Bunkspubble!

[decius]

Do they? How so? If someone is assaulted by someone else who saw their name on the list, how is the government held accountable? And if it could be proven in a court that AVfM's list contributed to someones alsault, are you seriously suggesting AVfM could not be held legally accountable? Because, of the two lists, I would think AVfM is the one who has more accountability here. And yes, the government has reasons for putting people on that list, But so does AVfM, if somewhat more trivial). The difference is, the government has some authority that suggests that someone on that list deserves to be there (and the numerous 15 year old boys who committed the crime of having consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends, who aren't on that list, would likely contest that point), which is something AVfM doesn't have, but that works both ways, it means AVfM's list can easily be dismissed by those who don't agree with someone being placed on it. Lastly, as to getting your name off the sex offenders list, it's damn near impossible to meat the requirements to do so.

Again, who appointed these imbeciles to be the guardians of anything? Has anyone given them, or the radfem, or the fucking commies for that matter, democratic mandate to subvert people's lives?

Are you really that fucking dense?

[Mark Neil]

Nobody. I don't make the list. I have even stated I disagree with it. I just also disagree with cunts portrayal of it. But likewise, who appointed cunt as judge over AVfM? Again, nobody, but he's done so anyways. Are you suggesting that people don't have a right to attempt to hold others accountable for their words and actions (so long as those attempts don't violate the law) (and if so, what's the point of this board again?)? Why is AVfM's list not allowed to be their own form of peaceful protest against the people on it? If that protest turns violent, then it's a different story, but the same could easily be said of the UofT protest as well.

We engage in intellectual debate, criticism and parody. We don't "punish", nor do we cross major lines like disrupting authorised events, doxxing and compiling proscription lists. I can't see how this difference can possibly elude anyone.

And the rest of what I said? Or do you think answering one side question addresses everything else?

As to your actual answer, are we still talking about the list, or have you broadened the scope now? moved the goal post so to speak? Because, aside from the accusation of doxing, the other two don't fit the list. As to the accusation of doxing, that's another discussion which I suspect we'll b more in line with. Much earlier, I acknowledged that two of the three UofT girls placed on that list appeared unfairly doxed (the third merely had her online content, under her real name, linked to her participation at the protest, which I would argue isn't any more doxing than pointing out the woman who wore a shirt that said "I am not a skepchik" was Hall (and to the best of my knowledge, nobody made that accusation against surely amy)). But like submariner, my objection is to cunt's portrayal of the list as some kind of hit list and a call for violent action, and I've stated this several time. I'm not defending the list in general, and have openly called it childish, but I think several people are making it out to be something it isn't.

[welch]

You do get the difference between dozing someone, and maintaining a permanent enemies list, right? For example, let's say that someone on the list has a moment of "lord, I was dumb", and while not becoming an MRA, no longer thinks that MRAs should be denied basic civil rights. How would they go about getiting their name off the list? Is the list reviewed for accuracy?

This is a good point. No list should be maintained unless it is actually maintained because then it could be quite harmful.

Exactly. They have a form for submitting names with a list of requirements. But nothing, nothing about what it takes to get off the list.

However, we have the inklings of what doesn't get you removed:

1) Death
2) Serving out your sentence

I was partially incorrect though. It is clear the list is actively maintained in the sense of keeping tabs on everyone who was ever on it. It does not appear that removing people who should no longer be on the list is of any priority whatsoever.

[AnotherLurkerMkII]

Because the government has *accountability*. It has to, even just theoretically, have actual reasons for those lists, and there are actual ways to REMOVE your name from that list.

Do they? How so? If someone is assaulted by someone else who saw their name on the list, how is the government held accountable? And if it could be proven in a court that AVfM's list contributed to someones alsault, are you seriously suggesting AVfM could not be held legally accountable? Because, of the two lists, I would think AVfM is the one who has more accountability here. And yes, the government has reasons for putting people on that list, But so does AVfM, if somewhat more trivial). The difference is, the government has some authority that suggests that someone on that list deserves to be there (and the numerous 15 year old boys who committed the crime of having consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends, who aren't on that list, would likely contest that point), which is something AVfM doesn't have, but that works both ways, it means AVfM's list can easily be dismissed by those who don't agree with someone being placed on it. Lastly, as to getting your name off the sex offenders list, it's damn near impossible to meat the requirements to do so.

"Somewhat more trivial"? You mean "completely trivial". Also, their reasons shouldn't matter - doxxing and listing enemies with a "where to find them" tag is STILL wrong, or so I was told by Mykeru, Reap, Surly Amy, and others (and I'm incling to agree on that too).

But you can keep defending them for doing what the Pit usually frowns up to, and then complain about the baboons' hypocrisy.

[welch]

[
Now, let us allow for the fact that the reporting on this story is not 100% accurate, such things rarely are. However, seriously? A TWELVE YEAR OLD GIRL TALKED A TWENTY-THREE YEAR OLD MAN INTO MURDER? Even allowing for the fact that Jasmine was no sweet angel, I think, I just think that maybe a TWENTY-THREE YEAR OLD MAN should know better than to:

a) Be dating a fucking twelve-year-old
b) KILL PEOPLE

Yet as far as that list plays it out, it was all her. She's the next fucking manson if you believe the tripe on that list. That's the quality of that list?

And check this out: she served her sentence. She was released. Agree or not with the length of the sentence, she has served the fucking time she was required to, yet AVfM will make sure that she is followed and hounded out forever, always making sure to let everyone know what the evil bitch did to sweet widdle jiwemmee:

Of course, she's a woman, therefore an evil witch who turn men into pigs - a fucking Circe.
These pathetic ideologues are the mirror image of the radfems, like I said from day one. They are just better at façade building.

Well done on digging up this nugget, Welch.

It didn't take much. Once I saw Susan Atkins still on the list, finding this one was about five minutes of work. Getting the background on the case took longer. This isn't anything resembling a public service. It's revenge, nothing more.

[welch]

No one gave a pass to the protesters, ...

Actually, Cunt did give them a pass. He presented the protesters as having simply attended a men's rights event, or simply protested against men's rights, when their actions were so much more intimidating than the intimidation he appears to take umbrage with regarding the list. Cunt claims the implied intimidation created by the list is a problem, but seems to have no problem with the overt intimidation and provocation presented by the protesters against the attendee's, based on how benign he chooses to portray them in such comments as:

viewtopic.php?p=63945#p63945

It has no real power, as in it can't actually order somebody to go track these people down? Well its just sunshine and lollipops then, obviously. Intimidation doesn't work that way, and its not just focused on the people who are already on the site. Its existence says, that if you protest us, we put your name and face up here. So you don't fucking say anything.

and viewtopic.php?p=63961#p63961

There's no double standard, unless you're okay with someone taking photos of you at a mens rights event, finding out your name and occupation and posting it all on a radfemhub wiki. Right under the banner - Misogynist. That'd also be fair, right?

