGU, too. I had hoped that Watson might fade out when she got married and moved, but no such luck. After the whole fiasco last summer, I can't stand to hear her voice. Plus, I don't think the podcast is as interesting as it used to be.

Oh, I'm an old lady of 60+ who used to work in the criminal justice system, so I think I know a bit about gender prejudice! And I never had a problem with the guys after I showed them I could do the job, and gave back anything they threw at me!

[Michael K Gray]

...I was attempting (as MKG's comments show) a somewhat elliptical defence of at least its glorious past, while lamenting its current state.

As was I, by comparing it to Religion, and its 'glorius' past.

MKG: I was aware of your argument re Einstein and Mach etc,

You hid that awareness remarkably well, if I might be so bold to observe.
In fact, you hid it so well that you argued the reverse.
A skill that I fear I shall never attain.

but I was contrasting the general approach of the physicists of Einstein era with the mathematically adroit “technicians” of today,

Such as? I did specify concrete examples are required in this to-n-fro.
I may agree with you with respect to (say) Wheeler, but not his protégé Feynman.
Please be specific. Name names. Give examples.
It is SO INTERCOURSINGLY frustrating when attempting to grapple with wraiths and will-o-the-wisps pretended as thought they were firm statues.
Cut it out.

rather than claiming that adherence to any one particular theory (scientific or philosophical) drove (or hindered) scientific progress.

Meaningless vacuous twaddle. I have provided but a few examples of where philosophy has actively and demonstrably criminally retarded progress, scientific, cultural, technological and 'thinkological'.

Obviously, clinging to one or another theory in the face of evidence to the contrary is exactly the opposite of both science and, done properly, of philosophical analysis as well.

So: philosophy is a subset of science.

Adherence to Mach did get Einstein some way, but then he went past him, perhaps on the basis of evidence, but perhaps on the basis of pure conjecture.

And your point is?
My, and Einstein's point is that philosophy was a retardant upon his thinking. This is recorded history.
Einstein did not admit that philosophy "got him some way". He eventually 'fessed up that without it, he would have reached his ground-breaking conclusions far earlier!

Now you are just 'making it up'.

Is that science? Yes, as we now define it, it is. But if it was pure conjecture, why wasn't that a philosophical contribution?

Because it WAS NOT pure conjecture. It is the realm of philosophers to which is granted the payment for 'pure conjecture'.
Einstein based his conjectures on the solid data of the known speed of light, of Maxwell's elegant equations, of Heinrich Hertz' revealing observations, of Boltzmann and wossisname (I am doing this from memory, sans the UofGoogle) you know, the guy who invented the Quantum?
Max Planck! IOlivia Neutron Bomb's Grandfather!
Ol Bertie based is musing on solid data, and nothing less.
The data were his bounds, his mind was the tourist bus.
And look at the result!
Einstein rejected philosophy. He won a Nobel Prize and made your GPS possible.
Nietzsche did not.
Go suck a lemon.

If, as a philosopher, I sat down and had a Big Think and came up with a Grand Unified Theory or the cure for cancer etc, would I have done science?

No. You would have been extremely lucky.

Once upon a time if you played with triangles and hypotenuses, you were a philosopher.

Because then the referential term 'scientist' had not been invented.
I class that objection into the facile bin.

Now, you might be called mathematician (at least if you progress beyond Pythagoras).

I have a degree in mathematics.

Nothing wrong with that unless one is (oh la de da!) trying to establish the non-usefulness of philosophy, because every time an example of some utility is given, it is defined as “not philosophy”.

I have yet to do that, in fact I have been willing to do the opposite.
Your false objection reeks of special pleading in order to crudely avoid the clear requisites of my challenge.
I've seen worse attempts, mind you.
Again, I have no problem with that, but the argument doesn't make the case.

/snip/

I know you'll think I've squibbed by not giving you a concrete example

Yes. Yes I do.
For that is a prerequisite of my challenge.
How would you react to a claimant to the JREF $1m who promised that they could conjure gold ingots, but when challenged reacted:

I know you'll think I've squibbed by not giving you a concrete example

Aren't you glad you asked?

Yes. Yes I am glad.
I am glad that it adds another data point on my graph of "Philosomavens are utterly and hopelessly incapable of supporting their position."
If I seem grumpy and intolerant of your valiant and welcome attempt to engage in this discussion, that is entirely my fault.
My fault through having been worn-down by Sparkling Jade abrasives

After all, I'm not a philosopher, eh.

