Bleeding from the Bunghole

[bovarchist]

http://i.imgur.com/9zgTZ7c.png
2 weeks out of a year long depression and she's spinning like a top.

Twist ending. The anonymous accuser is Jen.

No...the anonymous accuser is actually the dark side of Shermer's psyche!

[TheMan]

PZ seems to have Shermer by the balls here. I don't for a minute think PZ would be THAT stupid to not have sought legal advise before this course of action. My hunch is that this has been planned for a while and PZ has been sitting on this "grenade" for a considerable amount of time (co-insiding with FTB attacks on Shermer and a groing of "drunk sex" narrative) possibly verfiying the story for himself and is satisfied it's true. It's possible he met the accuser once but either way PZ will keep soem cards close to his chest and play them at the appropriate time depending on Shermers reactions.

I don't really buy this version. Remember this all came in the context of the "tidal wave" of revelations, the Shermer story came after the Krauss allegations. PZ presented it as a person coming forward (Ms. Doe). If it was actually a conspiracy, fact based or not, they would obviously want to downplay that aspect of it, but somehow I doubt it. Maybe it was actually Doe seeing this as an opportunity to finally achieve justice, or maybe it was Ms. Doe finally seeing an opportunity to put a knife in Shermer's back for another, non-sexual disgruntlement. Either way, there is one thing we can say about Doe with certainty: instead of presenting her case directly, she was okay with Myers doing it for her. I realize this is potentially a horrible thing to say, because if she is being honest, it's impugning the character of a person who was raped. But if she's either being dishonest or unreliable, it seems to be a pertinent thing to note about her character. She's a person willing to jeopardize another's' career instead of acting directly. The great problem is we just don't enough information to know anything for sure, and the infuriating thing is that this seems to be an acceptable state for Myers, now and forever. I can (sort of) understand making an assertion like this with the promise of complete information forthcoming, but there was never anything like that kind of assertion! It was just like "I'm saying this. Believe me, leave all your trust in me, damn Shermer and your right to make an informed decision, and that's that." This is unacceptable to any skeptic.

Doe has possibly tried and tried before with no result. Doe is small fry. She would be like a wet noodle pounding against a brick wall. If they can nail Shermer it'll send a strong warning shot to other targets like Krauss. It's all they have to do here to deal with Krauss.

Of course Doe would be Ok with PZ doing it for her (why wouldn't she? Better than going to the papers or police I'm sure)..... successfully too....the pit's talked about it, I imagine Jref forms have, A+ forums, the entire Skeptic community, thunderfoot's video and who know how many other youtube videos...that's a lot of publicity PZ's managed to whip up in a single sensationalist post. (If anything it's confirmed the skeptic community is not immune to some juicy tabloid gossip).

Remember here, this isn't an excersise in skeptism. PZ knows this. So...skeptic acceptabilty is not imprortant or needed....and why would he play all his cards in one go when you can draw out a better "long con".

If the end game is to rid Skeptic conferences of "xxxxxx" you play the long game not the short skeptical one.

[AndrewV69]

True. Although I’m not sure it’s wise to be making the same mistake in logic and definitions that some of “them” do. At least without explicitly pointing others of “them” to those errors. Although I’ll readily concede that that is rather difficult to do in 140 characters or less.

Now now now Steers, if it is OK when "they" do it, then it is OK when "we" do it.

What is sauce for goose and all that ;)

Now before you take me on ... just realize that I have no tongue in cheek smiley.

[FrankGrimes]

Another Catch-22 quote just for the hell of it.

“What makes you so sure Major Major is a Communist?”

“You never heard him denying it until we began accusing him, did you?"

Also, waiting for the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade.

"Without realizing how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed and shoved about all day long by one after the other. When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to. And to anyone who questioned the morality, he replied that “The Star-Spangled Banner” was the greatest piece of music ever composed. The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else."

[welch]

How exactly does the SEC get from that to a 356 page document? Well, I am sure to a devil-may-care party animal like yourself, it is a full employment act for attorneys. However, as a businessman who actually has to comply with the law, even as I find myself nodding off in the middle of a paragraph length sentence, I can appreciate the comprehensive and precise nature of the document. And I can clearly see the intent to ensure an accurate and consistent implementation amongst the several thousand companies subject to the rules.

Though I am sure there are many academics that might disagree, the creation of the body of law is unlike science in that it is a practical, not a theoretical, endeavor. It is also cumulative process. It has grown alongside of the development of the modern world as advanced by human affairs. Every complexity and nuance in the law is there to address some real issue, at law or equity, that has come up in real life. And is defined in such a way as to drive towards a consistent application in future matters. English common law traces back to 1189, although it's roots go back to time immemorial. 800 years of human history has led to a extremely complex and advanced society and the body of law reflects this state of affairs.

When laws aren't made overly-complex with the intent for creating lawyerly bullshit, they are made overly complex with the intent of attempting to defend against lawyerly bullshit.

Laws and contracts are made to adjudicate what happens when things go wrong. I can frame out a commercial deal on any ole thing found lying around in a hotel lounge if all I had to concern myself with what I am giving and what I am getting.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/270 ... 944826.jpg

But, between then and when the contract is complete, there is a huge number of things that can potentially go wrong. Anticipating those problems and crafting mutually agreeable methods for dealing with them make the process of resolving conflict much easier and more orderly. Similarly, a one sentence law balloons to a 356 page ruling in order to make things precise, uniform, and understandable in practice. Complexity in language leads to simplicity in execution.

In short, without the seemingly incomprehensible mountain of laws we have accumulated over the centuries, we would still be wearing bearskin loin clothes and beating each other over the head with screwdrivers.

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

[Supertroy]

Wait-- I thought I was a Chill Girl who only did HIV research to get huge, black cock?

Shit! No wonder you don't get hit on at virology conferences! You need to be going to this event instead.

It would be easier to get BBC at Freaknik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freaknik

[Lsuoma]

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

SOX is one of the MAJOR banes of my working life too: I am responsible for the SOX monitoring and compliance of over 5000 databases, plus the automated tools that ensure non-repudiation and auditability.

Like Welch, I HATE THAT SHIT with a passion.

[Supertroy]

Exactamundo! One of the more pernicious racist myths is that black people somehow love crime and racism and do nothing to stop it because they love it so, so much. There is some value, however, in being able to answer the question and combat these myths. It's kind of like the anti-vax people. If they ask a question, the answer "because you're an asshole" isn't likely to change their mind.