You may disagree with the presenting of these protesters as committing violence, and I'm not altogether in disagreement with that, but I do identify a protest that engages in intimidation, illegal baring of entry, clear attempts to provoke violence in others and physical altercations with police to be a violent protest, not on kin with riots, but certainly beyond the purview of a peaceful protest. (I'm curious how you would choose to classify it?) And so, Cunt's portrayal of them as innocent protesters simply attending a men's rights event, ignoring their own intimidation while condemning the alleged intimidation of AVfM's list is giving them a pass.

but the fact that the cops weren't doing their jobs is not the same as "we'll if they won't, we have to"

Who said anything about "having" to? That AVfM choose to is something else entirely from "having to".

Well, it is a bad idea in general, and if you're going to do that, then accept you may inspire something you didn't want to happen.

I don't disagree with this, and I am uncertain that AVfM has done anything of the sort. But saying you need to accept the consequences of your actions, and suggesting those consequences were the intent to begin with, are two entirely different things. Cunt has labeled it an "enemies list". Someone else (may have been you) has labeled it a "hit list". These imply the purpose of the list is for use by someone violent to choose a target.

As to revisiting people on the list, I don't read AVfM very often, but I believe one of JTO's video's mentions that, after a year, they would revisit these UofT students inclusion on the list, and remove them if deemed appropriate. I don't have a link, he has a lot of video's. Perhaps someone else more familiar with AVfM content can point to a source.

Susan Atkins has been *dead* for over *three years*, she's still on the list. So DO pardon me if I think JTO's claims with regard to removing people from the list "if deemed appropriate" is complete and utter bullshit. The evidence from the list itself does not support his statement whatsoever.

[welch]

Regardless, be it violence or intimidation, I'm curious why you feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime?

And who the fuck appointed you to the role of "punisher"? You think like a mobster. Disgusting.

Nobody. I don't make the list. I have even stated I disagree with it. I just also disagree with cunts portrayal of it. But likewise, who appointed cunt as judge over AVfM? Again, nobody, but he's done so anyways. Are you suggesting that people don't have a right to attempt to hold others accountable for their words and actions (so long as those attempts don't violate the law) (and if so, what's the point of this board again?)? Why is AVfM's list not allowed to be their own form of peaceful protest against the people on it? If that protest turns violent, then it's a different story, but the same could easily be said of the UofT protest as well.

Because it's not peaceful, nor is it even factually neutral. read the descriptions of the "offenders" on that list. "Biased" doesn't even BEGIN to cover it.

[cunt]

Hey Mark, what do you think it is? Not whether you agree with it or not. I mean, what do you think the point of putting protesters up there actually is?

[Mark Neil]

Regardless, be it violence or intimidation, I'm curious why you feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime?

And who the fuck appointed you to the role of "punisher"? You think like a mobster. Disgusting.

Nobody. I don't make the list. I have even stated I disagree with it. I just also disagree with cunts portrayal of it. But likewise, who appointed cunt as judge over AVfM? Again, nobody, but he's done so anyways. Are you suggesting that people don't have a right to attempt to hold others accountable for their words and actions (so long as those attempts don't violate the law) (and if so, what's the point of this board again?)? Why is AVfM's list not allowed to be their own form of peaceful protest against the people on it? If that protest turns violent, then it's a different story, but the same could easily be said of the UofT protest as well.

Because nobody is allowed to "judge" anyone by criticizing them. Did you hear that, Ophelia? The Slymepit will leave you alone because it can't "judge" you by a lack of authority to do so.

People should be accountable for their acts - that's what we call "law". But we also agreed that doxxing and making lists of enemies is wrong. Likewise we all agree that is of very poor taste to protest at funerals, but we also agree that WBC have the right to be the assholes doing it if they want to (because of freeze mangoes or something - Americans are funny).

And who is this "we" that decided this? Was the AVfM membership a part of this decision? If not, who appointed this "we" to make such a decision and why should AVfM abide by it? You seem to have a problem with AVfM taking umbrage with others actions, but seem to have no problems taking umbrage with theirs. Who appointed you lord of what's allowed on the internet? Again, I repeat, I don't agree with the list, but it isn't the call for violence cunt and others have portrayed it to be. you keep saying the law is there to hold people accountable... so why not let that apply here as well and be done with the conversation? If AVfM is breaking the law, let the law deal with it. If they aren't, then let them do as they please, just as you expect them to let the protesters do as they please. Or have you been appointed to some authority that can't let that go?

[mordacious1]

From what I've read, he will no longer be called Benedict and will have some other title (Bishop of the Vatican, or something).
They will roll him out on special occasions such as Easter, Xmas, Ash Wednesday, etc.

So what we end up with is Ex-Benedict with Holy days.

(I stole that from someone who stole it from someone who...)

[decius]

As to your actual answer, are we still talking about the list, or have you broadened the scope now? moved the goal post so to speak? Because, aside from the accusation of doxing, the other two don't fit the list.

Sigh. I was grouping issues on the two sides of the permissibility line. They are all behaviours which fall in the same category.

Way to miss the point.

[Ericb]

From what I've read, he will no longer be called Benedict and will have some other title (Bishop of the Vatican, or something).
They will roll him out on special occasions such as Easter, Xmas, Ash Wednesday, etc.

So what we end up with is Ex-Benedict with Holy days.

(I stole that from someone who stole it from someone who...)

Does this mean he can use his saintly miracle powers before he dies (don't most Popes get to be saints)?

[Submariner]

Justicar has a new video up. It's a long one but worth the time IMO. He seems to show a bit of the old fire in the belly.


[youtube]iEAmRpx48EE[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

Over at Shakesville they're seething over a part of Obama's State of the Union Address. Why are they angry? Because of this statement: "We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence."
You see, it addresses men, and reduces women to their relationships. Never mind that the message was primarily aimed at men who need to be convinced of that in order to make progress on those issues. Intent isn't magic!

I haven't looked at Shakesville on this, and I recognize the wording was likely chosen by speechwriters for emotional connection & maybe aural interest, but this kind of thing grates on me, too, for 2 reasons - describing people in terms of their relationship to others, and assuming that others reading or listening have the same viewpoint (from a gender/race/etc point of view).

Re the first, other examples include the saying common in English, even outside of traditional marriage rites, referring to a couple as "man and wife" (or, as a man and his wife). An example I have noticed repeatedly over the years occurs in photo captions in the major newspaper in the (liberal) city I live in, is referring to women in a photos by their relation to others, but referring to men as the primary subject (e.g. a photo of a child & parent seems likely to read "John Smith, age 5, reads with his mother Mary" versus "James Smith reads with his son John, age 5"). If it happens occasionally, it's just coincidence. When it happens repeatedly, it sure looks like a pattern, though presumably one that the captioners & editors don't even notice.

