Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Tony Parsehole]

@ German LurkBoatsman
Thanks for introducing the phrase "hair cancer". That made me chuckle.

[welch]

And if you're looking for a rapist, he's probably a man carrying a bottle of wine.

LOL :)

Though seriously ... if the police *didn't* use profiling to catch rapists ... I strongly suspect they would find their job 10x harder when they start with the presumption that it could literally be anybody, and investigated each person in the populace .... instead of focusing in on white males, aged between 18 and 24, with dark hair and a scar on their left cheek .... of course, not *all* white men aged 18 to 24 with scars on their left cheeks are rapists ... but it certainly helps to start there if that's the information you had about the person you are looking for....

Merely typing this shit makes me facepalm myself .... seriously they cannot be this dumb!!!

The problem with profiling isn't the concept. In and of itself it makes some sense. The problems with it arise because

a) it's used by humans, and we're fucking stupid. See also Arapaio, Joeseph. The abuse of profiling isn't a potential problem, it's a highly real one, and Harris is notably light on solutions for that. He seems to not have a problem with it.

b) Harris continuously pushes the "profile anyone who looks like a muslim" shit, and that's not what he means. Islam is a religion, not a race or phenotype or whatever. What he means of course is "profile anyone who looks arabic". But he refuses to say that, and dances around the entire issue.

However, here's the problem with profiling "muslims". Behold, the easily identifiable characteristics of a muslim:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZAYW_IwRRZs/U ... Horner.JPG
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 63452a.jpg
http://www.international-issues.org/wp/ ... nBooth.jpg

Well THAT'S going to make profiling harder. I mean, I'm glad we need to keep a watch on the fucking gingers.

But that's where Harris and a lot of the other profiling fans go off the rails. If you're looking for the IRA, profile the irish.

Yes, because no one would ever think to spend any time losing the obvious irish traits. Accents are permanent and you can't ever fake a new one. It's why in movies, americans can only be played by americans. And you can't ever pretend to not be from somewhere else.

The Israelis profile the hell out of people, but it's not just based on them being not jews. (again, what the fuck does that even mean). It's on a host of factors, including behavior. And they don't just do it at a single predictable checkpoint. It's happening constantly.

I agree that profiling is a useful tool, but Harris is just being lazy and a bit cowardly in his profile "muslims" shit.

He's also ragingly stupid in his "oh what problems could that elderly couple cause" or "what problems could that small child cause".

Um, look Sam, i know you have this really specific idea of what it takes to be dangerous, but I'm going to point out that a small child can carry explosives, (while use of children under 10 or so is somewhat uncommon, it is hardly some weird rare event) as can the elderly. In fact, because they are perceived to be harmless, it makes them more attractive to terrorists.

Reading his essays, Sam falls, rather easily into the "This is what a threat looks like" trope, and it shows in his defense of his version of profiling.

It's not that profiling's bad. It's that Sam's version is just stupid and trivially bypassed.

[Huehuehue]

I just checked Ophelia's harassment post again (over 170 comments! - about ten times her normal rate!)
As usual the sycophants are justifying their shitty behavior towards the slymepit because we are, according to them "harassers".

Interestingly one of them actually links to a definition of the crime so that we can check if we measure up to the publicity.

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

Harassment

Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way, harassment directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals focusing for example on gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation. This often occurs in chat rooms, through newsgroups, and by sending hate e-mail to interested parties (see cyber bullying, cyber stalking, hate crime, Online predator, and stalking). Any comment that may be found derogatory or offensive is considered harassment.

There are instances where committing a crime, which involves the use of a computer, can lead to an enhanced sentence. For example, in the case of United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, Kramer was served an enhanced sentence according to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2G1.3(b)(3)[9] for his use of a cell phone to “persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” Kramer argued that this claim was insufficient because his charge included persuading through a computer device and his cellular phone technically is not a computer. Although Kramer tried to argue this point, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that the term computer "means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device."[10]

Connecticut was the first state to pass a statute making it a criminal offense to harass someone by computer. Michigan, Arizona, and Virginia have also passed laws banning harassment by electronic means.[11][12]

Harassment as defined in the U.S. computer statutes is typically distinct from cyberbullying, in that the former usually relates to a person's "use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act," while the latter need not involve anything of a sexual nature.