That's what I don't understand about the folks over at FTB, and to a lesser extent some of the lesser lights of the leftish blogosphere. Someone will say something like " [event being discussed] is [x]". Where x = racism, sexism, whatever -ism of the day were supposed to line up and denounce. Anyone asking questions, even the most basic and rudimentary of questions gets labeled a troll or an [x] enabler. At best you can be told you need to read some article or grok a point in an essay that they'll helpfully link.

What the fuck happened to communication? I'm here, you're here, lets have a discussion about it. Try and explain it to me. You clearly have enough passion on the topic, and it's usually a good thing to restate ones own thought in your own words.

But no, I'm left to read articles like "107 ways your privilege bums me the fuck out" and still don't really understand how that makes "[event being discussed] is [x]" any more relevant than before.

[ShameMaggot]

No need to apologize. It was a good (and true) rant. The analogy to today's simplistic Christians is a good one. Of course, reading the true history of the religion and learning how it all came together is a good way to become a Christian apostate :lol:

Just in terms of feminism, maybe that's why so many feminists today practice such a simplistic, emotion-driven form of feminism - if they actually studied it hard and saw how nuts a lot of it is, they wouldn't want to identify with it anymore. So they learn enough to spout some feminist technobabble that is merely window dressing for their actual beliefs.

I think there are a couple of factors:

It is easy to get people riled up over an injustice, but it is much harder for people to learn from them and even harder to give people good analytical tools to keep going once they’ve left instruction.

Second, the sociolect one picks up in late undergraduate and into graduate school tends to prepare you for the world of scholarship; be it in the humanities or scientific research. That sort of meticulous nature you imbibe on how to go about things doesn’t really lend itself to what the “Atheism & Skepticism” movement has become.

Case in point, look how Abbie and Jen interact. Abbie places a lot more priority on her work in the lab versus trying to be a face for a lagging “movement” and the fact that it appears that Jen cares more about what some midget opera singer did at a fucking 3rd rate conference in middle America than her research (the entire purpose of being in grad school) bugs the shit of someone like Abbie. There she is, sucking grants and funds to write a mediocre blog post about shit that is so fucking trivial as to be compared to two comic books fans coming to blows about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk.

If Jen would rather write about whatever it is JT does, than go do that, let someone more dedicated and less distracted have your spot and your stipend. Oh wait…

Third, long term study in the issues surrounding actual critical theory, philosophy, and history grinds up worldviews and politics. Imagine an undergraduate who studied E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology and said, “ Wow. This is it. This is going to be the paradigm that I’m going to use to understand the world from now on!”

That is exactly how all of FtB comes across. People who know their shit in the areas where FtB’s discourse comes from would go through those goons like a hot knife goes through butter. This “How to be a good ally” shit was outdated before the 70s came to a close.

[Rystefn]

How exactly does the SEC get from that to a 356 page document? Well, I am sure to a devil-may-care party animal like yourself, it is a full employment act for attorneys. However, as a businessman who actually has to comply with the law, even as I find myself nodding off in the middle of a paragraph length sentence, I can appreciate the comprehensive and precise nature of the document. And I can clearly see the intent to ensure an accurate and consistent implementation amongst the several thousand companies subject to the rules.

Though I am sure there are many academics that might disagree, the creation of the body of law is unlike science in that it is a practical, not a theoretical, endeavor. It is also cumulative process. It has grown alongside of the development of the modern world as advanced by human affairs. Every complexity and nuance in the law is there to address some real issue, at law or equity, that has come up in real life. And is defined in such a way as to drive towards a consistent application in future matters. English common law traces back to 1189, although it's roots go back to time immemorial. 800 years of human history has led to a extremely complex and advanced society and the body of law reflects this state of affairs.

When laws aren't made overly-complex with the intent for creating lawyerly bullshit, they are made overly complex with the intent of attempting to defend against lawyerly bullshit.

Laws and contracts are made to adjudicate what happens when things go wrong. I can frame out a commercial deal on any ole thing found lying around in a hotel lounge if all I had to concern myself with what I am giving and what I am getting.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/270 ... 944826.jpg

But, between then and when the contract is complete, there is a huge number of things that can potentially go wrong. Anticipating those problems and crafting mutually agreeable methods for dealing with them make the process of resolving conflict much easier and more orderly. Similarly, a one sentence law balloons to a 356 page ruling in order to make things precise, uniform, and understandable in practice. Complexity in language leads to simplicity in execution.

In short, without the seemingly incomprehensible mountain of laws we have accumulated over the centuries, we would still be wearing bearskin loin clothes and beating each other over the head with screwdrivers.

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

If you were given the job of writing a clear explanation for other IT professionals, how big a book would you have to write?

[Guest]

Is PZ Meyers okay? Mentally? He's been publishing all sorts of weird shit, at a pace unlike any seen before, ever since he was served for calling someone a rapist on the internet.

Can the Trophy Wife please turn off his computer before he explodes?

Since we're calling this incident "The Clownfall", I am rather reminded of the scene in Der Untergang with the swing music and all the dancing and drinking, brought to an end by an explosion.

PeeZus is trying to forget his woes.

[justinvacula]

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2013/08/ ... play-nice/

When “Can’t you kids play nice?” is not enough: Feminists, Bloggers, and the Division of Skeptics

The following is a guest post by Wendy Hughes. Wendy is a resident of Southern California, a volunteer at CFI-LA and JREF, investigator with the Independent Investigations Group (IIG-West), and co-founder The Odds Must Be Crazy (featured on Skepicality). You can find Wendy on Twitter as @wendy91602.

[another lurker]

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

SOX is one of the MAJOR banes of my working life too: I am responsible for the SOX monitoring and compliance of over 5000 databases, plus the automated tools that ensure non-repudiation and auditability.

Like Welch, I HATE THAT SHIT with a passion.

Anti-abortion laws are often purposely crafted to be vague - so that doctors and abortion providers will often be 'looking over their shoulders' wondering if they are going to be charged with a crime. The vagueness is purposeful, as, on the face of it, the law might look reasonable, but on deeper inspection, it is written to essentially make people second guess their actions that they won't perform abortions at all - even if the woman is at risk of death or permanent injury.

So to summarize, yes, precise laws with appropriate documentation = a damn good thing.