Re the second, it's only recent that "our wives" would not necessarily mean a man is speaking to other men, but that's still (of course) the common meaning. I hear this (in the US) mostly when white politicians are talking about people who are not white; the word "they" comes out of their mouths often and IMO is jarring. Presumably the politicians should be representing all of "us" and when necessary make distinctions between people who are part of "us" without distancing "them". It's used in ads quite a bit (they start off talking about "you" and only after a while does the assumption about who "you" refers to comes out; if there's a voice, "you" is the same gender or other group-identification as the speaker, which of course makes sense).

Try varying Obama's comment; what if he were referring to men? What if he'd said, "We know our country is stronger when our husbands, sons, and fathers can live their lives free from injury in the workplace, and free from the fear of unjust accusations of rape." It would have sounded odd to have a man referring to "our husbands".

Of course, even more notable, it would have sounded odd (in the US at least) to hear anyone publicly expressing a wish to protect men, particularly when part of that wish would likely be seen as anti-women.

[/rant]

[JackSkeptic]

From what I've read, he will no longer be called Benedict and will have some other title (Bishop of the Vatican, or something).
They will roll him out on special occasions such as Easter, Xmas, Ash Wednesday, etc.

So what we end up with is Ex-Benedict with Holy days.

(I stole that from someone who stole it from someone who...)

Does this mean he can use his saintly miracle powers before he dies (don't most Popes get to be saints)?

I think they have to be dead first. In his case he's been brain dead for a long time so maybe he will get a pass.

[Mark Neil]

Hey Mark, what do you think it is? Not whether you agree with it or not. I mean, what do you think the point of putting protesters up there actually is?

I stated in an earlier comment to welp that I believe that AVfM believes too many see women as innocent and incapable of doing bad things. Given the gendered sentencing differences, the lessor sentences, the effectiveness of battered women's syndrome as a defense (such as the Canadian case recently where a woman hired a hitman to kill her ex, whom she had been separated from for months prior to the attempted hit), the acceptance of women's violence against men (you've seen that video where a woman actor beats up her male "boyfriend" and some people even cheer her on?). I believe the list is an (ineffectual) attempt to show just how common women behaving badly (and men suffering for it) is, with real examples.

If you wish to argue it's a stupid, childish idea, or is ineffectual, by all means, I will support you in that fight. If you want to argue it could have negative consequences, and ask AVfM if they are prepared to accept accountability for those consequences, I'll stand beside you (but this isn't what you've done). If you want to argue that doxing people in order to put them on that list is bad form/etiquette, again, I'll support you in that fight. But to portray it as some call to violence... that's pushing it too far, and reeks of the very victim narrative the baboons are known for. To suggest it is some overt form of intimidation and provocation for violence, far worst that what the protesters themselves displayed, I have to disagree. I am open to being proven wrong, if you have some evidence to support your claim that it is their intention to provoke violence against people on that list, such as Catherine Heigl (remember, the list is not limited to only the names of protesters).

[welch]

Because the government has *accountability*. It has to, even just theoretically, have actual reasons for those lists, and there are actual ways to REMOVE your name from that list.

Do they? How so? If someone is assaulted by someone else who saw their name on the list, how is the government held accountable? And if it could be proven in a court that AVfM's list contributed to someones alsault, are you seriously suggesting AVfM could not be held legally accountable? Because, of the two lists, I would think AVfM is the one who has more accountability here. And yes, the government has reasons for putting people on that list, But so does AVfM, if somewhat more trivial). The difference is, the government has some authority that suggests that someone on that list deserves to be there (and the numerous 15 year old boys who committed the crime of having consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends, who aren't on that list, would likely contest that point), which is something AVfM doesn't have, but that works both ways, it means AVfM's list can easily be dismissed by those who don't agree with someone being placed on it. Lastly, as to getting your name off the sex offenders list, it's damn near impossible to meat the requirements to do so.

A few things:

1) The existence of, what is in my opinion, a really bad idea, namely the sex offender's list, does not mean the AVfM list is okay. That is the logic a small child uses: "Why is it bad I kicked a puppy, BILLY PUNCHED A BABY, WHY ISN'T HE IN TROUBLE!!!" The fact that another entity is ALSO doing stupid shit does not excuse one's own stupid shit. The fact that the sex offender lists, as currently implemented do as much, if not more harm than good does not, on any level, in any way, for any reason excuse the AVfM list, and the attempts to use them as an excuse are stupid.

2) There is some vague semblance of due process to be placed on the list, involving trials and such. There is a judicial system in place that helps ensure, at least on a basic level, the rights of all involved. I am not so naive to think this a perfect or fair system, but, there are rather a lot of checks and balances in it. The fact that the more egregious examples of people on the list who shouldn't be are notable shows that the system works far more often than not. Should the current implementation(s) be improved? Of fucking course. The AVfM list is decided, from what I can see, by two people. We've already seen that the maintenance of the list is incredibly one-sided, and the narratives for each entry are biased as fuck. As long as Paul or John have decided that your evidence meets their *personal* approval, then your submission is granted. We've proof that the list itself is heavily biased in the narratives it paints, and that, again the death of a member of the list is not sufficient to remove them. Susan Atkins committed horrible crimes, and spent over 40 years of her life in jail as payment. She actually, at one point, was on death row for it. She is dead. She can literally, never, ever again harm anyone. The list even *acknowledges* she is dead, and yet her name is kept on it. Why? Is it because even death is not enough? Or is it to pad out the list, because a longer list looks more impressive than a shorter one.

3) You state: "And if it could be proven in a court that AVfM's list contributed to someones alsault, are you seriously suggesting AVfM could not be held legally accountable? Because, of the two lists, I would think AVfM is the one who has more accountability here." Maybe. But what kind of liability? Civil? What kind. As we've seen with such things in the past, SPLC, Fox News, even when you can show a direct link between someone's rhetoric and the crime that was instigated by said rhetoric, the normal "penalty" is people being angry with you. For a short while. I have yet to see much evidence of legal or civil punishment being exacted for this. It does happen, to be sure, but it is *rare* and the rhetoric has to be EXTREME. Outside of Manson, groups like the Klan or Nazis, it's pretty rare to punish a group or person for their speech, even when you can show it instigated a crime.

4) To be sure, removing your name from a sex offender list is not *easy* but it is not "almost impossible". For example, if one was on the list for conduct that WAS illegal, but is not NOW illegal, i.e. consensual homosexual sex, most states have laws that expidite the removal of someone from the list. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... istry.html has a general non-state-specific guideline for doing so. The process is complicated by the fact that it is a federal mandate implemented by the states, so each state can have its own rules, but it is not impossible, and again, there are structures in place that give someone clear guidelines on how to do so. As those guidelines are a matter of state law, they, like the laws that place one on the list, are available for public inspection, and thanks to it being a framework of law, the framework itself is able to be modified by a known, albeit tedious procedure. That is far, far better than "convince john and/or paul". Seriously, can you honestly not see the real, clear difference?