Often it is confusing wondering why harassment occurs over the internet. The fact of the matter is that bullying over the internet may occur for no reason. These crimes can be considered "a computer harassment crime of convenience."[13]

It would appear to me that they are going to find it hard to make a case of harassment by the slymepit based on that definition.
The crime seems to refer to direct interaction on a shared medium and thus any comments made here on the slymepit (so long as they are not advocating violence or threats of violence) would not count since we are not directing the comments (even if they are derogatory or obscene) AT them, rather we are addressing the comments to other members of this site. Since Ophelia and the rest refuse to join in with the conversation on this site there is no claim that the comments are being directed AT them.
And besides, Ophelia and the likes regularly make obscene and derogatory comments (lying bastard, lying shit, shitty shit, etc) about individuals who post on the slymepit and against the membership of the slymepit as a whole.
This is also NOT covered by the definition of harassment I have posted.

They fundamentally have no grasp of how law and legal systems operate. In order to understand the law of harassment via online methods, you have to consider harassment in itself. "Online harassment" is generally an attempt to simply update harassment laws to deal with the internet.

Now, if a group of friends regularly get together and voice their disapproval of a rather obnoxious colleague, is this harassment? Of course it isn't. Yet that is analogous to how the Slymepit operates. We just talk among ourselves and debate/ laugh at things. Without some method of intentional communication to them, it's just not possible for either side to be "harassers".

The FTB crew don't see it that way. Rather, in their minds, online harassment is its own law whose interpretation has nothing to do with pre-existing notions of harassment or the purpose of anti-harassment legislation in general. This leads them to construe harassment in very bizarre manners.

The UK prosecution guidelines mention that using online resources to maintain "surveillance" on an individual can be evidence of harassment. To some of the FTB crew, this means that if I watch your posts, I'm maintaining "surveillance" on you. Anyone who actually considers the overall context will quickly realise that it refers to surveillance of the person, not their simple posts online. By FTB logic, following someone on twitter can be harassment/stalking.

I genuinely can't help but laugh at people who haven't so much as read an authority before declare, in no uncertain terms, what the law is. Of course, they have no clue. Sure, you can opine as to what the law is/should be, but it's not very convincing that they -know- the law by magic.

[mikelf]

"What social justice warriors need to understand" by Ryan Grant Long

http://ryrant.blogspot.com/2013/11/what ... o.html?m=1

[youtube]V6JHguDt4Lw[/youtube]

[welch]

More siliness from feminists...within the article, there is an assumption that portraying scantilly-clad women in media is "sexism" and "reinforces gender stereotypes." News to feminists: men are portrayed throughout media buff and shirtless just about as much or even more than women are portrayed as scantily clad. Sex sells. Advertisers know their markets...and the men/women are happy 'showing off' and celebrating their bodies. Just one more reason I can't take modern feminism seriously...http://timesleader.com/news/apfeatures/ ... smartphone

http://timesleader.com/news/apfeatures/ ... t-movie-ra

(AP) You expect movie ratings to tell you whether a film contains nudity, sex, profanity or violence. Now movie theaters in equality-minded Sweden are introducing a new rating to highlight gender bias, or rather the absence of it.To get an "A'' rating, a movie must pass the so-called Bechdel test, w...

timesleader.com

LikeCommentShare

You know what passes the bechtel test more than any other genre?

Lesbian Porn.

Also, a movie version of a volleyball combat video game. Starring Eric Roberts.

The bechtel test is an interesting guideline, but like all such things, it's been given a status it really doesn't deserve.

[Dick Strawkins]

The problem with profiling isn't the concept. In and of itself it makes some sense. The problems with it arise because

a) it's used by humans, and we're fucking stupid. See also Arapaio, Joeseph. The abuse of profiling isn't a potential problem, it's a highly real one, and Harris is notably light on solutions for that. He seems to not have a problem with it.

b) Harris continuously pushes the "profile anyone who looks like a muslim" shit, and that's not what he means. Islam is a religion, not a race or phenotype or whatever. What he means of course is "profile anyone who looks arabic". But he refuses to say that, and dances around the entire issue.

However, here's the problem with profiling "muslims". Behold, the easily identifiable characteristics of a muslim:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZAYW_IwRRZs/U ... Horner.JPG
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 63452a.jpg
http://www.international-issues.org/wp/ ... nBooth.jpg

Well THAT'S going to make profiling harder. I mean, I'm glad we need to keep a watch on the fucking gingers.

But that's where Harris and a lot of the other profiling fans go off the rails. If you're looking for the IRA, profile the irish.

Yes, because no one would ever think to spend any time losing the obvious irish traits. Accents are permanent and you can't ever fake a new one. It's why in movies, americans can only be played by americans. And you can't ever pretend to not be from somewhere else.