That is a point in your favour.

Anyway, I'm not strongly disagreeing about the value of much of current philosophy, but your request for an example of the superior utility of philosophy sounds a little like Dudley Moore asking to see one of the ravens Peter Cook has trained to fly under water.

You have inadvertently “made my point for me” with pinprick precision.
For I do not seek this utility.
What I seek is the honesty of the philosophers who make great claims to its utility to 'fess up that it has none, and that they do it for fun.
That would satisfy me.
Like this thread, it is all about brutal honesty.

[justinvacula]

Hello - new here.

Justin, I'm from your bailiwick: Were you around a few years ago when the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese had a conniption because Elton John was going to be appearing at a local venue on - gasp - Good Friday? Because there apparently shouldn't be any entertainment available to anybody on such a solemn Christian day. I note he didn't try to shut down movie theaters or bars - just poor old Elton. I got kind of a charge out of the fact that, a few years later, Elton came back to town - on Good Friday!! Again!! I don't remember any outcry that time though.

Come to an NEPA Freethought Society meeting :)
www.nepafreethought.org

[Dilurk]

Wait, did I read that correctly? Did Mr. Myers actually suggest that free speech advocates must surrender their right to privacy in order for their advocacy to be taken seriously? The buffoonery, it's limitless.

It would appear so. I swear, I read his blog for half a decade without him really dropping the ball once, and now he can't keep hold of it for shit.

In fact, he seems so loopy now, I'm wondering if it is possibly a side-effect of the heart meds he's on? Can those sort of meds do that?! :?:

I already alluded to that some posts back. ; - ) viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=2776&hilit=heart#p2776

Of course, not being a medical doctor or even a trained biologist, I would never diagnose anyone's mental health due to a heart problem.

lame replying to my own post, but wowsers.

Mood and personality changes after bypass surgery
Heart surgery and personality changes

It's easy to find many stories on the Internet about this. Wow.
Again, I am not a medical doctor I am not in any way diagnosing anyone. I do however find this interesting.

[Lsuoma]

Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

[Dilurk]

Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

I do photography as well. Perhaps I should drop you a PM and some links to my stuff? ; - )

[Dilurk]

Hello - new here.

Justin, I'm from your bailiwick: Were you around a few years ago when the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese had a conniption because Elton John was going to be appearing at a local venue on - gasp - Good Friday? Because there apparently shouldn't be any entertainment available to anybody on such a solemn Christian day. I note he didn't try to shut down movie theaters or bars - just poor old Elton. I got kind of a charge out of the fact that, a few years later, Elton came back to town - on Good Friday!! Again!! I don't remember any outcry that time though.

I first heard of Rebecca Watson when I started listening to the SGU, the year after Perry died. I went back and downloaded old episodes and I encountered Perry. I wondered what had become of him and was very sad when I found out. Watson, on the other hand, baffled me. I could not imagine what she was doing on the podcast. She came across to me as rather dimwitted and annoying; definitely the weak link. I didn't want to feel that way, because I applauded their decision to have a woman on the podcast, just not her.

Reverse discrimination is just as bad, though I admit I still cheer on competent women.

I started reading Myers' blog about two years ago, I guess. I got more and more uncomfortable with him, for a couple of reasons. First, he tended to post rants about stuff he came across, without checking to see if he was falling for a scam. His minions had to tactfully tell him he'd been had. Not very skeptical of him. Speaking of the minions, they were the other thing that started to bother me. Such constant nastiness, done just for the pure joy of being obnoxious, or so it seemed to me. He really started to lose me when he began sneering at "dictionary atheists." He was entitled to his opinion about what atheism is, or should be, but there was no reason for name-calling and bad language directed at those who didn't agree. I didn't agree, even though I did give thought to his

His sneering at so-called "dictionary atheists" I found annoying as well.

opinion. No, just no. After that, he really went off the rails with the whole Watson-elevator-extreme feminism nonsense. I stopped reading him. I stopped listening to the SGU, too. I had hoped that Watson might fade out when she got married and moved, but no such luck. After the whole fiasco last summer, I can't stand to hear her voice. Plus, I don't think the podcast is as interesting as it used to be.