[Cunning Punt]

Am I supposed to have another objection to Paul Elam's registry other than intimidation? Intimidation isn't bad enough?

I do notice you tend to dodge a lot of the content in order to make a snarky retort to one single point, as if addressing one point dismisses all the others.

If you want to object to Paul's registry as intimidation, by all means, but your attempt to dismiss the intimidation of the protesters themselves demonstrates intimidation alone is not the real cause of your objection. You attempted to absolve the protesters of any guilt when you presented their participation in the men's rights event as utterly benign, which would not be necessary if intimidation was the cause of your objection. You could have very easily have objected to the alleged intimidation of both parties. This is especially telling given the intimidation by the protesters was overt and intentional, while the alleged intimidation of Paul's registry requires you to inject a malevolent intent into it. Furthermore, your identifying it as an "enemies list" injects more than simply an attempt to intimidate, it makes an accusation of some attempt to target these individuals with something specific, such as sending someone to the hospital (something those protesters were in a far better position to do, and were most certainly in a fervor enough to have done so, if not for the restraint of those they were verbally provoking/assaulting, again, with no apparent objection from you.

The protesters' intimidating behavior was against some people trying to attend a conference on a particular night. Once that night was over that guy being called "scum" was no longer being intimidated. The people on the registry however, are there for good, or at least long term. And you can't convince me there aren't some fucking nut jobs who read AVFM and might use that info for some vigilante justice.

[welch]

I think, I just think that maybe a TWENTY-THREE YEAR OLD MAN should know better than to:

a) Be dating a fucking twelve-year-old
b) KILL PEOPLE

For some reason that caused a massive LOLZ in me, even though it's not really funny.

Oh no, I saw the humor too. It's not NICE humor, but yeah. Seriously by the time you enter your third decade of life, there are just things you should fucking know.

[Metalogic42]

I'm behind, can I have a link to this AVfM list?

[welch]

From what I've read, he will no longer be called Benedict and will have some other title (Bishop of the Vatican, or something).
They will roll him out on special occasions such as Easter, Xmas, Ash Wednesday, etc.

So what we end up with is Ex-Benedict with Holy days.

(I stole that from someone who stole it from someone who...)

Ex-benedict? Well, I prefer my eggs over-medium, but to each their own.

[welch]

Hey Mark, what do you think it is? Not whether you agree with it or not. I mean, what do you think the point of putting protesters up there actually is?

I stated in an earlier comment to welp that I believe that AVfM believes too many see women as innocent and incapable of doing bad things. Given the gendered sentencing differences, the lessor sentences, the effectiveness of battered women's syndrome as a defense (such as the Canadian case recently where a woman hired a hitman to kill her ex, whom she had been separated from for months prior to the attempted hit), the acceptance of women's violence against men (you've seen that video where a woman actor beats up her male "boyfriend" and some people even cheer her on?). I believe the list is an (ineffectual) attempt to show just how common women behaving badly (and men suffering for it) is, with real examples.

If you wish to argue it's a stupid, childish idea, or is ineffectual, by all means, I will support you in that fight. If you want to argue it could have negative consequences, and ask AVfM if they are prepared to accept accountability for those consequences, I'll stand beside you (but this isn't what you've done). If you want to argue that doxing people in order to put them on that list is bad form/etiquette, again, I'll support you in that fight. But to portray it as some call to violence... that's pushing it too far, and reeks of the very victim narrative the baboons are known for. To suggest it is some overt form of intimidation and provocation for violence, far worst that what the protesters themselves displayed, I have to disagree. I am open to being proven wrong, if you have some evidence to support your claim that it is their intention to provoke violence against people on that list, such as Catherine Heigl (remember, the list is not limited to only the names of protesters).

I don't think it's intended to be a call to violence, no. But intimidation? I've yet to see good proof that it's not designed to intimidate, especially given the biased narratives and the way the list is updated to "keep current on the offenders' location". That seems rather intimidating to me.

Look, if the list was what you state it to be, a way to show that the meme of women being non-violent because...fuck, XX means peace?, then the narratives should be far, far different from what they are. It is entirely capable to maintain the list in a neutral way, and to remove people from the list who have either died, or served out their sentence. There is no need to continually update the list with someone's new location. That's just vengeance.

And some of the entries are just fucking stupid. Seriously, Tonya Harding? She's a danger to whom, other than herself? Why is she listed as a "violent offender" when she committed no acts of violence, (okay the sex tape was an assault on one's brain, but still), and was at best, the world's clumsiest co-conspirator. If you want to put her on a list "Dumbasses" is a better one.

If you want to do a serious article showing that women are just as capable of violent behavior, and that society has a bad habit of not taking said behavior seriously, by *all* fucking means do so. But this list is not that.

[welch]

I'm behind, can I have a link to this AVfM list?

http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

took me a bit to find it, it's a bit separate from the main AVfM site.

[AnotherLurkerMkII]

Regardless, be it violence or intimidation, I'm curious why you feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime?

And who the fuck appointed you to the role of "punisher"? You think like a mobster. Disgusting.

Nobody. I don't make the list. I have even stated I disagree with it. I just also disagree with cunts portrayal of it. But likewise, who appointed cunt as judge over AVfM? Again, nobody, but he's done so anyways. Are you suggesting that people don't have a right to attempt to hold others accountable for their words and actions (so long as those attempts don't violate the law) (and if so, what's the point of this board again?)? Why is AVfM's list not allowed to be their own form of peaceful protest against the people on it? If that protest turns violent, then it's a different story, but the same could easily be said of the UofT protest as well.

Because nobody is allowed to "judge" anyone by criticizing them. Did you hear that, Ophelia? The Slymepit will leave you alone because it can't "judge" you by a lack of authority to do so.

People should be accountable for their acts - that's what we call "law". But we also agreed that doxxing and making lists of enemies is wrong. Likewise we all agree that is of very poor taste to protest at funerals, but we also agree that WBC have the right to be the assholes doing it if they want to (because of freeze mangoes or something - Americans are funny).

And who is this "we" that decided this? Was the AVfM membership a part of this decision? If not, who appointed this "we" to make such a decision and why should AVfM abide by it? You seem to have a problem with AVfM taking umbrage with others actions, but seem to have no problems taking umbrage with theirs. Who appointed you lord of what's allowed on the internet? Again, I repeat, I don't agree with the list, but it isn't the call for violence cunt and others have portrayed it to be. you keep saying the law is there to hold people accountable... so why not let that apply here as well and be done with the conversation? If AVfM is breaking the law, let the law deal with it. If they aren't, then let them do as they please, just as you expect them to let the protesters do as they please. Or have you been appointed to some authority that can't let that go?