The Israelis profile the hell out of people, but it's not just based on them being not jews. (again, what the fuck does that even mean). It's on a host of factors, including behavior. And they don't just do it at a single predictable checkpoint. It's happening constantly.

I agree that profiling is a useful tool, but Harris is just being lazy and a bit cowardly in his profile "muslims" shit.

He's also ragingly stupid in his "oh what problems could that elderly couple cause" or "what problems could that small child cause".

Um, look Sam, i know you have this really specific idea of what it takes to be dangerous, but I'm going to point out that a small child can carry explosives, (while use of children under 10 or so is somewhat uncommon, it is hardly some weird rare event) as can the elderly. In fact, because they are perceived to be harmless, it makes them more attractive to terrorists.

Reading his essays, Sam falls, rather easily into the "This is what a threat looks like" trope, and it shows in his defense of his version of profiling.

It's not that profiling's bad. It's that Sam's version is just stupid and trivially bypassed.

There was a famous case, about 15 years ago, of the Israeli's catching an attempted plane bombing when they searched the luggage of a pregnant Irish woman trying to board a plane in Heathrow airport. The woman was expecting the child of her boyfriend - an Israeli arab (I think) and he had, without her knowledge, placed a bomb in the suitcase (she was flying over to meet his family for the first time - or so she thought.)
Was that attempt bombing thwarted through profiling?
I guess yes, in that the Israelis 'profile' (meaning give extra attention to searching) everyone who is not an Israeli citizen.

It's my experience that you get quite strict security at US airports if you just happen to have a foreign passport - you don't need to be Arab, so profiling of all foreigners, as potential higher risks, is already occurring.

[Tony Parsehole]

Oolon has long stated...

There's your problem, right there. Oolon's stating something = jack & shit.

But just because a stupid person/liar says something is true doesn't mean it's not true.

Given what I know about Oolon I consider everything he says to be a lie until evidence suggests otherwise. He'd lie about the time of day.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3788/9067 ... cc74_o.jpg

[jet_lagg]

And speaking of probability. I highly recommend Proving History. Really the best introduction to Bayes' Theorem for non-math types. http://astore.amazon.com/supportcarrier ... 65-0547719

WARNING

That "supportcarrier-20" in the URL is an Amazon Associates tag, and means that the owner of the tag will get 4-6% referral fees on all item purchased at Amazon for a couple of hours after the link is followed.

Either Mr Lagg knows this or he does not. I suspect the former, and that he either IS Carrier, or a buddy, or is just trying to get you to give him money.

Whoa, dude. Paranoia?

I like the book, and I think good scholarship should be supported. If you really dislike Carrier so much you'd prefer not to give him any money at all, then download the thing off piratebay. Jesus...

As a (somewhat) math type I find Proving History confused and pompously written.

That's probably because you're a math type. And I mean that in a non snarky way, seriously.

In my experience, those from mathematical fields tend to not get what the humanities are doing in the same way those in the humanities tend to not get what those in mathematical fields are doing. Suffice to say, his work is peer reviewed by a mathematician who specializes in bayes, and I've yet to see an actual critique of it (from a mathematician or otherwise) that brings up any points which aren't already addressed in the book (particularly the footnotes, which often reference much more technical literature backing Carrier's position).

[Matt Cavanaugh]

And Adria Richards likened herself to Joan of Arc :D

A crazy bitch who thought she heard voices. Hmmm.

[welch]

I just checked Ophelia's harassment post again (over 170 comments! - about ten times her normal rate!)
As usual the sycophants are justifying their shitty behavior towards the slymepit because we are, according to them "harassers".

Interestingly one of them actually links to a definition of the crime so that we can check if we measure up to the publicity.

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

Harassment

Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way, harassment directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals focusing for example on gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation. This often occurs in chat rooms, through newsgroups, and by sending hate e-mail to interested parties (see cyber bullying, cyber stalking, hate crime, Online predator, and stalking). Any comment that may be found derogatory or offensive is considered harassment.

There are instances where committing a crime, which involves the use of a computer, can lead to an enhanced sentence. For example, in the case of United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, Kramer was served an enhanced sentence according to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2G1.3(b)(3)[9] for his use of a cell phone to “persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” Kramer argued that this claim was insufficient because his charge included persuading through a computer device and his cellular phone technically is not a computer. Although Kramer tried to argue this point, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that the term computer "means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device."[10]

Connecticut was the first state to pass a statute making it a criminal offense to harass someone by computer. Michigan, Arizona, and Virginia have also passed laws banning harassment by electronic means.[11][12]

Harassment as defined in the U.S. computer statutes is typically distinct from cyberbullying, in that the former usually relates to a person's "use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act," while the latter need not involve anything of a sexual nature.