I finally removed links to PZs blogs. His science and some of his antitheist posts used to be a fun read on SB, now he has turned into a mean whiney man with a chip on his shoulder. Can't stand it now.

Oh, I'm an old lady of 60+ who used to work in the criminal justice system, so I think I know a bit about gender prejudice! And I

I'm an old lady of 59, with a grandson and another grandchild on the way. (Sheesh how did that happen?) So it is nice to see you.

never had a problem with the guys after I showed them I could do the job, and gave back anything they threw at me!

I know a thing or two about gender prejudice big time as well. Though it was not always easy. I keep reiterating the same mantra though in case someone actually listens. Treat other people with respect that's all that is needed. The old idea of colour/gender blindness may be an obsolete term, but it is one that comes closest.

Anyway, welcome to the slymepit where people are treated with respect despite differences.

[Scented Nectar]

Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

I got all excited thinking you were giving me a link to photos of something to do with two quoques. It's just a camera review place! That's not what I was expecting. :)

What made you uneasy about the camera review site?

[Lsuoma]

Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

I got all excited thinking you were giving me a link to photos of something to do with two quoques. It's just a camera review place! That's not what I was expecting. :)

What made you uneasy about the camera review site?

"DP"/two coques...

Yes, I'm very juvenile...

[justinvacula]

Power play! I wonder if the 'cyberstalking team' will be all over this one?

http://i.imgur.com/U34DP.jpg

[ERV]

Wait, did I read that correctly? Did Mr. Myers actually suggest that free speech advocates must surrender their right to privacy in order for their advocacy to be taken seriously? The buffoonery, it's limitless.

It would appear so. I swear, I read his blog for half a decade without him really dropping the ball once, and now he can't keep hold of it for shit.

In fact, he seems so loopy now, I'm wondering if it is possibly a side-effect of the heart meds he's on? Can those sort of meds do that?! :?:

I already alluded to that some posts back. ; - ) viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=2776&hilit=heart#p2776

Of course, not being a medical doctor or even a trained biologist, I would never diagnose anyone's mental health due to a heart problem.

lame replying to my own post, but wowsers.

Mood and personality changes after bypass surgery
Heart surgery and personality changes

It's easy to find many stories on the Internet about this. Wow.
Again, I am not a medical doctor I am not in any way diagnosing anyone. I do however find this interesting.

Ive considered this myself-- Not only the personality changes post-heart-surgery, but also that Myers suffered brain damage during his brief death-scare/lack of oxygen earlier that year.

Or maybe he just has been hanging out with dipshits like Watson and Christina and Marcotte too much at Skepticon.

The simpler explanation is that Myers has always been a jackass. We are trying to rationalize why we didnt see it earlier, 'It MUST be because of X/Y/Z! He wasnt like this when I was a fan!' Rationalize how stupid we were to go along with it with 'Those stupid people who still dont 'get it', HAHAHAHA!'

Seriously, go back and read his older non-science stuff. He has always been like this. And we went right along with it because he was going after someone who 'deserved it', or he was going after someone we didnt know enough about to care.

We fucked up. So we can either recognize that and try to do better in the future, or pretend we didnt have a hand in this mess at all and get sideswiped again in the future.

[Scented Nectar]

Lsuoma, I get it now. Which is not to say that right now, as I type, I am "getting it". Oh, you know what I mean. :)

[John Greg]

judging by justinvacula's post at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 2800#p3865, I guess that means that neither Grothe and Kazez ever actually visit here, or they are so far up their nether regions with confirmation bias and predisposition they are unable to see the difference.

Right: respectful disagreement equals constant anal rape jokes and wishes for people to die. Right, sure folks.

These so-called intellectuals are a constant source of surprise and disappointment at how weak their critical thinking and intellectual abilities so often turn out to be.

[Evan]

I've never seen, or read anything Twilight. I was referring to Bram Stoker's novel. He's not a villain to me, but my brain isn't neurotypical, so I see things a bit differently.

Dracula is the best of the dark anti-heroes. I'd take it as a complement.

Dracula is a villain, unless they recently Twillighted the shit out of him without my knowledge or consent. Don't tell me he sparkles now.

As a thought experiment, I once watched the first Twilight movie, then I prepared my 2010 U.S. federal and state income tax returns. I learned that I would rather prepare my tax returns than watch Twilight.

This seems an appropriate time to reference a photo I captured in a local (now closed) video store. I admire whoever placed these two DVDs next to each other.