[youtube]E09LU6XVyxs[/youtube]

Oh, and because having a list that amounts to "here's a list of enemies of us that you can look at, with their home cities" is a really bad idea. Specially if one of the peeves of your organization is that it is included (maybe unfairly) in hate group lists.

They surely can do as they please, like PZ and Ophelia can post the hell they want to. Does it means we shouldn't call them on their bullshit? Do you need a special appointed office to do so?

[decius]

They surely can do as they please, like PZ and Ophelia can post the hell they want to. Does it means we shouldn't call them on their bullshit? Do you need a special appointed office to do so?

Ditto.

The Bureau of Baboon Spotting suffice.

[cunt]

You didn't answer the question Mark. It was very specific.

I mean, what do you think the point of putting protesters up there actually is?

How do you work that into your narrative that this list is there simply to make the point that women can also be violent offenders, pedophiles, etc. Or do you think that attending a protest, being kind of a bitch and making jokes on twitter is the moral equivalent to all the other crimes on there.

[Pitchguest]

Dante, Dante really?!? You, sir, are no gentleman!

You just noticed that? Me oh my you are a bit slow.
Would you have preferred Milton, perhaps? Parrot-dice lost?

let's keep the trend going, shall we?

Ah, yes, Symphony X. Responsible for the longest song ever made? (Or have Rhapsody or Avantasia beat that yet?)

(It's this one, by the way.)

[Gefan]

Lsuoma,
Ah shit. Just when I was gettin' ready to retire. Six more weeks and out, man! Now I'm going to be stuck in Uruguay with no Pit!
Game over, man!
Game over!

[John Greg]

So what we end up with is Ex-Benedict with Holy days.

That's good. It took me a while.

[Metalogic42]

I'm behind, can I have a link to this AVfM list?

http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

took me a bit to find it, it's a bit separate from the main AVfM site.

Yeah, I'm gonna say this list is bullshit. Chances are good that (for example) at least some of the women listed as "killers" did so not because the victim was a man, but for completely unrelated reasons. So at best it's a "here's a bunch of bad people" list, but with only women. Why? Also, why is this person on the list: http://register-her.com/index.php?title ... c_Official

[Mark Neil]

A few things:

1) The existence of, what is in my opinion, a really bad idea, namely the sex offender's list, does not mean the AVfM list is okay.

I'm not arguing that AVfM's list is a good idea. I repeatedly said otherwise. I'm arguing it is not the call to violence cunt portrayed it as. If you want to argue the value of the list, find another target.

2) There is some vague semblance of due process to be placed on the list, involving trials and such. There is a judicial system in place that helps ensure, at least on a basic level, the rights of all involved. I am not so naive to think this a perfect or fair system, but, there are rather a lot of checks and balances in it

And that process gives the SOR it's authority. An authority AVfM's list doesn't have. You are making it out to sound like AVfM's list is as damning to a person as the SOR, or even SPLC. It's one groups list of bad people on the internet, and has as much authorty behind it as "The Village Voice Blogs Top 10 list of best cookies in new yorK". Yes, the SOR has some semblance of due process, but that then gives strength to peoples conviction to act on it. AVfM's list has less authority to put names on a list, but likewise, that list holds little weight.

3) You state: "And if it could be proven in a court that AVfM's list contributed to someones alsault, are you seriously suggesting AVfM could not be held legally accountable? Because, of the two lists, I would think AVfM is the one who has more accountability here." Maybe. But what kind of liability? Civil? What kind. As we've seen with such things in the past, SPLC, Fox News, even when you can show a direct link between someone's rhetoric and the crime that was instigated by said rhetoric, the normal "penalty" is people being angry with you. For a short while. I have yet to see much evidence of legal or civil punishment being exacted for this. It does happen, to be sure, but it is *rare* and the rhetoric has to be EXTREME. Outside of Manson, groups like the Klan or Nazis, it's pretty rare to punish a group or person for their speech, even when you can show it instigated a crime.

You made the claim the SOR has more accountability, I asked how. You still haven't answered that question, merely changed the goalpost (to liability) and again, present as if the SOR somehow has more than AVfM. Sure, if someone were to act upon AVfM's list, the liability may not be satisfactory to the person targeted due to their list, but again, how is the SOR any different? If someone acts based on the SOR, how is the government held more liable than AVfM would be? Because, again, from my understanding, the government actually has less than AVfM. In fact, the SOR actually allows people to take action, by using the name being on that registry to deny jobs and living arrangements. That's something AVfM's list doesn't grant anybody protection for.

Again, you imply that AVfM's list is akin a group that is "instigating" a crime. this is the assertion I'm opposed to, not the value of the list as a whole. If you want to make this assertion, then by all means, convince me. But simply claiming the list is a bad idea, and "could" lead someone outside the authority of AVfM into taing action (something Mykeru's video's, or reading this board, or, for example, people reading Ophelia's tweets (such as the guy offering to kneecap people for her... he didn't actually need to ask) could also do), therefore it's perfectly ok to label it as an intentional instigation of violence... that's wrong, and I strongly disagree with that assessment.

[Metalogic42]

Dante, Dante really?!? You, sir, are no gentleman!

You just noticed that? Me oh my you are a bit slow.
Would you have preferred Milton, perhaps? Parrot-dice lost?

let's keep the trend going, shall we?

Ah, yes, Symphony X. Responsible for the longest song ever made? (Or have Rhapsody or Avantasia beat that yet?)

(It's this one, by the way.)

Pfft.

[youtube]Xk7h1FD-D0o[/youtube]

[another lurker]

Bad kittehs should be doxxed, frequently!

[decius]

The list could also be a mean to extort money for removal. It wouldn't be the first case of the sort.

[Cunning Punt]

Ophelia Benson
anagram
A Noble Penis Ho

Thanks. I burst out laughing in the middle of a coffee shop, and couldn't stop.