Often it is confusing wondering why harassment occurs over the internet. The fact of the matter is that bullying over the internet may occur for no reason. These crimes can be considered "a computer harassment crime of convenience."[13]

It would appear to me that they are going to find it hard to make a case of harassment by the slymepit based on that definition.
The crime seems to refer to direct interaction on a shared medium and thus any comments made here on the slymepit (so long as they are not advocating violence or threats of violence) would not count since we are not directing the comments (even if they are derogatory or obscene) AT them, rather we are addressing the comments to other members of this site. Since Ophelia and the rest refuse to join in with the conversation on this site there is no claim that the comments are being directed AT them.
And besides, Ophelia and the likes regularly make obscene and derogatory comments (lying bastard, lying shit, shitty shit, etc) about individuals who post on the slymepit and against the membership of the slymepit as a whole.
This is also NOT covered by the definition of harassment I have posted.

They fundamentally have no grasp of how law and legal systems operate. In order to understand the law of harassment via online methods, you have to consider harassment in itself. "Online harassment" is generally an attempt to simply update harassment laws to deal with the internet.

Now, if a group of friends regularly get together and voice their disapproval of a rather obnoxious colleague, is this harassment? Of course it isn't. Yet that is analogous to how the Slymepit operates. We just talk among ourselves and debate/ laugh at things. Without some method of intentional communication to them, it's just not possible for either side to be "harassers".

The FTB crew don't see it that way. Rather, in their minds, online harassment is its own law whose interpretation has nothing to do with pre-existing notions of harassment or the purpose of anti-harassment legislation in general. This leads them to construe harassment in very bizarre manners.

The UK prosecution guidelines mention that using online resources to maintain "surveillance" on an individual can be evidence of harassment. To some of the FTB crew, this means that if I watch your posts, I'm maintaining "surveillance" on you. Anyone who actually considers the overall context will quickly realise that it refers to surveillance of the person, not their simple posts online. By FTB logic, following someone on twitter can be harassment/stalking.

I genuinely can't help but laugh at people who haven't so much as read an authority before declare, in no uncertain terms, what the law is. Of course, they have no clue. Sure, you can opine as to what the law is/should be, but it's not very convincing that they -know- the law by magic.

Pretty much. That's why I'm not surprised Mayhew got her twitter account suspended. She relentlessly @-messaged them. she could have just as easily talked shit about them without that, but she wanted to make sure they heard her. At that point, you're no longer talking in your kitchen, you're standing in front of their house yelling at them.

I don't disagree with her dislike of them, but that doesn't mean I can't see where yeah, she was legitimately harassing them.

[Tony Parsehole]

Nice avatar Jett Lagg :P

[Dick Strawkins]

I just checked Ophelia's harassment post again (over 170 comments! - about ten times her normal rate!)
As usual the sycophants are justifying their shitty behavior towards the slymepit because we are, according to them "harassers".

Interestingly one of them actually links to a definition of the crime so that we can check if we measure up to the publicity.

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

Harassment

Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way, harassment directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals focusing for example on gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation. This often occurs in chat rooms, through newsgroups, and by sending hate e-mail to interested parties (see cyber bullying, cyber stalking, hate crime, Online predator, and stalking). Any comment that may be found derogatory or offensive is considered harassment.

There are instances where committing a crime, which involves the use of a computer, can lead to an enhanced sentence. For example, in the case of United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, Kramer was served an enhanced sentence according to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2G1.3(b)(3)[9] for his use of a cell phone to “persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” Kramer argued that this claim was insufficient because his charge included persuading through a computer device and his cellular phone technically is not a computer. Although Kramer tried to argue this point, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that the term computer "means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device."[10]

Connecticut was the first state to pass a statute making it a criminal offense to harass someone by computer. Michigan, Arizona, and Virginia have also passed laws banning harassment by electronic means.[11][12]

Harassment as defined in the U.S. computer statutes is typically distinct from cyberbullying, in that the former usually relates to a person's "use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act," while the latter need not involve anything of a sexual nature.