2011-03-12 Twilight Vampires Suck_scaled.jpg

Twilight Vampires Suck

(58.88 KiB) Downloaded 295 times

[Badger3k]

judging by justinvacula's post at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 2800#p3865, I guess that means that neither Grothe and Kazez ever actually visit here, or they are so far up their nether regions with confirmation bias and predisposition they are unable to see the difference.

Right: respectful disagreement equals constant anal rape jokes and wishes for people to die. Right, sure folks.

These so-called intellectuals are a constant source of surprise and disappointment at how weak their critical thinking and intellectual abilities so often turn out to be.

If you asked them why, I wager it would boil down to "everybody there thinks it's funny to kick women in the crotch" (in other words, tho'). Definitely shows they haven't read, and I also suspect the answer would be like Nanny Phee - "I don't read slime" (or whatever word of choice).

[Badger3k]

I've never seen, or read anything Twilight. I was referring to Bram Stoker's novel. He's not a villain to me, but my brain isn't neurotypical, so I see things a bit differently.

Dracula is the best of the dark anti-heroes. I'd take it as a complement.

Dracula is a villain, unless they recently Twillighted the shit out of him without my knowledge or consent. Don't tell me he sparkles now.

As a thought experiment, I once watched the first Twilight movie, then I prepared my 2010 U.S. federal and state income tax returns. I learned that I would rather prepare my tax returns than watch Twilight.

This seems an appropriate time to reference a photo I captured in a local (now closed) video store. I admire whoever placed these two DVDs next to each other.

2011-03-12 Twilight Vampires Suck_scaled.jpg

The Rifftrax version makes the movies more watcheable. It's how I got through those movies (the last one, the part 1 - twilight - is hideously bad), as well as the Star Wars prequels.

[GenerallyFading]

For a quick laugh, found this on Tim Roth's Twitter :-

http://www.cracked.com/article_19947_th ... tings.html

[Badger3k]

Watching the Rationalia thread, where even after Pappa apologized, the baboons are still going at it - the baboon A Hermit tries to conflate semantics with nuance and fails, and the apology is (of course) unaccepted - I was struck by this post by the rude pundit. Now there's a guy who can use curse words. Makes Comrade Physioproff or Cromuinist (it was one of the Red-Sounding names) seem like a bloody amateur. Anyway, the topic was "When is Michelle Backmann not on a witch hunt" - the comparison should be obvious.

Maybe someone needs to buy PZ a new rangefinder for his camera?

[Tigzy]

Watching the Rationalia thread, where even after Pappa apologized, the baboons are still going at it...

I'm guessing that thread should start calming down a bit now that Myers latest missive contains more rape for the baboons to slather over.

[James Onen]

judging by justinvacula's post at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 2800#p3865, I guess that means that neither Grothe and Kazez ever actually visit here, or they are so far up their nether regions with confirmation bias and predisposition they are unable to see the difference.

Right: respectful disagreement equals constant anal rape jokes and wishes for people to die. Right, sure folks.

These so-called intellectuals are a constant source of surprise and disappointment at how weak their critical thinking and intellectual abilities so often turn out to be.

Its politics, John. Of course they have to throw us under the bus so that they can be seen to stand above the fray. And for all the hours you and others here spent defending Grothe and engaging in thoughtful debate over the gender politics polluting the community, this is the thanks you get.

I would be surprised if you had actually thought things were going to turn out differently.

[Evan]

I've never seen, or read anything Twilight. I was referring to Bram Stoker's novel. He's not a villain to me, but my brain isn't neurotypical, so I see things a bit differently.

Dracula is the best of the dark anti-heroes. I'd take it as a complement.

Dracula is a villain, unless they recently Twillighted the shit out of him without my knowledge or consent. Don't tell me he sparkles now.

As a thought experiment, I once watched the first Twilight movie, then I prepared my 2010 U.S. federal and state income tax returns. I learned that I would rather prepare my tax returns than watch Twilight.

This seems an appropriate time to reference a photo I captured in a local (now closed) video store. I admire whoever placed these two DVDs next to each other.

2011-03-12 Twilight Vampires Suck_scaled.jpg

The Rifftrax version makes the movies more watcheable. It's how I got through those movies (the last one, the part 1 - twilight - is hideously bad), as well as the Star Wars prequels.