[free thoughtpolice]

Is PZ Meyers okay? Mentally? He's been publishing all sorts of weird shit, at a pace unlike any seen before, ever since he was served for calling someone a rapist on the internet.

Can the Trophy Wife please turn off his computer before he explodes?

I guess PZ doesn't mean Trophy Wife in the meaning that her head has been stuffed and mounted on the wall.
More like she has tolerated his toxic behavior and his crush on the blue haired siren(s), she must be a catch! The Trophy Wife must feel conflicted about tolerating his gambit of endangering their retirement/financial stability over this silly pissing match.
I'm guessing she has tried to rein him in and given up long ago.

[CommanderTuvok]

BTW, has anybody else noticed that Jen McWrong smells of rancid BO?

[Ä uest]

Speaking of sexism, racism and ethnocentrism, Ophelia Benson tells us how much she hates Japanese culture's practice of Kawii and burikko.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... 8/burikko/
http://www.freezepage.com/1376968306TXXXHTDDWV

http://i.imgur.com/S8SlFYN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UZqNvEr.jpg

For those that have never encountered the word ethnocentrism, us long ago in the past anthropology minors, know it as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

http://i.imgur.com/3UIKcSZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/iDtyWyt.jpg
See also

arm-chair anthropology
white man's burden
racism
imperialism

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

In this case, since her hatred is directed at Japanese women, it seems to be racist misogynistic imperialistic claptrap.

[TheMudbrooker]

A question just ocurred to me: Since PZ's defence boils down to "the truth is an absolute defence against libel" and assuming his source is telling the truth, would that defence still be valid if the statute of limitations expired and Shermer could no longer be charged with a crime? If you cannot be convicted, you are legally, if not actually, innocent. The statute of limitations varies widely from place to place and crime to crime so it's an outside possibility that it may have expired in this case already.

[Tulip Eater]

What kind of raging misogynist racist would write such sweeping condemnations of an entire country and culture? Oh, a feminist. Well nevermind then, she's got her get out of jail free card.

Don't nobody show her the wiki for bukkake.

[Karmakin]

Exactamundo! One of the more pernicious racist myths is that black people somehow love crime and racism and do nothing to stop it because they love it so, so much. There is some value, however, in being able to answer the question and combat these myths. It's kind of like the anti-vax people. If they ask a question, the answer "because you're an asshole" isn't likely to change their mind.

That's what I don't understand about the folks over at FTB, and to a lesser extent some of the lesser lights of the leftish blogosphere. Someone will say something like " [event being discussed] is [x]". Where x = racism, sexism, whatever -ism of the day were supposed to line up and denounce. Anyone asking questions, even the most basic and rudimentary of questions gets labeled a troll or an [x] enabler. At best you can be told you need to read some article or grok a point in an essay that they'll helpfully link.

What the fuck happened to communication? I'm here, you're here, lets have a discussion about it. Try and explain it to me. You clearly have enough passion on the topic, and it's usually a good thing to restate ones own thought in your own words.

But no, I'm left to read articles like "107 ways your privilege bums me the fuck out" and still don't really understand how that makes "[event being discussed] is [x]" any more relevant than before.

Because it's about identity, and not solutions.

If one is looking for solutions, then all sides have something to add to the conversation...well..most sides at least. People who agree with the same general goal all have something to add. (People with an entirely opposite goal, not so much) But SJWs don't do policy. They're' focused on culture, on identity. And winning the culture war will mean they'll get the changes they want to see. (Not a chance)

[AndrewV69]

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

SOX is one of the MAJOR banes of my working life too: I am responsible for the SOX monitoring and compliance of over 5000 databases, plus the automated tools that ensure non-repudiation and auditability.

Like Welch, I HATE THAT SHIT with a passion.

I am just glad that I retired when I did.

[Rystefn]

Speaking of sexism, racism and ethnocentrism, Ophelia Benson tells us how much she hates Japanese culture's practice of Kawii and burikko.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... 8/burikko/
http://www.freezepage.com/1376968306TXXXHTDDWV

-snip-

In this case, since her hatred is directed at Japanese women, it seems to be racist misogynistic imperialistic claptrap.

What? Standards of beauty and attractiveness? That's not allowed! Something, something, misogyny, something, something, privilege, something, something, rape culture!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

http://i.imgur.com/9zgTZ7c.png

2 weeks out of a year long depression and she's spinning like a top.

Actually, I think my sweet little Jen displays rapid-cycling, mixed state. Go easy on her, eh?

Jeebus! Is there any FtBullie who hasn't acknowledged clinical depression or bipolar? Svan, I think. She's just a bitch.

[TheMan]

A question just ocurred to me: Since PZ's defence boils down to "the truth is an absolute defence against libel" and assuming his source is telling the truth, would that defence still be valid if the statute of limitations expired and Shermer could no longer be charged with a crime? If you cannot be convicted, you are legally, if not actually, innocent. The statute of limitations varies widely from place to place and crime to crime so it's an outside possibility that it may have expired in this case already.

I've been exploring this possibility a little earlier.

Not sure what the statute of limitation is in rape cases in general but I suspect they would be infinity I would think). I only say this because here in the great land of OZ were going through an inquiry into kiddy fiddling by priests and other people in carer positions.

But that's not the case, in Australia it's One Year according to this article but there have been exceptions:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-13/r ... it/4685150

In the USA from one source it mentions that half the US States have an infinity SoL for Rape and something different (unclear) for other states with exceptions for cases involving children.
this article explains it more:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/0 ... -rape.html

[SoylentAtheistGuest2]

I don't for a minute think PZ would be THAT stupid to not have sought legal advise before this course of action.

If Paul Myers is smart enough to seek out legal advice prior to this course of action, wouldn't he be consulting with that lawyer right now instead of reaching out to Popehat for free last minute legal assistance?

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think Paul Myers is an idiot.

Paul might be a scientist, but it doesn't mean he is smart in all areas. We are all aware of those with book smarts, but lack street smarts, or can't even think their way out of a box. Just because he got his PhD doesn't mean he can get all the other cylinders in his engine clicking away at the same rate.

[Sulaco]

Cuteness is one of the things I loved about Japan. Especially the sign that said, well in picture form, don't dig here or you'll hit a phone line. How did I being completely illiterate in Japanese know what the sign meant? The cute graphic of an angry steam shovel digging up a phone with a sad face and tear running down one cheek.

Figures cobweb cunt would be upset about cuteness. The miserable harridan seems to take no joy from anything. Well, with the exception of making everyone as pathetic and as empty as her.

