Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

#6961

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Percentage wrote:I'm calling it- Miri is going to be a serious leader in the atheist movement come the next few decades. She speaks very well on camera and has that sort of nebulous X factor that allows her to command a room (a chat room, in this case, but still). It's immature since she's like 21 but you can see it. Wonky eye or no, I was impressed.
But she's mental.

From what I've been able to glean she's "depressed" in the same way that every SJW is in some way "neuroatypical". Good solid victim points, they are, and when you're a white middle-class American woman, you need as many as you can get.

#6962

Apples wrote:
deLurch wrote:<I totally know about archery /pedant>
May the odds be ever in your favor.

And remember who the enemy is.

#6963

Thanks for the feedbacks, deLurch. It was my first time and I will try and follow your advises next time. They are safely copy/pasted.

#6964

Percentage wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Percentage wrote:I'm calling it- Miri is going to be a serious leader in the atheist movement come the next few decades. She speaks very well on camera and has that sort of nebulous X factor that allows her to command a room (a chat room, in this case, but still). It's immature since she's like 21 but you can see it. Wonky eye or no, I was impressed.
But she's mental.
From what I've been able to glean she's "depressed" in the same way that every SJW is in some way "neuroatypical". Good solid victim points, they are, and when you're a white middle-class American woman, you need as many as you can get.

I think youâ€™re probably being a little hasty in your judgements; you might wish to take a look at this post of hers, particularly the subheading: Content note: depression, suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, sexual assault. And she also has an interesting one here describing her somewhat traumatic decision to finally take anti-depressants. Seems that condition is no picnic.

#6965

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Never mind, Phil. You'll always have Hastings.

You know - just that one time.
Yeah, well, we were sick that day. I'm almost certain there was a note from our moms somewhere.

??? That battle looks like it was one that the French - the Normans - won against the British:

The Battle of Hastings occurred on 14 October 1066 during the Norman conquest of England, between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army under King Harold II. It took place at Senlac Hill, approximately 7 miles (11 kilometres) northwest of Hastings, close to the present-day town of Battle, East Sussex, and was a decisive Norman victory.

#6966

Yes, it was won by the French, and we were sick that day, to top it off. And apparently, we were school-children as well (the "moms' sick note").

I really hate to have to explain my stupid jokes.

#6967

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yes, it was won by the French, and we were sick that day, to top it off. And apparently, we were school-children as well (the "moms' sick note").

I really hate to have to explain my stupid jokes.

You could also remind the US peeps about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake when they give you Frenchies a hard time.

#6968

Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Never mind, Phil. You'll always have Hastings.

You know - just that one time.
Yeah, well, we were sick that day. I'm almost certain there was a note from our moms somewhere.
??? That battle looks like it was one that the French - the Normans - won against the British:
The Battle of Hastings occurred on 14 October 1066 during the Norman conquest of England, between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army under King Harold II. It took place at Senlac Hill, approximately 7 miles (11 kilometres) northwest of Hastings, close to the present-day town of Battle, East Sussex, and was a decisive Norman victory.

The Normans were not French but that's me being a pedant. They were a vassalage of France.

#6969

http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/ ... tories.asp

#6970

Dave wrote:
ERV wrote:The question shouldnt be 'Why arent there more women in atheism?' but 'Of the women in atheism, why are we choosing our female role models so poorly?'
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
And this is why we love you, Abbie. Once again you nail it.

Ditto, Dave. :)

Though I have to admit though that the only women I knew of in atheism/skepticism pre-Elevatorgate as "respected" people were AHA, ERV and Eugenie Scott.

#6971

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Thanks for the feedbacks, deLurch. It was my first time and I will try and follow your advises next time. They are safely copy/pasted.

First time? I hope you had fun. Since you were just doing target practice, it seemed you were aiming at something low and close to the ground that looked a bit dangerous. About 130 cm for the bulls eye is about the right height. Distances vary from 18 meters or 25 meters indoors to outdoors at 30-90 meters.

As far as the extra equipment goes, you don't need anything expensive.