Often it is confusing wondering why harassment occurs over the internet. The fact of the matter is that bullying over the internet may occur for no reason. These crimes can be considered "a computer harassment crime of convenience."[13]

It would appear to me that they are going to find it hard to make a case of harassment by the slymepit based on that definition.
The crime seems to refer to direct interaction on a shared medium and thus any comments made here on the slymepit (so long as they are not advocating violence or threats of violence) would not count since we are not directing the comments (even if they are derogatory or obscene) AT them, rather we are addressing the comments to other members of this site. Since Ophelia and the rest refuse to join in with the conversation on this site there is no claim that the comments are being directed AT them.
And besides, Ophelia and the likes regularly make obscene and derogatory comments (lying bastard, lying shit, shitty shit, etc) about individuals who post on the slymepit and against the membership of the slymepit as a whole.
This is also NOT covered by the definition of harassment I have posted.

They fundamentally have no grasp of how law and legal systems operate. In order to understand the law of harassment via online methods, you have to consider harassment in itself. "Online harassment" is generally an attempt to simply update harassment laws to deal with the internet.

Now, if a group of friends regularly get together and voice their disapproval of a rather obnoxious colleague, is this harassment? Of course it isn't. Yet that is analogous to how the Slymepit operates. We just talk among ourselves and debate/ laugh at things. Without some method of intentional communication to them, it's just not possible for either side to be "harassers".

The FTB crew don't see it that way. Rather, in their minds, online harassment is its own law whose interpretation has nothing to do with pre-existing notions of harassment or the purpose of anti-harassment legislation in general. This leads them to construe harassment in very bizarre manners.

The UK prosecution guidelines mention that using online resources to maintain "surveillance" on an individual can be evidence of harassment. To some of the FTB crew, this means that if I watch your posts, I'm maintaining "surveillance" on you. Anyone who actually considers the overall context will quickly realise that it refers to surveillance of the person, not their simple posts online. By FTB logic, following someone on twitter can be harassment/stalking.

I genuinely can't help but laugh at people who haven't so much as read an authority before declare, in no uncertain terms, what the law is. Of course, they have no clue. Sure, you can opine as to what the law is/should be, but it's not very convincing that they -know- the law by magic.

My favorite piece of rabbit-hole reasoning by Ophelia was when she found a definition of office harassment that said something along the line of: "office harassment occurs when someone in your work environment (office, cubicle space, canteen etc) makes derogatory or critical remarks about you".

Ophelia treated this like a kind of "Eureka" moment - a definition that directly applied to her own situation and which she could use to prove she was being harassed.
Ophelia said that she, as a professional blogger, uses as her work/office space, the internet.
Therefore if someone "makes derogatory or critical remarks" about her on the internet then this is equivalent to a work colleage or colleagues doing the same thing in an office.
And thus it is harassment.

If I read someone else writing that kind of argument I would assume they were joking.
Unfortunately this is Ophelia we are talking about here.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

http://i.imgur.com/0YGFPAB.png

Fuck me, but Caine has some serious problems. I am starting to feel sorry for laughing at her, now that I read she is lacking the three fucking hundred fucking dollars she needs to buy fucking pencils.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-713859

Remember the good old days, before the internet, when you never encountered people like Caine until they were arrested for mailing ricin to their congressman?

[jet_lagg]

Nice avatar Jett Lagg :P

Thank you. It's my fervent hope that I can one day look at yours without becoming nauseous ;)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Video recordings and a high quality audio recording of my November 3 discussion with Pastor Dan Nichols are now available. About 200 people showed up and a good discussion was had. Enjoy.

http://justinvacula.com/2013/11/05/vide ... n-nichols/

Part 1
[youtube]jzRYN-R3B1s[/youtube]

Part 2
[youtube]FyKY7UieKSM[/youtube]

How could a loving God allow plaid armchairs like those to exist in the World?

[Huehuehue]

My favorite piece of rabbit-hole reasoning by Ophelia was when she found a definition of office harassment that said something along the line of: "office harassment occurs when someone in your work environment (office, cubicle space, canteen etc) makes derogatory or critical remarks about you".

Ophelia treated this like a kind of "Eureka" moment - a definition that directly applied to her own situation and which she could use to prove she was being harassed.
Ophelia said that she, as a professional blogger, uses as her work/office space, the internet.
Therefore if someone "makes derogatory or critical remarks" about her on the internet then this is equivalent to a work colleage or colleagues doing the same thing in an office.
And thus it is harassment.

If I read someone else writing that kind of argument I would assume they were joking.
Unfortunately this is Ophelia we are talking about here.

Jesus that's incredible. It's actually amazing that someone could come up with that argument. I swear delusion is its own kind of genius sometimes.