[Supertroy]

Exactamundo! One of the more pernicious racist myths is that black people somehow love crime and racism and do nothing to stop it because they love it so, so much. There is some value, however, in being able to answer the question and combat these myths. It's kind of like the anti-vax people. If they ask a question, the answer "because you're an asshole" isn't likely to change their mind.

That's what I don't understand about the folks over at FTB, and to a lesser extent some of the lesser lights of the leftish blogosphere. Someone will say something like " [event being discussed] is [x]". Where x = racism, sexism, whatever -ism of the day were supposed to line up and denounce. Anyone asking questions, even the most basic and rudimentary of questions gets labeled a troll or an [x] enabler. At best you can be told you need to read some article or grok a point in an essay that they'll helpfully link.

What the fuck happened to communication? I'm here, you're here, lets have a discussion about it. Try and explain it to me. You clearly have enough passion on the topic, and it's usually a good thing to restate ones own thought in your own words.

But no, I'm left to read articles like "107 ways your privilege bums me the fuck out" and still don't really understand how that makes "[event being discussed] is [x]" any more relevant than before.

Because it's about identity, and not solutions.

If one is looking for solutions, then all sides have something to add to the conversation...well..most sides at least. People who agree with the same general goal all have something to add. (People with an entirely opposite goal, not so much) But SJWs don't do policy. They're' focused on culture, on identity. And winning the culture war will mean they'll get the changes they want to see. (Not a chance)

If you say so, but why does that seem to almost always preclude discussing the underlying framework for their identity?

Put another way, in my admittedly limited experience, I've known one, maybe two evangelical Christians who could argue points made by William James, for example.

I've known 5 - 10 could maybe cite Bishop Spong (don't bother, I'm on a roll).

I've known a shitton who could Cite C.S. Lewis.

And nearly all of them were willing to cite the Bible.

But they wanted to share their worldview. Talk about it. Granted most of them would only go two, maybe three questions deep before they got a little confrontational, but they at least talked with you. I got to the comments in an FTB post (or similar leftish blog that takes a position on SJ issues) and assumption of bad faith to any question is the order of the day.

Of course I could be wrong, limited experience and all that.

And it could be my consumer privilege coming to the fore, expecting ideas to be marketed to me like products.

[BarnOwl]

What kind of raging misogynist racist would write such sweeping condemnations of an entire country and culture? Oh, a feminist. Well nevermind then, she's got her get out of jail free card.

Don't nobody show her the wiki for bukkake.

But it's totes OK to chibi-fy PeeZus and a cephalopod and to make money doing so:

http://www.skepticalrobot.com/chibi-pz-tee/

[Guest]

Cuteness is one of the things I loved about Japan. Especially the sign that said, well in picture form, don't dig here or you'll hit a phone line. How did I being completely illiterate in Japanese know what the sign meant? The cute graphic of an angry steam shovel digging up a phone with a sad face and tear running down one cheek.

Figures cobweb cunt would be upset about cuteness. The miserable harridan seems to take no joy from anything. Well, with the exception of making everyone as pathetic and as empty as her.

It's probably motivated by jealousy on Ophie's part but I personally don't appreciate East Asia's gigantic social conservatism either (of which expecting women to be overweeningly cutesy is one part).

[Rope apologist]

I don't for a minute think PZ would be THAT stupid to not have sought legal advise before this course of action.

If Paul Myers is smart enough to seek out legal advice prior to this course of action, wouldn't he be consulting with that lawyer right now instead of reaching out to Popehat for free last minute legal assistance?

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think Paul Myers is an idiot.

Paul might be a scientist, but it doesn't mean he is smart in all areas. We are all aware of those with book smarts, but lack street smarts, or can't even think their way out of a box. Just because he got his PhD doesn't mean he can get all the other cylinders in his engine clicking away at the same rate.

And just how big is that ego?

Could he be wrong? Seriously, when has that man ever admitted to being wrong? It might happen rarely with respect to some powerful person, but I don't think he's ever deigned to admit being wrong to someone "less important" than he. When he's proven wrong against some commenter he might just not bring it up again, but admitting that he's wrong? Forget it.

Realizing his limits is certainly not one of the Zed's strong points.

[free thoughtpolice]

http://i.imgur.com/9zgTZ7c.png

2 weeks out of a year long depression and she's spinning like a top.

Actually, I think my sweet little Jen displays rapid-cycling, mixed state. Go easy on her, eh?

Jeebus! Is there any FtBullie who hasn't acknowledged clinical depression or bipolar? Svan, I think. She's just a bitch.

Even if she hasn't been self diagnosed yet, I'd say she has PZTD. She was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen and hasn't forgiven the male race(cis).

[TheMan]

Why?

If PZ turns out to be correct he'd be invited to more conferences interested in a boost of women buying tickets. Rock Star PZ!

The most PZ can hope to accomplish is not lose everything at this point. If this alleged original accuser had dirt on Shermer that could hold up in court, this whole mess never would have been tried in the court of a blogger in the first place. PZ's best hope is that Shermer just drops it. And if he does, that doesn't mean PZ is all of a sudden "right", or a rock star in the community. Con organizers would still be foolish to invite a man who thinks nothing of attacking any figure in the movement that he wants.

I see you point but let me make another assumption....what if Mz Doe didn't realise she was raped till she talked about it with others...or wasn't in a position, financially or otherwise, to make the assertion and it's been one of those itches that mere scratching doesn't satisfy. perhaps it's only been recently she's been convinced to pluck up the courage and this is the first step in how it plays out. They could end up achieving a desired result without having to come forward.

Yep...PZ's best hope is that Shermer wont fall into it....and no it doesn't mean he's right but what does it mean to Shermer?...perceptions and all

[mordacious1]

[snip].

I've been exploring this possibility a little earlier.

Not sure what the statute of limitation is in rape cases in general but I suspect they would be infinity I would think). I only say this because here in the great land of OZ were going through an inquiry into kiddy fiddling by priests and other people in carer positions.

But that's not the case, in Australia it's One Year according to this article but there have been exceptions:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-13/r ... it/4685150

In the USA from one source it mentions that half the US States have an infinity SoL for Rape and something different (unclear) for other states with exceptions for cases involving children.
this article explains it more:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/0 ... -rape.html

In CA, there is no SoL on aggravated rape (many things can make it aggravated, but from what little we know, this alleged incident was not aggravated). The next step down is a SoL of 6 years after the incident. Again, from what we know, this would not fall into this category either (unless the alleged perp was facing more than 8 years in prison, which I doubt). The last level would involve a SoL of 3 years, which has probably passed based on what we know. Of course this all varies by state and we don't even know where the alleged incident was supposed to have taken place.