This looks close to the simple wrist strap that I used. Mine had a simple 'S' hook at the end. Your wrist goes through the hoop, and then you wrap the extra cord around the bow & hook it into the loop around your wrist.
http://i.imgur.com/SMj5J2n.jpg

I almost forgot about the arm guard. I noticed you were not wearing one.
http://i.imgur.com/IoCHcxK.jpg
Simple & cheep is fine here too.
http://i.imgur.com/cGGF0zW.jpg
Most people just get ones that cover the fore arms. It just needs to cover the bulk of your fore arm, not every millimeter. The bulgy part of your fore arm is what gets hit the most. But if you happen to have large biceps, a full arm guard might make sense too. Also not that expensive.

I could not see if you were using a finger tab or not. This one isn't so much about safety as decreasing the variability of friction on your release by providing a slick surface. Many people use one with a rubber finger spacer (between the index & middle finger) to prevent accidental gripping the arrow between your fingers. Again, simple & cheep does the job here too.
http://i.imgur.com/sKLbfF6.jpg

And one last note. Please take off your jewelry next time. Necklace, wrist watch, ear rings, rings. Accidents happen. You have seen your bow launch those arrows. Now imagine what happens if some article of jewelry happens to get caught in that string due to a bad pull. You have a nice new profile picture we don't want to see get messed up. I would hate to see you have to resort to haphazardly bashing Evolutionary Psychology at weekend booze fests just to put alcohol down your gullet.

One last technique note. I might be handy to identify which of your eyes is your dominate eye.
http://www.huntersfriend.com/eye_dominance_issues.htm

#6972

I'm thinking on investing, so thanks again for the tips. I must admit I had huge fun. The target was mounted on a 1m log we found laying around. Maybe too low. But, regarding the low angle of my aim, it was a downhill slope. Is that cheating?

The jewelry tip is very useful. I'm used to wear necklace and watch while doing sports from my skydiving years. I'm very aware of where they are at what moment, but archery being new to me, I'll keep it in mind to remove them.

My dominant eye is the right. On the other hand, I snowboard goofy and eat like a left-handed person. I think I'm asymmetrically fucked up, somehow. Still, I got my CATI 2 while serving, which is not that easy to get once you get to the 100m range. Granted, it wasn't a bow, it was a FAMAS.

#6973

Place your bets on what kind of scandal and how long for it to come to light:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/republic ... -1.1380291

I'm guessing male escorts, before the election

#6974

Gefan wrote:Place your bets on what kind of scandal and how long for it to come to light:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/republic ... -1.1380291

I'm guessing male escorts, before the election

I'm guessing getting caught blowing himself. Excuse: tripped and swallowed his dick.

#6975

rayshul wrote:
Gefan wrote:Place your bets on what kind of scandal and how long for it to come to light:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/republic ... -1.1380291

I'm guessing male escorts, before the election
I'm guessing getting caught blowing himself. Excuse: tripped and swallowed his dick.

Aaaaaannnd now I have to watch Little Britain again (that one clip is from the US series, I know, but so topical)

[youtube]FafVtHWn4X8[/youtube]

#6976

Still thinking about this... I don't know what people see in the "Elevatorgate role models" at all. I'm not sure if this is like, not liking Glee or something like that, where I just have absolutely no idea what the attraction there is.

I'd try and find someone to ask about this but I'm worried the answer will be THEY STOOD UP AGAINST THE MISOGYNISTS in which case it's obviously my fault for 'pitting. :(

#6977

Hipsters! Hipsters everywhere!!!

#6978

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'm thinking on investing, so thanks again for the tips. I must admit I had huge fun. The target was mounted on a 1m log we found laying around. Maybe too low. But, regarding the low angle of my aim, it was a downhill slope. Is that cheating?

Cheating? No. Especially not for playing around for target practice. I was just a bit concerned about the safety of your awkward pose and figured that the proximity & height of your target might have had something to do with it.

About the only time having a low target might help you out is if you were shooting long distances. Other than that, the name of the game is consistency and muscle memory. Being able to repeatedly follow through with the same motion, consistently time after time. If you can happen to shoot three of your arrows in a somewhat tight cluster, then you know all you have to do is to adjust your site a bit (or what I would commonly do is pinpoint my site at a different location on the target a little higher, lower, to the left or right. I would eventually adjust my site after a few rounds of that.