Well She's also a pensionable ho, and if she keeps driving away men she'll have alone hip bones, avoiding overuse of toys to avoid getting baleen hip soon, will leave her dried up and requiring the old banshee loin op. When that goes wrong she'll cry out with a plebeian's 'Oh No' and realise' "I'll be unable to enjoy the beanpole I nosh. This time away from blogging means she'll have to hop on baseline and beg for shoevlogs again. When people complain, she'll want to dig dirt and every interaction will begin Hi, enable snoop!. Sick of celibacy she could become a no hope lesbian, desperate for attention she'd open "Hon Abseil" to draw the ladies. Realising she'd lost her position she'd have to Bale on phonies and slowly abolish one pen of those morons after another until only one is left. Her final act being Banish ole peon PZ from her life and ride into the sunset on albino sheep

Next post, greg laden anagrams, anagrams are fun

[Cunning Punt]

Rebecca Watson, at convention, upon a coca bestrewn hotel room floor
Blood purity from alcohol less than one carat. Webs once woven across her lady-door
Now swab a concrete statue of a Cetacean’s Brow flung the night before.
For, crabs enact woe below and one crab won’t cease, leaving her clunge raw
Hangover pounding she Brews Ten Cacao beans though they stick in her maw
The carob case went down but sticks in her ceca. Worst bean pain, more than before
She rushes to A stone WC. Brace yourselves be aware. Cob scent will flood the room
And acne, two braces will form upon faces or it will bestow a cancer on the unsuspecting womb.
Beware con! Scat now pours down the stairs. The bowels of this cow beaten, scar and rheum
form on the lungs of revellers below. Attempts to screw abate. Con goers flee as the hall smells of a tomb.
On large host bemoans how much a wee bra can cost. On the face of this orca tween, scab and pusjule grow
Outside at the cabs, corneas wet from tears to clean from our eyes the pungent cat’s wee. Carbon copies of pain on show
Collective will now creates cabs in abundance, With Watson at lead, in her absence, car two’s driver’s eyes start to bleed
In cobra stance we fight to the fore, as our priviledged sect, war beacon in hand takes the last cab thanking our stars that we fleed

oh and also couldn’t use Scarab Once Wet or Arcane Webs Cot or Bacon Race Stew

I might try Steffy Zvan, but I can't spell her name.

How's this for energy and wit? Fucking anagrams and it rhymes! Beats limericks I'm afraid.

[Pitchguest]

Dante, Dante really?!? You, sir, are no gentleman!

You just noticed that? Me oh my you are a bit slow.
Would you have preferred Milton, perhaps? Parrot-dice lost?

let's keep the trend going, shall we?

Ah, yes, Symphony X. Responsible for the longest song ever made? (Or have Rhapsody or Avantasia beat that yet?)

(It's this one, by the way.)

Pfft.

[youtube]Xk7h1FD-D0o[/youtube]

*raises one finger, breathes in* ... *puts it down* *raises a finger again, breathes in* ... *puts it down again*

I stand corrected. (Holy crap.)

[Mark Neil]

You didn't answer the question Mark. It was very specific.

I mean, what do you think the point of putting protesters up there actually is?

How do you work that into your narrative that this list is there simply to make the point that women can also be violent offenders, pedophiles, etc. Or do you think that attending a protest, being kind of a bitch and making jokes on twitter is the moral equivalent to all the other crimes on there.

I did answer your question. Simply because you choose to believe "bad things" is restricted to violent offenses, pedophilia, etc, does not mean that's everyone's view. I've seen it stated (often) that women are incapable of being sexist against men. I've seen it stated that woman don't/can't intimidate men. Again, you play down the actions of the protesters as "being kind of a bitch" while trying to portray AVfM as some kind of monster (didn't Welp say nobody was giving them a pass?). As to moral equivalency, I have no intention of defending what goes on that list and if it's deserved, except to say, they have listed "bigot" as a category, and have placed people in it. Whether it belongs there or not is up to them to defend, not me. But their placing the protesters on the list, under a category that already existed, seems to fit what I described.

You seem to be trying to bait me into justifying the list, which I won't do. I'm simply calling YOU out for portraying it as some kind of active call to violence, based on ... what I can only describe as a SJW-like attempt to make anything and everything into a victimization of women.

[Gefan]

Rebecca Watson, at convention, upon a coca bestrewn hotel room floor
Blood purity from alcohol less than one carat. Webs once woven across her lady-door
Now swab a concrete statue of a Cetacean’s Brow flung the night before.
For, crabs enact woe below and one crab won’t cease, leaving her clunge raw
Hangover pounding she Brews Ten Cacao beans though they stick in her maw
The carob case went down but sticks in her ceca. Worst bean pain, more than before
She rushes to A stone WC. Brace yourselves be aware. Cob scent will flood the room
And acne, two braces will form upon faces or it will bestow a cancer on the unsuspecting womb.
Beware con! Scat now pours down the stairs. The bowels of this cow beaten, scar and rheum
form on the lungs of revellers below. Attempts to screw abate. Con goers flee as the hall smells of a tomb.
On large host bemoans how much a wee bra can cost. On the face of this orca tween, scab and pusjule grow
Outside at the cabs, corneas wet from tears to clean from our eyes the pungent cat’s wee. Carbon copies of pain on show
Collective will now creates cabs in abundance, With Watson at lead, in her absence, car two’s driver’s eyes start to bleed
In cobra stance we fight to the fore, as our priviledged sect, war beacon in hand takes the last cab thanking our stars that we fleed

oh and also couldn’t use Scarab Once Wet or Arcane Webs Cot or Bacon Race Stew

I might try Steffy Zvan, but I can't spell her name.

Sounds rather like Sacha Wiley Shaw's poetry, minus the self-pity.
Actually, scratch that. Once you subtract the self-pity you'd be left with a pair of hipster glasses behind a microphone.

[Tigzy]

Sounds rather like Sacha Wiley Shaw's poetry, minus the self-pity.
Actually, scratch that. Once you subtract the self-pity you'd be left with a pair of hipster glasses behind a microphone.

I can't stick that slam poetry malarkey. It's like bebop jazz fusion but with words. I mean, I'm all for people enjoying their hobbies, but that doesn't mean I can't sneer at it.

They call me MAN
With WOMB
But I am neither, Eustachio,
No, freind Eustachio,
For I am WOH!
WOH!
Nursemaid,
Mother,
Lover,
But not to you,
Male cast out,
From the cloak of my vagina.
Not to you.

Tony the queer Shoop, aged 17 and half.

[Zenspace]

Folks, someone upthread said the Pit is losing its way, and I gave say I'm not seeing the energy and wit I used to.

I'm considering calling it a day and filling it in: I'll think about it for a few days and get back to y'all over the weekend.

It is completely up to you but I must say, this is one of the best forums I've ever posted on and I'd be very sorry to see it go

This forum is fuckin excellent, and to me, it looks like it's going from strength to strength. I mean, if the 'way' is irritating the fuck out of the baboons and getting a good few lulz out of it too, I'd say it wasn't losing it - quite the opposite.

And sure, as the pit grows and gets more contributors, you will get a lot more noise to signal. But the good stuff is still coming through - shit, just have a look at Ape Plussed and Jan Steens' 'shops for that - and there's plenty of funny fuckers around. Lulz aside, this place still serves as a good info resource for the likes of Mykeru, Noelplum (sure, he's not contributed here, but I'd bet my arse that he lurks) and tf00t - all of whose videos rarely disappoint when it comes to demonstrating to the wider community what a bunch of flaccid, nincompoop twerps the FC brigade really are. As I've said before,I don't believe the anti-FTB/Skepchick/A+ movement - such as it is - is in any way dependent on the existence the pyt. But the pyt does its bit here, and IMO, does it very well.