[SoylentAtheistGuest2]

http://i.imgur.com/9zgTZ7c.png

2 weeks out of a year long depression and she's spinning like a top.

Actually, I think my sweet little Jen displays rapid-cycling, mixed state. Go easy on her, eh?

Jeebus! Is there any FtBullie who hasn't acknowledged clinical depression or bipolar? Svan, I think. She's just a bitch.

Even if she hasn't been self diagnosed yet, I'd say she has PZTD. She was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen and hasn't forgiven the male race(cis).

Counting down to the days of her almost story.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

BTW, has anybody else noticed that Jen McWrong smells of rancid BO?

Please put your parent or guardian on the line, children aren't supposed to be listening to this.

[Brive1987]

Hello. Just want to establish a presence here after getting banned at Pharyngula last night from a single entry and then having that post deleted. Equal and opposite reaction at work.

Saved for posterity below. Tis truly evil.

____

I can't see anyone engaging with wanderson's #39 point: take the subjective anecdote seriously and then seek corroboration via tests etc before doing something irreversible. The implication is that you can take the rape allegation seriously AND request additional evidence before hanging anyone in the court of public opinion. You may not agree but that was the point in play.

Caine why were you on this thread at all if you are sick of other people's opinions you disagree with and find so tiresome? Let newcomers come to their own negotiated conclusions, even if via repeat performance - I'm sure you don't want to project the image that this space is all about you and your specific already formed opinions?

I wonder how many more lurkers would engage if each post had:

* Lounge stream where differences could be discussed by the wider community without the 'tone that shall not be named' and

* Thunderdome stream (ie status quo) where the usual suspects could make their contributions to each other:
.......

"Oh, aren’t you sweet? Tell ya what, Elizabeth, go fuck yourself. After dealing with these doucheweasels pretty much non-stop since the 8th, I’m out of patience. I’m also out of this thread, because I just can. not. deal. with. the. same. old. shit. again today. I certainly don’t need you telling me what to do because you’re feeling all sorry for Dr. Doucheweasel. I can make up my own mind about stuff like that, thanks."

"By the way, I don’t really give a shit about your blithering or your opinions (or even what your definition of the word “believe” is, for example). I just wanted to make a note of your incoherence."
.......

Regardless of intent, PZ does sometimes post lazy or genuinely contentious views. Too often (always?) disagreement is conflated, by the small vocal horde, as an attack on the underlying patriarchy/privilege based model - the one topic definitely off the table on this site.

http://www.edge.org/response-d... :shifty:

[BarnOwl]

Cuteness is one of the things I loved about Japan. Especially the sign that said, well in picture form, don't dig here or you'll hit a phone line. How did I being completely illiterate in Japanese know what the sign meant? The cute graphic of an angry steam shovel digging up a phone with a sad face and tear running down one cheek.

Figures cobweb cunt would be upset about cuteness. The miserable harridan seems to take no joy from anything. Well, with the exception of making everyone as pathetic and as empty as her.

PZ has also expressed his ethnocentric bias against and distaste for Japanese culture. If either PZ or Ophelia is given the opportunity to go to Japan for one of their all-expense-paid atheoskeptojunkets, I am going to scream outrage into the howling void of the internetz. I'd give just about anything for the chance to travel in Japan for a few weeks.

[Rystefn]

what if Mz Doe didn't realise she was raped till she talked about it with others...

Wait... is this more hypnotic regression/reclaimed memories bullshit? Or is it redifning rape bullshit?

[Cold]

Speaking of sexism, racism and ethnocentrism, Ophelia Benson tells us how much she hates Japanese culture's practice of Kawii and burikko.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... 8/burikko/
http://www.freezepage.com/1376968306TXXXHTDDWV

http://i.imgur.com/S8SlFYN.jpg

For those that have never encountered the word ethnocentrism, us long ago in the past anthropology minors, know it as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

arm-chair anthropology
white man's burden
racism
imperialism

In this case, since her hatred is directed at Japanese women, it seems to be racist misogynistic imperialistic claptrap.

What kind of raging misogynist racist would write such sweeping condemnations of an entire country and culture? Oh, a feminist. Well nevermind then, she's got her get out of jail free card.

Don't nobody show her the wiki for bukkake.

Didn't wanna be "that guy", but I personally find many parts of modern Japanese culture, including "kawaii" and anime shit in general, to be pretty fucking stupid. But even worse is the tendency of American beta-male geeks to become obsessed with and co-opt this culture to supremely annoying effect. Weaboos is what they're referred to.

Either way Ophelia Benson is still a moron and I hope her comments alienate herself from a majority of the FTB audience who are no doubt consumers of aforementioned anime culture. Can anyone see them teaming up with Japanese fisherman in Ophelia's near future? Putting the spear to the whale, so to speak.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Even if she hasn't been self diagnosed yet, I'd say she has PZTD. She was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen and hasn't forgiven the male race(cis).

Counting down to the days of her almost story.

Hang on, says tonight's SIWOTI warrior. Are you saying that Stephanie Zvan "was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen"? Has she claimed this? If not, could you retract it, as it's a ridiculous game to play. I don't know, just never heard this before, and if it's been posted here by some Guest to discredit the Pit, could it piss off?

[real horrorshow]

And second: Dismissing the idea that black on black crime (especially the shooting of young males) should be of concern to all black Americans regardless of where they live. It's the single biggest killer of young, black, American males. If I fell into that demographic, I'd think: what if I go to the wrong part of town/to a strange town? The biggest, statistical risk to your life should be of concern shouldn't it?

I'm not sure what your point is here, since, while indeed young American black males who are murdered are usually murdered by other young black males, it is also the case that young American white males are most often murdered by other young white males, and young American Latino males are usually murdered by other young Latino males. What are whites doing about white-on-white violence? What are Latinos doing about Latino-on-Latino violence? As for me, I'm not doing anything, except locking my doors, avoiding bad neighborhoods, watching my back at night, etc.