#6979

Eh! That's what CATI 2 is all about. I just have to translate it to archery. Someday...

#6980

Trigger warning: Aussie Loose in Europe!
New Full Frontal Zealotry podcast episode
http://everdense.com/ffz/

#6981

AndrewV69 wrote:
windy wrote: Pardon me if I interrupt your lecture professor, but it only "works that way" if "girly/manly" is a trait purely inherited through the X chromosome, and not, you know, a product of testosterone levels in the womb or other mechanisms that we actually have evidence for.
Allow me to draw your attention to my weasel words "reduce the chances of producing girly men". If you are interested look up Zygosity and bear in mind that "we" are not really at the stage where we are able to accurately map traits to genes.

Short of that knowledge and the ability to produce exactly what we want in a lab, you are kind of stuck with breeding programs. For some reason though that shit is illegal as far as human are concerned last time I checked.

We can breed silver foxes to be very friendly or hyper aggressive. If we can do it with foxes, we can do it with humans.

I wasn't objecting to that, you dumb cunt, but your un-evidenced assertion that this happens via X-chromosome replacement events.

I'm entirely on board with the idea that psychological tendencies are the subject of evolution in humans, and that's exactly why I wish you wouldn't spout so much ignorant shite about it.

#6982

rayshul wrote:
Gefan wrote:Place your bets on what kind of scandal and how long for it to come to light:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/republic ... -1.1380291
I'm guessing male escorts, before the election
I'm guessing getting caught blowing himself. Excuse: tripped and swallowed his dick.

Article wrote:Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, left, gestures during a debate with Democratic challenger Terry McCauliffe, right, during the Virginia Bar Association convention debate at the Homestead in Hot Springs, Va. Saturday, July 20, 2013. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Ah... I missed his debate by one day. I had heard something about some governors meeting. The dining room was packed Thursday night with lawyers and aids. I also noticed a police escort or two come to the front of the resort. I decided I would enjoy my stay better if I just opted to mind my own business.

If Gefan is looking for some sort of scandal to come to light, that place would provide SJWs enough emotional ammunition to throw utter and complete conniption fits for the rest of their lives. The SJWs bitch, whine & complain about privilege, but I don't think anyone here in the pit could possibly go there and not admit the place is absolutely dripping with privilege in the abused sense of the word. With that said, all of the staff there are treated extremely well by the patrons and are compensated well enough that some will come from states away from their families just to work there. You don't get treated like that and not tip well.

#6983

^unabused sense of the word.

#6984

AndrewV69 wrote:Pick your trait, select your breeding stock and away you go.

Fire breathing dragon.

#6985

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Eh! That's what CATI 2 is all about. I just have to translate it to archery. Someday...

Then you are several legs up on everyone else. Take the time. I find it to be a very relaxing sport.

#6986

And further,

Allow me to draw your attention to my weasel words "reduce the chances of producing girly men"

...is not a weasel word at all in the context, since you made a positive claim about a mechanism. Compare to "smoking increases the chances of developing lung cancer".

#6987

LurkerPerson wrote:I thought this was hilarious. Too big for img code so just gonna leave the link.

http://i.nahraj.to/f/rfD.png

The hilarity of people who harp on the dastardly "gender binary" as a social justice issue is, of course, prevalence. The almost certainly wrong and outdated conventional wisdom -- based on old data about people actually seeking sexual reassignment surgery -- is that 1 in 30,000 men and 1 in 100,000 women suffers from intense gender dysphoria - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria.

But the absolutely highest-end range I've seen (for men, I think, from a researcher focused on debunking the 1 in 30,000 number) is 1in 500 or possibly 1 in 250 is intensely unhappy with xit's gender - http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/ ... lence.html.

So it's definitely absurd for SJWs to react to the royal spawn by saying -- it's a gender-fluid baby! Don't call sh/h/it a boy! - given that there's something like a 99.6% chance he'll grow up to be a 'cis' boy. Of course this is a tragedy, because per Amanda Marcotte that makes him around 1500% more likely to be a monstrous cis male rapist than a precious trans snowflake - http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... tions.html).

#6988

JackSkeptic wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yes, it was won by the French, and we were sick that day, to top it off. And apparently, we were school-children as well (the "moms' sick note").