YES! Fortunately I have a partner with no interest in Twilight, but I will keep this in mind if she is ever tempted to partake in it.

[youtube]lC-QoeQixlw[/youtube]

[Saint N.]

judging by justinvacula's post at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 2800#p3865, I guess that means that neither Grothe and Kazez ever actually visit here, or they are so far up their nether regions with confirmation bias and predisposition they are unable to see the difference.

Right: respectful disagreement equals constant anal rape jokes and wishes for people to die. Right, sure folks.

These so-called intellectuals are a constant source of surprise and disappointment at how weak their critical thinking and intellectual abilities so often turn out to be.

Its politics, John. Of course they have to throw us under the bus so that they can be seen to stand above the fray. And for all the hours you and others here spent defending Grothe and engaging in thoughtful debate over the gender politics polluting the community, this is the thanks you get.

I would be surprised if you had actually thought things were going to turn out differently.

I can understand the value in the strategy of "condemning both sides" so as to appear above the mudslinging, even by people who generally agree with our stance against FtB. But I admit it does get pretty annoying when people who apparently don't read this thread make the general statement of just how awful we are here at the SlimePit. It's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over, but it is annoying nonetheless because I would think these individuals should know better than to adopt FtB talking points about us.

[Spence]

Its politics, John. Of course they have to throw us under the bus so that they can be seen to stand above the fray. And for all the hours you and others here spent defending Grothe and engaging in thoughtful debate over the gender politics polluting the community, this is the thanks you get.

I would be surprised if you had actually thought things were going to turn out differently.

I can understand the value in the strategy of "condemning both sides" so as to appear above the mudslinging, even by people who generally agree with our stance against FtB. But I admit it does get pretty annoying when people who apparently don't read this thread make the general statement of just how awful we are here at the SlimePit. It's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over, but it is annoying nonetheless because I would think these individuals should know better than to adopt FtB talking points about us.

I think FtB successfully poisoned the well of the slime pit before their own failings became widely known. That "branding" has stuck and is probably unlikely to change any time soon.

However, smart individuals who recognise good thinking will still gravitate here and there is definitely scope to build a good community of critical thinkers with real diversity of opinion (rather than the artificial "diversity" at FtB).

[Saint N.]

Agreed, Spence. I was a lurker in the original SlimePit at ERV, so the following horn tooting doesn't even apply to me, but I think that many of the big names criticizing FtB today are being myopic about the people who recognized the problem and were speaking out against the FTBullies from the start. For a long time the slimepit was the primary source documenting and gathering the nonsense all of them are now using to reference against FtB; all this before it was popular on 'the twitter'. Yes, we're potty mouths and a bit rough around the edges, but this place (I mean the thread, not the forum) is the original foundation set in the ground against the bullshit at FtB, so of course it's going to be a bit dirtier than the pedestals that have been erected on top of it. Again, this is not in praise of me since I stayed in the background through all of that, but I think some big names are a bit too ready to denounce the slime without acknowledging who it was that spoke out when most were too busy staying neutral about the baboons.

[Patrick]

Agreed, Spence. I was a lurker in the original SlimePit at ERV, so the following horn tooting doesn't even apply to me, but I think that many of the big names criticizing FtB today are being myopic about the people who recognized the problem and were speaking out against the FTBullies from the start. For a long time the slimepit was the primary source documenting and gathering the nonsense all of them are now using to reference against FtB; all this before it was popular on 'the twitter'. Yes, we're potty mouths and a bit rough around the edges, but this place (I mean the thread, not the forum) is the original foundation set in the ground against the bullshit at FtB, so of course it's going to be a bit dirtier than the pedestals that have been erected on top of it. Again, this is not in praise of me since I stayed in the background through all of that, but I think some big names are a bit too ready to denounce the slime without acknowledging who it was that spoke out when most were too busy staying neutral about the baboons.

I've only been hanging around here for a couple of weeks, although I've followed the ERV blog for quite some time. The difference in the quality of the discussion here and the respect for actual free thinking compared to what I see when I bother to look at a Pharyngula comment thread is dramatic. No reasonably objective, even partially open minded, minimally skeptical reader can miss the differences.

Wave your Slime (or is it Slyme) flag with pride. You've earned it for building a true skeptical community online.