If this is so, then your point is taken. I haven't checked beyond the stats for young black males in the US, but if it is the case that young males of other ethnicities kill each other to the same degree/frequency of per capita deaths, then these are, perhaps, not exceptional. However, the questioner at the conference (ethnicity unknown) was asking a black speaker about black on black crime. I think she was entitled to a civil response.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Apologies: my previous was apparently a quote from freethoughtpolice.

[SoylentAtheistGuest2]

Apologies: my previous was apparently a quote from freethoughtpolice.

Thanks. I was trying to look him up to get the quote correct. But I was also wondering if he just pulled that out of his ass, or if that came from somewhere.

[TheMan]

what if Mz Doe didn't realise she was raped till she talked about it with others...

Wait... is this more hypnotic regression/reclaimed memories bullshit? Or is it redifning rape bullshit?

Who knows?

Doe: I had sex with Shermer last night...I think I had too much to drink. It's a bit of a blurr..* I feel ashamed and all dirty*... not sure what I'm going to say to my boyfriend.

She: Hold on...if you were legless you waz raped

Doe: Really? no...I remember kissing him on the forehead..I dunno...

She: You looked like you were having a good time. Doesn't mean you wasn't raped...listen...speak to others. Seek legal advice. Just because you went to his room dooesn't mean you gave consent.

Doe: I didn't know what I was thinking...I don't remember saying OK.

[Tulip Eater]

Didn't wanna be "that guy", but I personally find many parts of modern Japanese culture, including "kawaii" and anime shit in general, to be pretty fucking stupid.

You are certainly free to. As she is to her views. The salient point is that you can't both erect barriers against criticism and precious protected topics and people for other people and then piss all over it yourself without seeming just a bit like a hypocritical asshole.

This is clearly in the vein of feminist groups helping their oppressed sisters by topless demonstrations in mosques and calls for burka bans (protecting women's right to free agency by enforcing what they can and cannot do).

If the women freely choose to walk around and act like babies, they're welcome to it. There's a lot of interesting food for thought (it's basically cultural neoteny), but any honest debate is eschewed for the usual internet opinionated snark. It's shit, it's stupid, I don't like it. Thanks for taking the time out to give your 2 cents.

[Rystefn]

Even if she hasn't been self diagnosed yet, I'd say she has PZTD. She was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen and hasn't forgiven the male race(cis).

Counting down to the days of her almost story.

Hang on, says tonight's SIWOTI warrior. Are you saying that Stephanie Zvan "was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen"? Has she claimed this? If not, could you retract it, as it's a ridiculous game to play. I don't know, just never heard this before, and if it's been posted here by some Guest to discredit the Pit, could it piss off?

Svan has said as much on many occasions. From the details she's put out there, though, it comes off as a case of teenagers getting drunk and fooling around and Svan deciding years later that even though they were both the same amount of drunk and the same amount of enthusiastic at the time, he was a predator who brutally raped her and she was a poor victim who couldn't consent. At least, that's how it looks to me based on what I've seen her write about it, anyway. Obviously, my knowledge of the incident is far from complete.

[welch]

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

SOX is one of the MAJOR banes of my working life too: I am responsible for the SOX monitoring and compliance of over 5000 databases, plus the automated tools that ensure non-repudiation and auditability.

Like Welch, I HATE THAT SHIT with a passion.

It literally is a law that says "you know what we mean" anytime you want clarification. That's why we need lawyers and precedent and all that inconvenient shit. Because if one's life was really run on what people think they want, they'd be more ratfucked than they dreamed possible.

[yomomma]

Is PZ Meyers okay? Mentally? He's been publishing all sorts of weird shit, at a pace unlike any seen before, ever since he was served for calling someone a rapist on the internet.

Can the Trophy Wife please turn off his computer before he explodes?

I think he's desperately trying to bury the Shmeargate post, but someone might want to tell him, that...(whisper)...it's still there.

[yomomma]

I honestly can't wait to read what kind of diarrhoea of the mouth the queen of A+ will concoct, but I bet it will be glorious. Like A+.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Verklagekasper]

Speaking of sexism, racism and ethnocentrism, Ophelia Benson tells us how much she hates Japanese culture's practice of Kawii and burikko.

FTBigots don't allow women to express themselves like they want unless they can be showcased as battered victims. And generally, radfems hate Asian women more than men.

[welch]

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

If you were given the job of writing a clear explanation for other IT professionals, how big a book would you have to write?

If you mean HIPAA, it's been done. HIPAA is persnickty, OCD, but it is precise, clear, and setting up systems to properly work within it may be tedious, but, you at least know what you're doing, why you're doing it and what the goal is.

If you mean SOX, that is literally impossible. Because the IT side of it is...six words. I stated them. Now, YOU tell me what that means, and I'm not being snarky. your guess would be pretty much as valid as anything else. *every* publicly traded company implements it differently. The auditors don't know, they're guessing too, and the good ones will tell you that. The entire thing is an unending CYA grabass circlejerk brought on as a reaction to Enron and Tyco. Fuck both those companies to hell for eternity plus a day.

SOX is what happens when you try to be all "you know what we mean" about the law. I will HAPPILY take lawyers over that shit.

[Thanny]

A question just ocurred to me: Since PZ's defence boils down to "the truth is an absolute defence against libel" and assuming his source is telling the truth, would that defence still be valid if the statute of limitations expired and Shermer could no longer be charged with a crime? If you cannot be convicted, you are legally, if not actually, innocent. The statute of limitations varies widely from place to place and crime to crime so it's an outside possibility that it may have expired in this case already.

Should I be blunt? That seems to be the theme here.

First, a brief introduction, since my only other post was a short corrective for a historical name.

I followed Pharyngula for a number of years, but after "elevatorgate", I was so disgusted with PZ's behavior that I removed it from my RSS reader. I haven't read him since. After watching the latest Mr. Deity video (the actual video, not the clarification), I noticed a reference to Shermer in the comments, and felt compelled to find out what the hell was going on. As an aside, I should note that the begging segment looked entirely different when viewed in ignorance of the Shermer fracas.

My search ended up leading me here, which I recognized as an extension of the "slime pit" that ERV's blog became, in the words of Ophelia Benson (who I had stopped reading much earlier, due to her pathological compulsion to see sexism everywhere). I skimmed the latest huge thread to the first mention of Shermer, and slowly put the pieces together.