I really hate to have to explain my stupid jokes.
You could also remind the US peeps about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake when they give you Frenchies a hard time.

And not just at sea:

http://4thgradeiscool.wikispaces.com/fi ... /map-l.jpg

#6989

Apples wrote:The hilarity of people who harp on the dastardly "gender binary" as a social justice issue is, of course, prevalence. The almost certainly wrong and outdated conventional wisdom -- based on old data about people actually seeking sexual reassignment surgery -- is that 1 in 30,000 men and 1 in 100,000 women suffers from intense gender dysphoria - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria.

But the absolutely highest-end range I've seen (for men, I think, from a researcher focused on debunking the 1 in 30,000 number) is 1in 500 or possibly 1 in 250 is intensely unhappy with xit's gender - http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/ ... lence.html.

And no one thinks to speak for the Otherkins. The kid may come to decide he's a gerbil, yet his parents are already dressing him in knitwear, the insensitive louts. The SJWs are ingnorant of their human privilege.

Apples wrote:So it's definitely absurd for SJWs to react to the royal spawn by saying -- it's a gender-fluid baby! Don't call sh/h/it a boy! - given that there's something like a 99.6% chance he'll grow up to be a 'cis' boy. Of course this is a tragedy, because per Amanda Marcotte that makes him around 1500% more likely to be a monstrous cis male rapist than a precious trans snowflake - http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... tions.html).

Marcotte tweezes off the distinction of accusation to show false rape claims with malicious intent are even rarer than the 2-8% statistic. Which makes me wonder if it's ever occurred to her how hugely improbable it is that 2 of the 3 men in her regular clique (Myers, Thibeault, Laden) have been falsely accused of rape. I mean gosh, I thought the Duke Lacrosse case made it clear institutional patriarchy will protect cis-het white boys no matter what they do.

#6990

SJWs

Archery

Connect the dots

(and no, Steers, it's not a threat, it's a bloody stupid joke!)

#6991

I would like to apologize if I get aggressive later on. Fucking ear is still clogged, I'm suspecting MÃ©niÃ¨re complications, and the fucking ORL is on vacation until the end of August. Barn Owl's tip did jack shit to help. Not her fault, though. I'm dumb enough to repeat stays at the beach and add fluid to the fucking fucker!

Bro, sis and nephew in-law arriving tonight. This means NO PORN for about a week. Bleh, I may as well work on the new album!

#6992

This is not to argue with Blunderist, but to demonstrate that he is indeed obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest, as I claimed.

Wonderist wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:1) He [Carrier] is known to be dishonest about A+ and the A/S community. Why would he suddenly not be dishonest in his scholarly work?
Theists believe in gods, an obvious fairy tale. How can we trust anything they say at all about reality? Can you not see the fallacy? Have you heard of compartmentalization? If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmen ... chology%29

Theists can still be honest people. Proven liars canâ€™t. Thatâ€™s a significant difference. Blunderist is being obtuse here. QED.

Wonderist wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:2) He falsely inflates the academic credibility of his work by pretending that his Jesus book is properly peer reviewed (by four self-selected â€˜major professorâ€™ who canâ€™t be named, of whom two failed to respond), and by pretending that peer review amounts to a seal of approval.
Can you quote him on that? I've never heard him say peer review is an automatic seal of approval, only that it's a necessary *pre-requisite* for honest research. He disagrees with *most* peer-reviewed mainstream scholars on Jesus' historicity; I can hardly see why you'd think he sees peer-review as a seal of approval. It so obviously isn't.

Also, I've not heard the claim that he's 'pretending' that his book was peer reviewed. Do you have a source for that? And if 'two failed to respond', doesn't that mean that two didn't? As in, at least two responded that they did review his book? As in, it *was* peer reviewed? Need more specifics on this claim. Do you have links?

This has all been discussed and demonstrated, with links, in this thread. Blunderist is too lazy to read the fucking thread before he comments. QED

Wonderist wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:4) He is a horrible writer.
Irrelevant. You're welcome to that critique, it's just irrelevant to the question of Jesus' historicity or whether he claimed Verenna is anything other than a student.