[Dilurk]

Agreed, Spence. I was a lurker in the original SlimePit at ERV, so the following horn tooting doesn't even apply to me, but I think that many of the big names criticizing FtB today are being myopic about the people who recognized the problem and were speaking out against the FTBullies from the start. For a long time the slimepit was the primary source documenting and gathering the nonsense all of them are now using to reference against FtB; all this before it was popular on 'the twitter'. Yes, we're potty mouths and a bit rough around the edges, but this place (I mean the thread, not the forum) is the original foundation set in the ground against the bullshit at FtB, so of course it's going to be a bit dirtier than the pedestals that have been erected on top of it. Again, this is not in praise of me since I stayed in the background through all of that, but I think some big names are a bit too ready to denounce the slime without acknowledging who it was that spoke out when most were too busy staying neutral about the baboons.

I've only been hanging around here for a couple of weeks, although I've followed the ERV blog for quite some time. The difference in the quality of the discussion here and the respect for actual free thinking compared to what I see when I bother to look at a Pharyngula comment thread is dramatic. No reasonably objective, even partially open minded, minimally skeptical reader can miss the differences.

Wave your Slime (or is it Slyme) flag with pride. You've earned it for building a true skeptical community online.

It has been obvious to me for some time that Lsuoma knew what he was doing by setting up a forum.

[Dilurk]

judging by justinvacula's post at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 2800#p3865, I guess that means that neither Grothe and Kazez ever actually visit here, or they are so far up their nether regions with confirmation bias and predisposition they are unable to see the difference.

Right: respectful disagreement equals constant anal rape jokes and wishes for people to die. Right, sure folks.

These so-called intellectuals are a constant source of surprise and disappointment at how weak their critical thinking and intellectual abilities so often turn out to be.

Its politics, John. Of course they have to throw us under the bus so that they can be seen to stand above the fray. And for all the hours you and others here spent defending Grothe and engaging in thoughtful debate over the gender politics polluting the community, this is the thanks you get.

I would be surprised if you had actually thought things were going to turn out differently.

I can understand the value in the strategy of "condemning both sides" so as to appear above the mudslinging, even by people who generally agree with our stance against FtB. But I admit it does get pretty annoying when people who apparently don't read this thread make the general statement of just how awful we are here at the SlimePit. It's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over, but it is annoying nonetheless because I would think these individuals should know better than to adopt FtB talking points about us.

I have great respect for Jean Kazez though I think she is a little off base about the slimepit here, she at least wrote a fairly balanced analysis of what was happening in the atheist community very early on. She has been getting attacked by the horde at fftb for not being a feminist, which is pretty hilarious given she teaches feminism (or has). Where I think Jean is coming from is her more academic philosophical world where various writers respect each other and see name calling as not having any place in that world. I have heard that name calling is rather more common in scientific circles, maybe Abbie can confirm this. So given she is not a big fan of name calling I could see she would not like the more extreme name calling from either side. Using a name to demonize your opponent is not something I really like, but that's my personal preference, you lot are adults.

[Saint N.]

I have great respect for Jean Kazez though I think she is a little off base about the slimepit here, she at least wrote a fairly balanced analysis of what was happening in the atheist community very early on. She has been getting attacked by the horde at fftb for not being a feminist, which is pretty hilarious given she teaches feminism (or has). Where I think Jean is coming from is her more academic philosophical world where various writers respect each other and see name calling as not having any place in that world. I have heard that name calling is rather more common in scientific circles, maybe Abbie can confirm this. So given she is not a big fan of name calling I could see she would not like the more extreme name calling from either side. Using a name to demonize your opponent is not something I really like, but that's my personal preference, you lot are adults.

I respect both Jean and DJ, and wouldn't want to give any other impression, which is why I said I can understand where they're coming from. I just think that there is a difference between saying , "The slimepit is not my cup of tea" (which I'm totally cool with) and "They're just as bad as Pharyngula" (which requires a bit more justification in my book). But I think you and I are largely in agreement on this 8-)

[Za-zen]

I've invited dj and jean over to justify their biases about the slymepit, and those of us who post here. I really want to hear what they have to say, because i'm leaning towards believing they have bought into a trope, possibly wilfully for political reasons

[James Onen]

I was thinking of posting this tomorrow or the day after but the time seems right, given what is currently being discussed. Remember that comment I once left at the original Slime Pit that some people asked me to turn into a blog post? Here it is:

Letter to the Slime Pit (http://rationalugandan.wordpress.com/20 ... slime-pit/)

An excerpt:

I’m calling this post a Letter to the Slime Pit – because it was a rather long comment I posted in the now non-existent original Periodic Table of Swearing blog post at Abbie Smith’s blog, ERV, addressed to the members of the Slime Pit who were starting to show signs of concern about tone, once it became clear that more people were coming out to speak up about the dogmatic tendencies of prominent members of newly formed Freethought Blogs network (henceforth, FTB).