First, my response to the above quotation. While I am not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure I can say, without any sugarcoating, that the quote above is a whole lot of nonsense. A criminal conviction, or lack thereof, is certainly helpful in a civil suit that involves the alleged criminal activity, but it's ultimately just another piece of evidence. OJ Simpson, you'll recall, was acquitted of murder, but was found liable in the wrongful death of his wife and her lover. It's entirely possible that he could be convicted of murder and found not liable in the civil suit, though that would be much more challenging (a criminal conviction is consider much stronger evidence than a lack thereof).

If Shermer actually raped the woman in question, Myers is absolutely immune to any charge of libel. It doesn't matter whether Shermer was ever charged or convicted, or whether criminal statutes have expired. Furthermore, in the United States, the plaintiff in a defamation suit has the burden of proof. Myers doesn't have to prove that Shermer raped the woman. Shermer has to prove he didn't. All by a preponderance of evidence, which is much looser than beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly it behooves the defendant to provide evidence of the truth of the allegedly defamatory claim, but that's not strictly necessary.

Back to the situation at large, I think a lot of the theories floating around here about PZ's motivation are outright insane. He has a lot of idiotic opinions, and he's said many reprehensible things as a consequence. But I don't believe for a second that he made the accusation to increase blog traffic, promote his book, or do anything else that's ultimately self-serving. He believes the accusation is true. I'm absolutely convinced of that. I think many here are coming precariously close to fitting themselves for tinfoil hats.

And while, as a genuine skeptic, I have to recognize that it's possible that the entire report is complete bullshit, it doesn't have that ring to me. It's all in the opening line, "coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me". I find it plausible that there's a woman who actually believes that. I think she's probably deeply confused about what qualifies as coercion, and what it means to be unable to give consent. I believe she was very drunk, and that maybe Shermer provided assistance on that front by keeping her glass full (or something to that effect). But she was conscious (she would have said so if otherwise), and she consented. When she regretted it later, her instinct was to rationalize, and she became convinced that her present lack of desire for sex meant that she therefore must not have been able to truly give consent at the time. As we've seen from some utterly shocking quotes posted here, the belief that future regret has the power to retroactively turn consensual sex into rape is considered by the gender feminist crowd to be uncontroversial.

That's my guess, anyway. Which I'm sure qualifies me as a misogynist and rape apologist.

[yomomma]

Yeah, no argument there, but at the same time this is serious escalation from PZ's usual assholiness, and I figure that for con organizers and big name speakers, self-preservation has to kick in at some point. DJ George figured it out early (relatively) and somewhere, he's smiling.

Um, DJ Grothe that is. Fucking autocorrect.

That's too bad. I was really looking forward to DJ George spinning the sick beats.

[Rystefn]

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

SOX is one of the MAJOR banes of my working life too: I am responsible for the SOX monitoring and compliance of over 5000 databases, plus the automated tools that ensure non-repudiation and auditability.

Like Welch, I HATE THAT SHIT with a passion.

It literally is a law that says "you know what we mean" anytime you want clarification. That's why we need lawyers and precedent and all that inconvenient shit. Because if one's life was really run on what people think they want, they'd be more ratfucked than they dreamed possible.

So... if you were writing the clarification, it would take you 350 pages? Is that what you're saying? That there's no way to express laws except in massive tomes or half a sentence that says pretty much nothing, and there's nothing in between? Because I'm calling bullshit on that. There's pretty much 350 pages in between, in fact. The fact that we have all this case-law and precedent stuff tells us the 350+ page tomes of "clarification" aren't working so great anyway, doesn't it? Either the law is clear and doesn't need interpretation, or the interpretation is the law and we don't need massive tomes.

[TheMan]

[snip].

I've been exploring this possibility a little earlier.

Not sure what the statute of limitation is in rape cases in general but I suspect they would be infinity I would think). I only say this because here in the great land of OZ were going through an inquiry into kiddy fiddling by priests and other people in carer positions.

But that's not the case, in Australia it's One Year according to this article but there have been exceptions:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-13/r ... it/4685150

In the USA from one source it mentions that half the US States have an infinity SoL for Rape and something different (unclear) for other states with exceptions for cases involving children.
this article explains it more:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/0 ... -rape.html

In CA, there is no SoL on aggravated rape (many things can make it aggravated, but from what little we know, this alleged incident was not aggravated). The next step down is a SoL of 6 years after the incident. Again, from what we know, this would not fall into this category either (unless the alleged perp was facing more than 8 years in prison, which I doubt). The last level would involve a SoL of 3 years, which has probably passed based on what we know. Of course this all varies by state and we don't even know where the alleged incident was supposed to have taken place.

Thanks for that...I should have mentioned earlier that my above applies to statutary rape..it was remiss of me even though that become clear when clicking on the USA link.

I reckon this will turn out to be one of those murkey ones...muddied by time and memory holes. when the time comes Doe better be very convincing. She has PZ convinced...but he's convinced the Slyme Pit is a forum full of mysogynists.....so PZ's levels of convinciments is questionable (I just made a word up btw)

[Rystefn]

As an IT person in a publicly traded company, as i've mentioned before, one of the real pain points of my existence is a law that is astoundly vague and non-specific: sarbanes-oxley. It talks about financial reporting and documentation of procedures involving financial stuff. Here is the entire part that talks about IT:

"...and the systems that support them."

That is the shittiest thing ever done, because it literally has no value whatsoever. How does IT comply with the law? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW, THE LAW DOESN'T TELL US, and thanks to how vague it is, the regulatory aspect is "We can't give you any help, but if you fuck it up, we'll beat the shit out of you." So literally every publicly traded company does it different, no one knows what the fuck is actually needed, and it all comes down to "what the auditors want"

So one set requires security scans, the other requires screenshots of anti-malware settings and NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

The shit that non-lawyers bitch about is the precision necessary to avoid regulatory nightmares like sarbox.

I've also dealt with HIPAA, at least peripherally, and of the two, HIPAA is preferable. It too is a pain in the ass writ large, but it is a specific pain in the ass, so you aren't trying to read minds.

If you were given the job of writing a clear explanation for other IT professionals, how big a book would you have to write?

If you mean HIPAA, it's been done. HIPAA is persnickty, OCD, but it is precise, clear, and setting up systems to properly work within it may be tedious, but, you at least know what you're doing, why you're doing it and what the goal is.