And if nothing else - think of that poor old sod Steersman; this is the only place where he can indulge his compulsive need to be contrary without the fear of getting banned, moderated or edited. Can you imagine the look on his poor little choo-choo face should this place be gone?

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/file ... gs-pug.jpg

Even the pug-loving Melody Hensley wouldn't be moved to take in so sad an example, because Steersman is male, and in her view, Shrodinger's Peperami packet.

I do accept, however, that 'Think of the Steersman' is probably not the most persuasive argument for the continued existence of the pyt. Oh well.

NOOOOO! I think Tigzy had it right. The job is far from over, even if there happens to be a quiet patch at the moment. That will happen more frequently as FtB/A+ & Co. continue to fade and become less and less relevant. Also, you have had to notice how more and more members are joining lately. The community is learning that the FtB description of the Pyt is bullshit, but we have to be here for them to visit and see for themselves. Other voices are starting to speak against the hypocrisy that is all things FtB, but the Pyt is still the most focused source that I know of. Shutting the Pyt down would be trumpeted as a huge victory for the FtB crowd and would no doubt energize them instantly, and not for the better.

Tigzy also makes a good point about the noise to signal ratio. As the membership increases, more voices join the fray and topics and agendas will wander a bit more. I think I sprained my scroll finger on that endless 'what's the definition of violence' thread, but that is just an indicator of more voices combined with a dip in baboon activity.

[decius]

Mark Neil, I take it that you wouldn't object to fundamentalist christians posting lists of abortion doctors. Because, as everyone knows, they don't do it to intimidate or getting them killed, right?

[Scented Nectar]

And as for PZ, it makes me wonder. Does he have his classes do live (=torture) dissections on various fish and other animals? Or does he minimize harm by showing videos of such dissections (where only one animal gets hurt)? He said once that as a child, he loved to play with roadkill and examine their innards. I wonder if he ever intentionally killed any animals as a kid too.

Oh, please. Even small colleges like UMM have institutional animal care and use committees, and if anyone is using vertebrate animals for research or teaching, the protocols, labs, and animal facilities are inspected regularly by AAALAC and by the USDA. Formalin-fixed animals, long dead, are used for basic anatomy/biology teaching labs. If Myers has students doing experiments on adult fish that involve any sort of surgery or injections, the animals will be anesthetized during the procedure.

Ok, I guess things have changed for the better. I had to refuse in a high school class to slit open a live animal (worm, I think it was) and pin it's skin to a board while discussing its still-moving innards. But that was in the 70s.

[JackSkeptic]

Can someone explain to me why a few days without relevant posts to A+/FtB means the sky is falling on our head? I must have missed something.

[decius]

Can someone explain to me why a few days without relevant posts to A+/FtB means the sky is falling on our head? I must have missed something.

LSuoma has her cycle.

[AnotherLurkerMkII]

Can someone explain to me why a few days without relevant posts to A+/FtB means the sky is falling on our head? I must have missed something.

LSuoma has her cycle.

Or maybe all those ads paying from Project Wonderful finally paid him a new mansion and a boat, so he has little use for the Pit now.

Mr. LSuoma, how do you responde to these biting allegations?

[JackSkeptic]

Can someone explain to me why a few days without relevant posts to A+/FtB means the sky is falling on our head? I must have missed something.

LSuoma has her cycle.

Or maybe all those ads paying from Project Wonderful finally paid him a new mansion and a boat, so he has little use for the Pit now.

Mr. LSuoma, how do you responde to these biting allegations?

He's busy hiring his yaught, give him time.

[katamari Damassi]

Try varying Obama's comment; what if he were referring to men? What if he'd said, "We know our country is stronger when our husbands, sons, and fathers can live their lives free from injury in the workplace, and free from the fear of unjust accusations of rape." It would have sounded odd to have a man referring to "our husbands".

Of course, even more notable, it would have sounded odd (in the US at least) to hear anyone publicly expressing a wish to protect men, particularly when part of that wish would likely be seen as anti-women.

Honestly it were say Hillary Clinton saying it, it wouldn't sound odd to me in the least.

[DW Adams]

Anyone know latsot?
http://atheiststoday.com/images/dw_adam ... idiot2.png

(Remember to read this one from the bottom up)
http://atheiststoday.com/images/dw_adam ... _idiot.png

See what he did with the last couple of tweets? Dishonest fuck.

[katamari Damassi]

I guess my point is that there is someone in power trying to resolve some the issues you care about(employment discrimination, domestic violence)and instead of appreciating it, you choose to cry rage tears over the language he uses in trying to accomplish your goal.

[Tigzy]

According to the link on his Twitter page, Latsot is this guy: http://www.lookatthestateofthat.com/index.html

[JackSkeptic]

According to the link on his Twitter page, Latsot is this guy: http://www.lookatthestateofthat.com/index.html

He has a blog apparently.

As a general rule by the way I have no issue with people disagreeing or defending FtB etc at all, including him.

Sometimes I feel we push it a bit too much and I still think Ad Hominems are a very bad form of argument.

[JackSkeptic]

I'm thinking of doing an occasional blog, maybe a podcast. Once as week blog would be no problem. It is easy for me to learn how to do this but I do not know how networks accept contributors, such as Skeptic Ink.

As I do not have a blog yet and therefore have no work to show what do I have to do to be accepted there or elsewhere?

[Lsuoma]

Folks, someone upthread said the Pit is losing its way, and I gave say I'm not seeing the energy and wit I used to.

I'm considering calling it a day and filling it in: I'll think about it for a few days and get back to y'all over the weekend.

It is completely up to you but I must say, this is one of the best forums I've ever posted on and I'd be very sorry to see it go

This forum is fuckin excellent, and to me, it looks like it's going from strength to strength. I mean, if the 'way' is irritating the fuck out of the baboons and getting a good few lulz out of it too, I'd say it wasn't losing it - quite the opposite.

And sure, as the pit grows and gets more contributors, you will get a lot more noise to signal. But the good stuff is still coming through - shit, just have a look at Ape Plussed and Jan Steens' 'shops for that - and there's plenty of funny fuckers around. Lulz aside, this place still serves as a good info resource for the likes of Mykeru, Noelplum (sure, he's not contributed here, but I'd bet my arse that he lurks) and tf00t - all of whose videos rarely disappoint when it comes to demonstrating to the wider community what a bunch of flaccid, nincompoop twerps the FC brigade really are. As I've said before,I don't believe the anti-FTB/Skepchick/A+ movement - such as it is - is in any way dependent on the existence the pyt. But the pyt does its bit here, and IMO, does it very well.

And if nothing else - think of that poor old sod Steersman; this is the only place where he can indulge his compulsive need to be contrary without the fear of getting banned, moderated or edited. Can you imagine the look on his poor little choo-choo face should this place be gone?

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/file ... gs-pug.jpg

Even the pug-loving Melody Hensley wouldn't be moved to take in so sad an example, because Steersman is male, and in her view, Shrodinger's Peperami packet.