So why am I writing a blog post for a comment I made?

Well, a number of people who read the comment asked me to turn it into a blog post in and of itself, perhaps because it might be useful as future reference – particularly for those new to the debate who might not be aware of what the Slime Pit actually is, or for those whose view of the Slime Pit has been (mis)informed by the FTB narrative. In the comment I also tried to explain the context behind some of the more outrageous hyperbole featured in the Slime Pit comments that has been seized upon by detractors as alleged evidence of misogyny and sexism, and further explained how those who were quick to condemn the Slime Pit on account of those allegations missed the point completely.

Understanding what I was getting at in the comment in question might require some background knowledge of the year long internet war that has been on-going since Elevatorgate occurred last year.

I’ll try to keep it concise....

Oh, and I started a new personal blog to discuss these issues because I don't need this crap confusing the focus of Freethought Kampala.

[Tigzy]

With regard to Osama Greg Laden's implication that he might yet have a future back FfTB in a couple of months time, it does remind me of (sorry non UK posters) Peter Mandelson's constant reappearance with the Labour Party after he was "forced to resign" after various scandals. He just kept coming back out of the shadows...

The Baboons are itching to get Dreg Laden back on board because he is their chief henchman.

Bang on! That's what I thought about Laden too - Mandelson. The typically odious, creepy type who, just when you think you've got rid of them, return like a recurring cold sore. Like a supervillain, but - obviously - nowhere near as cool.

I have this theory that Mandy knows where the bodies are buried. Maybe Laden knows all the secret shit the other FCs want to keep quiet. Hell, he's been known for being a bit of a 'digger', hasn't he.

[Git]

I was thinking of posting this tomorrow or the day after but the time seems right, given what is currently being discussed. Remember that comment I once left at the original Slime Pit that some people asked me to turn into a blog post? Here it is:

I agree with 99% of what you posted, James.

That said, however, the whole "gendered slur" thing is utter bollocks.

I'm am sick and tired of whiny privileged middle-class American honkies with fainting couches wanting to define what words mean for the rest of the world. Fuck that narcissistic bollocks. Bunch of solipsist arrogant gobshites.

Cunt, you will find you cunts, is not a gendered slur in the Commonwealth (and increasingly so in the US outside of the circles of whiny privileged middle-class American honkies with fainting couches).

Just like the term "-nazi" appended to something else is not a literal allegation of nazidom, but a common-or-garden means of suggesting authoritarian and totalitarian aspects. Calling someone a "Little Hitler", a similar description, doesn't actually mean they're a miniature Adolf Hitler.

And even then, so fucking what? Its only a word. The whole "waaaaaah! She said cunt!" thing reminds me of Judaism's obsession with not saying "God" or "Adonai" or "YHWH" or whatever the fuck it is they put underscores through. The cunts are like a cult who think words have literal magical power*.

Just for those cunts, I present Derek and Clive:

[youtube]jTifRi3qDkU[/youtube]

(*the irony is, any Western Esotericist or Chaos Magician worth his or her salt will tell you that the power in magickal words of power comes from the effort manifested behind them, not the actual words themselves)

[Darren]

Is it just me, or is this thread moving much faster than the old ERV thread?

Tigzy

The privlege argument is such bullshit as applied because it is nothing more than an appeal to "poor me, nobody can understand how hard i have it".

I thought that was the Emo argument? ;)

[Tigzy]

Why cunt is good, and why they will never take it from us:

“You fucking knew that fucking cunt would fuck some cunt.”
― Irvine Welsh, Trainspotting

[John Greg]

James, I visited the full length version of the letter alluded to in http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 2800#p3886. I am quite impressed. While we may not see eye-to-eye on everything I think you have done a commendable job of presenting the facts and the timeline. Good work. I suspect you will become, if you have not already been, a witch-of-the-week at the place that shall not be named.

:)

By the way, have you been blacklisted by PeeZus yet?