Since I never suggested that Carrier being a horrible writer has any bearing on the content of his work, this is a pure, unadulterated straw man argument of Blunderistâ€™s. Strawmanning is intellectually dishonest. QED.

What is Blunderistâ€™s â€˜techniqueâ€™? Itâ€™s a pyrotechnic display of general ignorance, straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs and false equivalences. He calls this technique â€˜evidence chickenâ€™. I call it bullshitting. He is no better than Oolon.

#6993

Jan: just photoshop Thaumas and be done with it. Really, that's the quickest way...

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

#6994

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:SJWs

Archery

Connect the dots

(...)

Phil Giordana, proeminent French Slymepit sniper, on threatening to shoot an arrow up PZ Myers's and Ophelia Benson's asses.

Warning: the above citation may have been taken out of context

#6995

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Jan: just photoshop Thaumas and be done with it. Really, that's the quickest way...

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

I did, but it didn't work.

viewtopic.php?p=107973#p107973

#6996

Jan Steen wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Jan: just photoshop Thaumas and be done with it. Really, that's the quickest way...

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
I did, but it didn't work.

viewtopic.php?p=107973#p107973

You can't beat the The Technique, it is invincible.

http://www.aplacetolovedogs.com/wp-cont ... y-dog2.gif

#6997

Southern wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:SJWs

Archery

Connect the dots

(...)
Phil Giordana, proeminent French Slymepit sniper, on threatening to shoot an arrow up PZ Myers's and Ophelia Benson's asses.

Warning: the above citation may have been taken out of context

If I can get an arrow accross the Altantic sea, let alone the Irish channel (too late for that), deLurch owes me a meal!

#6998

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
Girly Man:
http://img.timeinc.net/time/2012/poypoll/un.jpg
Kleinfelter!

I'm still trying to figure out how Kim Il-Sung is some kind of manly man. His haircut? You can't base it on his history, that's a mish-mash of bullshit both pro and con.

Other than personal appearance, what the fuck is that even based on?

#6999

Ericb wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Jan: just photoshop Thaumas and be done with it. Really, that's the quickest way...

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
I did, but it didn't work.

viewtopic.php?p=107973#p107973
You can't beat the The Technique, it is invincible.

http://www.aplacetolovedogs.com/wp-cont ... y-dog2.gif

Sure you can. Just continuously respond to him in a patronizing, treacle-y sweet manner. "Yes dear, of course you're right"

He tends to quietly fuck right off when you do that. What, he's going to argue? Sure, you're being a patronizing cock about it, but you're "agreeing" with him. At worst, he blathers on and on to naught but himself. He's remarkably easy to manipulate that way, even when many other people tell him he's being manipulated.

#7000

welch wrote:
Sure you can. Just continuously respond to him in a patronizing, treacle-y sweet manner. "Yes dear, of course you're right"

He tends to quietly fuck right off when you do that. What, he's going to argue? Sure, you're being a patronizing cock about it, but you're "agreeing" with him. At worst, he blathers on and on to naught but himself. He's remarkably easy to manipulate that way, even when many other people tell him he's being manipulated.

Yes dear, of course you're right

*ducks*

#7001

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
welch wrote:
Sure you can. Just continuously respond to him in a patronizing, treacle-y sweet manner. "Yes dear, of course you're right"

He tends to quietly fuck right off when you do that. What, he's going to argue? Sure, you're being a patronizing cock about it, but you're "agreeing" with him. At worst, he blathers on and on to naught but himself. He's remarkably easy to manipulate that way, even when many other people tell him he's being manipulated.

Yes dear, of course you're right

*ducks*

:clap:

#7002

welch wrote:
Ericb wrote:
You can't beat the The Technique, it is invincible.

http://www.aplacetolovedogs.com/wp-cont ... y-dog2.gif
Sure you can. Just continuously respond to him in a patronizing, treacle-y sweet manner. "Yes dear, of course you're right"

He tends to quietly fuck right off when you do that. What, he's going to argue? Sure, you're being a patronizing cock about it, but you're "agreeing" with him. At worst, he blathers on and on to naught but himself. He's remarkably easy to manipulate that way, even when many other people tell him he's being manipulated.