If you mean SOX, that is literally impossible. Because the IT side of it is...six words. I stated them. Now, YOU tell me what that means, and I'm not being snarky. your guess would be pretty much as valid as anything else. *every* publicly traded company implements it differently. The auditors don't know, they're guessing too, and the good ones will tell you that. The entire thing is an unending CYA grabass circlejerk brought on as a reaction to Enron and Tyco. Fuck both those companies to hell for eternity plus a day.

SOX is what happens when you try to be all "you know what we mean" about the law. I will HAPPILY take lawyers over that shit.

Fuck the six words. The law is supposed to accomplish something, yes? To prevent something or ensure something, am I correct? Given the job or writing a policy to accomplish that, how much paper would it take? No lawyer-speak, no trying to explain concepts to people who aren't familiar with what it is you do. One competent profession writing a standard for other competent professionals in the same field. What's it take? An essay? A pamphlet? One page? Ten pages? A thousand pages? Feel free to ballpark it. The way I figure it, tech stuff should be the high-end of how complex a law should get, in general. So lay it on us. How massive a tome would it take to get the job done clearly?

[yomomma]

Back to the situation at large, I think a lot of the theories floating around here about PZ's motivation are outright insane. He has a lot of idiotic opinions, and he's said many reprehensible things as a consequence. But I don't believe for a second that he made the accusation to increase blog traffic, promote his book, or do anything else that's ultimately self-serving. He believes the accusation is true. I'm absolutely convinced of that. I think many here are coming precariously close to fitting themselves for tinfoil hats.

Oh, fuuuuuuuuccccckkkkk OFF!

And while, as a genuine skeptic, I have to recognize that it's possible that the entire report is complete bullshit, it doesn't have that ring to me. It's all in the opening line, "coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me". I find it plausible that there's a woman who actually believes that. I think she's probably deeply confused about what qualifies as coercion, and what it means to be unable to give consent. I believe she was very drunk, and that maybe Shermer provided assistance on that front by keeping her glass full (or something to that effect). But she was conscious (she would have said so if otherwise), and she consented. When she regretted it later, her instinct was to rationalize, and she became convinced that her present lack of desire for sex meant that she therefore must not have been able to truly give consent at the time. As we've seen from some utterly shocking quotes posted here, the belief that future regret has the power to retroactively turn consensual sex into rape is considered by the gender feminist crowd to be uncontroversial.

That's my guess, anyway. Which I'm sure qualifies me as a misogynist and rape apologist.

No, it really doesn't make you a rape apologist. You're not that cool.

So, really, what are you doing different in making assumptions about things you know nothing about than the clan on PZ? My take, is WE DON'T KNOW. It's not about feelings or tickles in your groin or intuition. Nobody fucking knows. You know why nobody knows? Because it was an anonymous, vague accusation done on a bipolar blog instead of using the proper channels to give the accused their day in court and the alleged victim, justice. Even murderers are granted that right. Piss off.

[uberfeminist]

Just didn't get the hint last time, did you?

Give to an able-bodied, intelligent, resourceful, educated person e-begging to attend a convention.
or
Give to the local soup kitchen serving meals to the hungry.

What would you do Justin?

When he started this shit for the third time here - for TAM - he was roundly criticized for it, and rightly so. And he hasn't learned shame or any other goddamned thing. Like Mykeru said, it's what happens when you feed a stray.

Why he feels it's everyone else's duty to finance what are basically his vacations, I don't have a clue. I work my ass off just keeping a roof over my head and you don't see me e-panhandling, so his shameless begging for free trips really irks me.

Goddammit.

Look, if you don't want to donate to Justin, fine.

But let's not make up this false dichotomy as if it were charitable money that would either go to a soup kitchen or Justin.

Also let's not to out sob-story one another.

$5. You can go get a smoothie with that money. Or you can buy some booty-shaking video on iTunes or some shit. Or get a month of Netflix and watch weird foreign films.

But if what you'd prefer to see is some people funded to go to FFRF if you enjoy their content then that's fine.

I'm tired of this fake categorization of money - as if money spent on Justin is coming out of your rent money or charitable giving. BULLSHIT.

Fuck that. It's all about entertainment. With these group funding things, we can choose to get that next console video game title or fund some other project that we might find more interesting.

If I gave money to Justin, MrDeity, FFRF, CFI or whatever rich-cis-white-folk organization doesn't piss me off this week, that's my problem, innit? Maybe the guilt-tripping can end?

Also technically you should never donate to cancer research because that money generally goes to all these "resourceful" science types that are just dripping with privilege.

:moon:

[AndrewV69]

Fuck the six words. The law is supposed to accomplish something, yes? To prevent something or ensure something, am I correct? Given the job or writing a policy to accomplish that, how much paper would it take? No lawyer-speak, no trying to explain concepts to people who aren't familiar with what it is you do. One competent profession writing a standard for other competent professionals in the same field. What's it take? An essay? A pamphlet? One page? Ten pages? A thousand pages? Feel free to ballpark it. The way I figure it, tech stuff should be the high-end of how complex a law should get, in general. So lay it on us. How massive a tome would it take to get the job done clearly?

What we did was say to the auditors. "OK. You tell us what to do to become SOX compliant and we will do it."

If you think that before that that that Audit hated, lothed and despised the very spaces that IT infested you had not seen anything yet.

Audit dedicated a lot of resources for well over three years coming up with stuff for IT to do and they still had not finished when I retired. For all I know they are still at it and IT is doing whatever they want. You would think that Audit would be happy except no one in IT would make suggestions at all. They had to come up with stuff on their own.

Muhahahahaha!

[mordacious1]

[snip].

Oh, fuuuuuuuuccccckkkkk OFF!

[snip].

No, it really doesn't make you a rape apologist. You're not that cool.

So, really, what are you doing different in making assumptions about things you know nothing about than the clan on PZ? My take, is WE DON'T KNOW. It's not about feelings or tickles in your groin or intuition. Nobody fucking knows. You know why nobody knows? Because it was an anonymous, vague accusation done on a bipolar blog instead of using the proper channels to give the accused their day in court and the alleged victim, justice. Even murderers are granted that right. Piss off.

For a minute I thought I was on Pharwrongula. Next thing we'll be asking for the Fascist Tit to come by with a banhammer.

[yomomma]

For a minute I thought I was on Pharwrongula. Next thing we'll be asking for the Fascist Tit to come by with a banhammer.

Sorry. Perhaps I was too harsh. I just have a hard time believing PZ's intentions were pure and well meaning and any scrutiny of his possible motives are tin foil hattish. Rubbed me the wrong way.