[Munkhaus]

Dear MKG, inmate of Her Majesty's Penal Colony Terra Australis:
First, a round of applause for "Olivia Neutron Bomb." Everyone, please... this is sterling work. [this is not sarcasm, I'm thoroughly joyous with the phrase.]
I have been greatly enjoying your posts, and with regard to philosopie [ref: Prof Stanley Unwin] am in agreement almost total. Almost.
I am bound to take issue with this:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
by AnonymousCowherd » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:11 am

Has music, or painting, or literature done things that “science” doesn't (or can't)?

I don't really care, to be honest.
I do a lot of things that are trivial, out of the sheer pleasure that it invokes.
Let's get this straight:
If others want to 'do' philosphy, fine! Go ahead. I'll even encourage you.
Just don't lie about its utility is all I ask.

A leading [as in 'the witness"] example or two: a professional player of the american pastime "baseballs" commits to strike the object before being consciously aware of said ball's flightpath. A sportsperson is quite often described as being in " The Zone". Bruce Lee's advice of "total emotional content" comes to mind.
These experiences are, to my poor intellect, explained by the human brain "doing it's job", but more than that... being *allowed* to do it's job without undue conflict arising from 'personality issues'.
How does this relate to music? Well, come with me on a journey and I shall endeavour to explain:

Music is a set of purely physical events. Obv. But how do the tickling of air molecules move the emotions of mammals? Move to tears or laughter or anger?
Much like the complex calculations that our brains are undertaking on our behalf when, say, dealing with the physics of catching a ball in flight or blocking a phoenix throat-strike, when listening to music our brains are interpreting vibrational frequencies, rhythmn and mathematics.
Music is a language to describe truths.[music=maths]. It's one that we have evolved with, as information itself has evolved. From the exploding sacs as a tree absorbs water to a rabbit beating out a predator-warning. From our mothers heartbeat in the womb, to a star being born and dying.
Rhythmn, music, frequency, wave, binary...
In this way, the work of Gillespie and Reinhardt are of equal magnitude to that of Einstein and Hawking.

"The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils." ~ Big Billy Shakes.


{this is opinion and in no way intended to be taken as FRACT}

[Dilurk]

I was thinking of posting this tomorrow or the day after but the time seems right, given what is currently being discussed. Remember that comment I once left at the original Slime Pit that some people asked me to turn into a blog post? Here it is:

Letter to the Slime Pit (http://rationalugandan.wordpress.com/20 ... slime-pit/)

A very nice summary. Thanks.

[sacha]

I agree with Za-zen here, but also, and one may feel as though this is completely irrelevant, but I must set the record straight, old dogs can learn new tricks just as fast as young dogs. This is a fallacy that leads to dogs being surrendered, and euthanised.

Back to your regularly scheduled program...

I disagree with tf insofar as i do not believe that you could demonstrate the stupidity of it to her. In the same way that when you tell a believer that they are an atheist with regards to all the other gods, and you simply extend your disbelief to encompass their god, their eyes glaze over as they pronounce that it's different because their god is the real god.

Special pleading is at the very heart of the fftb/skepbabe cult. It's why no questioning of the dogma is tolerated, it has to be accepted a priori.

Example:
Premise; females feel unsafe in groups dominated by males
Circumstance; A convention where female attendance numbers are below average
Proposition; males must change the environment to make it feel safer for females.
Conclusion; An environment that feels safer will attract more females.

If we reject the premise of this example, the proposition is legless. The circumstance of below average female attendance could be caused by a number of factors, upon which the proposition would have no effect whatsoever. You may argue that the conclusion stands on it's own merit, but it is not neccesarily so:

"safer" is subjective and relative. One persons version of safe is an exclusion zone of ten feet between them and the next person, and safer has no meaning out of context of an identifiable threat. If the threat is unsubstantiated then zero change has to be made, nor could it be made to create a "safer" environment. That brings us neatly back to the need for an a priori premise.

secondly feels safer, does not equate to safer. The conclusion standing on it's own suggests that females need the illusion of safety in order to feel safe, kind of like proposing a child needs a security blanket to protect them from the monster under their bed.

This is all why the conclusion cannot stand on it's own, in order to be safer from X, we must first identify X and agree that is it a viable danger that requires protection from. Again we go back to the need for an a priori premise!

This really should have been a blog post.