I do accept, however, that 'Think of the Steersman' is probably not the most persuasive argument for the continued existence of the pyt. Oh well.

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

[Steersman]

Hello everyone - After lurking for an undisclosed period of time I decided I ought to register. I'm not much of a banterer but who knows, I might fall in love with the place and make it a priority - we'll have to see about that. Thanks in advance to moderators and members for your hospitality. ~Karla

Welcome aboard, Karla. Sacha or one of her sisters-in-crime will, I expect, be along shortly to induct you into the GTI [gender traitors international] and Chill-Girls sorority. :-)

Although I hope you realize that you have now crossed a Rubicon, that you will, henceforth and forevermore, be banned from posting on Pharyngula simply for having posted here in the Pit. However it might be interesting if you tried, even if only to see PZ try to squirm out between a rock and a hard place, between his ex cathedra anathametization of the Pit and his supposed obligation to freethought – maybe like the other Pope, he should resign …. ;-)

But that situation highlights, I think, one of your other cogent observations on the topic:

As you can see Matt [Dillahunty], attendees did not understand the context of @ElevatorGATE’s remark - because they have no idea whatsoever about the drama of the paranoid, sick and dysfunctional element of the online atheist ‘community’.

Indeed.

[Dick Strawkins]

I'm thinking of doing an occasional blog, maybe a podcast. Once as week blog would be no problem. It is easy for me to learn how to do this but I do not know how networks accept contributors, such as Skeptic Ink.

As I do not have a blog yet and therefore have no work to show what do I have to do to be accepted there or elsewhere?

Just write a sample blog post and send it by email to the following:

pzmyers@ftb.com

If you need one, we could always write you a reference.

;)

[JackSkeptic]

Folks, someone upthread said the Pit is losing its way, and I gave say I'm not seeing the energy and wit I used to.

I'm considering calling it a day and filling it in: I'll think about it for a few days and get back to y'all over the weekend.

It is completely up to you but I must say, this is one of the best forums I've ever posted on and I'd be very sorry to see it go

This forum is fuckin excellent, and to me, it looks like it's going from strength to strength. I mean, if the 'way' is irritating the fuck out of the baboons and getting a good few lulz out of it too, I'd say it wasn't losing it - quite the opposite.

And sure, as the pit grows and gets more contributors, you will get a lot more noise to signal. But the good stuff is still coming through - shit, just have a look at Ape Plussed and Jan Steens' 'shops for that - and there's plenty of funny fuckers around. Lulz aside, this place still serves as a good info resource for the likes of Mykeru, Noelplum (sure, he's not contributed here, but I'd bet my arse that he lurks) and tf00t - all of whose videos rarely disappoint when it comes to demonstrating to the wider community what a bunch of flaccid, nincompoop twerps the FC brigade really are. As I've said before,I don't believe the anti-FTB/Skepchick/A+ movement - such as it is - is in any way dependent on the existence the pyt. But the pyt does its bit here, and IMO, does it very well.

And if nothing else - think of that poor old sod Steersman; this is the only place where he can indulge his compulsive need to be contrary without the fear of getting banned, moderated or edited. Can you imagine the look on his poor little choo-choo face should this place be gone?

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/file ... gs-pug.jpg

Even the pug-loving Melody Hensley wouldn't be moved to take in so sad an example, because Steersman is male, and in her view, Shrodinger's Peperami packet.

I do accept, however, that 'Think of the Steersman' is probably not the most persuasive argument for the continued existence of the pyt. Oh well.

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

Dam, I was gonna say 'Can I haz your stuff?'

For anyone who is not as cool as me, that's a standard request for people leaving an online game.

[JackSkeptic]

I'm thinking of doing an occasional blog, maybe a podcast. Once as week blog would be no problem. It is easy for me to learn how to do this but I do not know how networks accept contributors, such as Skeptic Ink.

As I do not have a blog yet and therefore have no work to show what do I have to do to be accepted there or elsewhere?

Just write a sample blog post and send it by email to the following:

pzmyers@ftb.com

If you need one, we could always write you a reference.

;)

I'll offer a free pair of Fluvogs and a personality transplant, that should do it.

[UnbelieveSteve]

I'm thinking of doing an occasional blog, maybe a podcast. Once as week blog would be no problem. It is easy for me to learn how to do this but I do not know how networks accept contributors, such as Skeptic Ink.

As I do not have a blog yet and therefore have no work to show what do I have to do to be accepted there or elsewhere?

Just write a sample blog post and send it by email to the following:

pzmyers@ftb.com

If you need one, we could always write you a reference.

;)

Yes Jack, you do have a blog. (At the Slymepit with the rest of us) Show them your credentials. This should be enough to get you gainfully employed as a blogger on any network.

---

http://i.imgur.com/SqxC5Hh.jpg

[AnotherLurkerMkII]

Folks, someone upthread said the Pit is losing its way, and I gave say I'm not seeing the energy and wit I used to.

I'm considering calling it a day and filling it in: I'll think about it for a few days and get back to y'all over the weekend.

It is completely up to you but I must say, this is one of the best forums I've ever posted on and I'd be very sorry to see it go

This forum is fuckin excellent, and to me, it looks like it's going from strength to strength. I mean, if the 'way' is irritating the fuck out of the baboons and getting a good few lulz out of it too, I'd say it wasn't losing it - quite the opposite.

And sure, as the pit grows and gets more contributors, you will get a lot more noise to signal. But the good stuff is still coming through - shit, just have a look at Ape Plussed and Jan Steens' 'shops for that - and there's plenty of funny fuckers around. Lulz aside, this place still serves as a good info resource for the likes of Mykeru, Noelplum (sure, he's not contributed here, but I'd bet my arse that he lurks) and tf00t - all of whose videos rarely disappoint when it comes to demonstrating to the wider community what a bunch of flaccid, nincompoop twerps the FC brigade really are. As I've said before,I don't believe the anti-FTB/Skepchick/A+ movement - such as it is - is in any way dependent on the existence the pyt. But the pyt does its bit here, and IMO, does it very well.

And if nothing else - think of that poor old sod Steersman; this is the only place where he can indulge his compulsive need to be contrary without the fear of getting banned, moderated or edited. Can you imagine the look on his poor little choo-choo face should this place be gone?

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/file ... gs-pug.jpg

Even the pug-loving Melody Hensley wouldn't be moved to take in so sad an example, because Steersman is male, and in her view, Shrodinger's Peperami packet.

I do accept, however, that 'Think of the Steersman' is probably not the most persuasive argument for the continued existence of the pyt. Oh well.

Oh, alright - I've been pugged into it: the Pit Lives On!!!!!

Well, that's good. Or we could start to blame Karla for the end of the Slymepit, because isn't curious? She registers and then LSuoma wants to end it all. What are you two hiding from the world?