Could be a useful 'technique'. I may give it a try.

#7003

Ugh. On 2 separate blogs talking about threats and violence against gay men, some woman chimes in with a "homophobia is really about misogyny. They take something terrible that happens to gay men and make it all about themselves.

#7004

Oh and McEwen thinks Anthony Weiner is a sexual predator and that sending dick pics even to a consenting woman of 22 is tantamount to rape because of the "power differential" she couldn't really consent.

#7005

deLurch wrote: What on earth are you shooting at with your arrow pointed downward with that high of an angle?

His dinner.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5544/9360 ... e687_c.jpg

#7006

BTW. I saw "Pacific Rim" at the cinema today and it was without doubt one of the top 10 giant monster from another dimension battling a twin-piloted giant robot movies of all time..... And I do NOT say that lightly.

#7007

katamari Damassi wrote:Oh and McEwen thinks Anthony Weiner is a sexual predator and that sending dick pics even to a consenting woman of 22 is tantamount to rape because of the "power differential" she couldn't really consent.

I heard (and maybe it's entirely BS) that GOP operatives (lol sounds tin foil hat but let's take it to mean republican supporters who do things) told several pretty college girls to talk to Anthony Weiner to try and catch him doing something naughty. Anyway, I don't really give a shit about who send what to whom. Granted A.W. is fucking stupid for doing so, even if it was a setup. I liked A.W. but it turns out he has bad judgement and is a fucking straight up liar.

#7008

katamari Damassi wrote:Oh and McEwen thinks Anthony Weiner is a sexual predator and that sending dick pics even to a consenting woman of 22 is tantamount to rape because of the "power differential" she couldn't really consent.

As if McEwen would complain if any man on Earth found her attractive enough to send her a dick picture. I bet she posts valentines cards to herself. And then eats them.

#7009

debaser71 wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:Oh and McEwen thinks Anthony Weiner is a sexual predator and that sending dick pics even to a consenting woman of 22 is tantamount to rape because of the "power differential" she couldn't really consent.
I heard (and maybe it's entirely BS) that GOP operatives (lol sounds tin foil hat but let's take it to mean republican supporters who do things) told several pretty college girls to talk to Anthony Weiner to try and catch him doing something naughty. Anyway, I don't really give a shit about who send what to whom. Granted A.W. is fucking stupid for doing so, even if it was a setup. I liked A.W. but it turns out he has bad judgement and is a fucking straight up liar.

Yeah. I mean, doing it, getting busted, and doing no wrong is one thing. Continually doing the same fucking thing, apologizing, then doing the same fucking thing over and over tells me he has no real interest in changing his behavior, but rather wants people to stop bagging on him over it.

#7010

Does anyone here like riddles? http://skeptischism.com/skepticismfirst ... e-me-this/

#7011

STOP THE PRESSES!!

MYERS SHILLS THE OED!!!

link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... k-burning/

The compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will set you back about $350; itâ€™s a massive great thick book. So the homophobes better start saving their pennies, because the Oxford Dictionary is changing to include gender-neutral definitions of marriage.

It really is a marvelous book. Way back when I was in Junior High and High school, my nerdy friends and I liked to hang out in the library and go to random pages in the OED â€” no, we werenâ€™t looking up dirty words (mostly), we were expanding our vocabulary!

But, but, dictionaries are the debbil PeeZus. An' if youse use 'em, youse already lost teh arguments on teh internets. I'ze so confused.

#7012

Tony Parsehole wrote:
deLurch wrote: What on earth are you shooting at with your arrow pointed downward with that high of an angle?
His dinner.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5544/9360 ... e687_c.jpg

Isn't that cannibalism?

#7013

Tony Parsehole wrote:BTW. I saw "Pacific Rim" at the cinema today and it was without doubt one of the top 10 giant monster from another dimension battling a twin-piloted giant robot movies of all time..... And I do NOT say that lightly.

It looked good, but apart from that I wasn't too impressed. I was expecting more from Guillermo del Toro.
It must have looked awesome in the cinema, it was pretty good projected onto my living room wall.

#7014

BTW, there may be an incoming Mabus episode soon.

#7015

welch wrote:
debaser71 wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:Oh and McEwen thinks Anthony Weiner is a sexual predator and that sending dick pics even to a consenting woman of 22 is tantamount to rape because of the "power differential" she couldn't really consent.
I heard (and maybe it's entirely BS) that GOP operatives (lol sounds tin foil hat but let's take it to mean republican supporters who do things) told several pretty college girls to talk to Anthony Weiner to try and catch him doing something naughty. Anyway, I don't really give a shit about who send what to whom. Granted A.W. is fucking stupid for doing so, even if it was a setup. I liked A.W. but it turns out he has bad judgement and is a fucking straight up liar.
Yeah. I mean, doing it, getting busted, and doing no wrong is one thing. Continually doing the same fucking thing, apologizing, then doing the same fucking thing over and over tells me he has no real interest in changing his behavior, but rather wants people to stop bagging on him over it.

Regarding the latest Weiner episode, I was watching an old Sy Hersh interview today on the subject of his "Dark Side of Camelot" book. Inevitably, some of the interview covered Kennedy's hare-brained sexual recklessness that would have, had it been written into a screenplay miserably failed the "laughter test".
I'm not saying this sort of behavior doesn't have its place but the notion that it's a good idea if you're a political figure in a country in part settled by people so uptight even the English kicked them out, beggars belief.

#7016

FYI, my glowing review of Dr. Carrier's physics paper:

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... coherence/

#7017

bhoytony wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:BTW. I saw "Pacific Rim" at the cinema today and it was without doubt one of the top 10 giant monster from another dimension battling a twin-piloted giant robot movies of all time..... And I do NOT say that lightly.
It looked good, but apart from that I wasn't too impressed. I was expecting more from Guillermo del Toro.
It must have looked awesome in the cinema, it was pretty good projected onto my living room wall.

Yeah, it's one of those that are made for the cinema.

#7018

Jan Steen wrote:This is not to argue with Blunderist, but to demonstrate that he is indeed obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest, as I claimed.

Wonderist wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:1) He [Carrier] is known to be dishonest about A+ and the A/S community. Why would he suddenly not be dishonest in his scholarly work?
Theists believe in gods, an obvious fairy tale. How can we trust anything they say at all about reality? Can you not see the fallacy? Have you heard of compartmentalization? If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmen ... chology%29
Theists can still be honest people. Proven liars canâ€™t. Thatâ€™s a significant difference. Blunderist is being obtuse here. QED. ...

Havenâ€™t read all of the rather convoluted exchanges between you and Wonderist, but I think youâ€™re making some sort of category or false dichotomy error there with your â€œProven liars canâ€™t [be honest people]â€. While that might be intrinsically true â€“ sort of like asserting people who have had sex canâ€™t be considered virgins, I think youâ€™re trying to imply that everything that a â€œproven liarâ€ says is in fact a lie as well. Which, of course, doesnâ€™t hold any water at all. And which is analogous to the paradigmatic case of asserting that because one has seen that some swans are white they can conclude that all swans are white â€“ the problem of induction.

But I sort of wonder if you insist that anyone who has ever told a lie canâ€™t be considered â€œan honest personâ€ whether you yourself have ever told a lie.

And likewise with your implication that since Carrier is, you claim with maybe some justification, â€œdishonest about A+ and the A/S communityâ€ that he must also be â€œdishonest in his scholarly workâ€. While there might be some justification that in some areas of â€œhis scholarly workâ€ he has exhibited some dishonesty, although one might wonder whether that characterization is based in any case on a disagreement with his conclusions, I think it is a stretch to insist that all of it is similarly marred.

#7019

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yes, it was won by the French, and we were sick that day, to top it off. And apparently, we were school-children as well (the "moms' sick note").

I really hate to have to explain my stupid jokes.

If it makes you feel any better you might note that I got a score of 33 on that AQ test. But I still donâ€™t get your â€œjokeâ€ in spite of your explanation. You mean to say that the French and the British are squabbling kids? The French fight better when theyâ€™re sick? If youâ€™d been feeling better that day you would have lost? Something doesn't compute ....

#7020

I meant we could kick English ass even when sick! It was stupid, humorous chauvinism.

Damn, Steers, you could probably add a zero at the end of your score!