Think my best bit is the conflation of workplace with output. So if Ophelia's "workplace" is the internet (where the work ends up, rather than say, her home, where she actually does the writing). Does that mean a McDonald's drive-thru employee who serves you a Big Mac actually works in your car since that's where the work ends up?

[Karmakin]

I just checked Ophelia's harassment post again (over 170 comments! - about ten times her normal rate!)
As usual the sycophants are justifying their shitty behavior towards the slymepit because we are, according to them "harassers".

Interestingly one of them actually links to a definition of the crime so that we can check if we measure up to the publicity.

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

Harassment

Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way, harassment directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals focusing for example on gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation. This often occurs in chat rooms, through newsgroups, and by sending hate e-mail to interested parties (see cyber bullying, cyber stalking, hate crime, Online predator, and stalking). Any comment that may be found derogatory or offensive is considered harassment.

There are instances where committing a crime, which involves the use of a computer, can lead to an enhanced sentence. For example, in the case of United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, Kramer was served an enhanced sentence according to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2G1.3(b)(3)[9] for his use of a cell phone to “persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” Kramer argued that this claim was insufficient because his charge included persuading through a computer device and his cellular phone technically is not a computer. Although Kramer tried to argue this point, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that the term computer "means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device."[10]

Connecticut was the first state to pass a statute making it a criminal offense to harass someone by computer. Michigan, Arizona, and Virginia have also passed laws banning harassment by electronic means.[11][12]

Harassment as defined in the U.S. computer statutes is typically distinct from cyberbullying, in that the former usually relates to a person's "use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act," while the latter need not involve anything of a sexual nature.

Often it is confusing wondering why harassment occurs over the internet. The fact of the matter is that bullying over the internet may occur for no reason. These crimes can be considered "a computer harassment crime of convenience."[13]

It would appear to me that they are going to find it hard to make a case of harassment by the slymepit based on that definition.
The crime seems to refer to direct interaction on a shared medium and thus any comments made here on the slymepit (so long as they are not advocating violence or threats of violence) would not count since we are not directing the comments (even if they are derogatory or obscene) AT them, rather we are addressing the comments to other members of this site. Since Ophelia and the rest refuse to join in with the conversation on this site there is no claim that the comments are being directed AT them.
And besides, Ophelia and the likes regularly make obscene and derogatory comments (lying bastard, lying shit, shitty shit, etc) about individuals who post on the slymepit and against the membership of the slymepit as a whole.
This is also NOT covered by the definition of harassment I have posted.

Note that the definition leaves out political ideology, which is where they're actually getting pushback from. It's not because they're women (if it was then we'd ignore PZ). It's because they're tribalists. So by their definition, we're not harassing at all.

On the other hand, comments about "mansplaining", "old white men" or whatever ARE harassment, by that definition.

And I'll just restate my stance that a "closed" environment such as a forum should be treated entirely differently than an "open" environment such as a blog. Someone who is writing nasty public-facing blog posts with the intent of getting outside people to read them is entirely different than a comment in a closed forum where a prospective visitor has to click down multiple levels to reach. Because of that, at least on FTB, I do think that the standard they should follow for decent behavior is substantially higher. If they don't like that, they can open up a forum of their own, even password protect it so only members can read it.

[Dick Strawkins]

Pretty much. That's why I'm not surprised Mayhew got her twitter account suspended. She relentlessly @-messaged them. she could have just as easily talked shit about them without that, but she wanted to make sure they heard her. At that point, you're no longer talking in your kitchen, you're standing in front of their house yelling at them.

I don't disagree with her dislike of them, but that doesn't mean I can't see where yeah, she was legitimately harassing them.

"legitimately harassing them" is a bit of a stretch, but she certainly gave them the excuse to claim that Mayhew was harassing them.
This @messaging is something we warned Vacula about months ago when he was constantly messaging Ophelia Benson.
There is no need for it. They constantly do vanity searches of their own names. If you want to send them a message just mention their name without the full @handle, they'll see it.

[acathode]

Didn't Ophelia claim that Skepsheik's very funny "Peezus and O" comic strips were harassment? The FTBers claims of being harasses have always been the same shit that Christians, especially those of the very dishonest and slimy kind, pull whenever they encounter strong criticism, ie. claim that they are being harassed, oppressed and persecuted for their beliefs, when what's really going on is people simply ripping their asinine bullshit and hypocrisy to shreds and making the idiots who spewed it look like the fools they are.

If Ophelia have been harassed, then PZ and the rest of the FTBers have in turn harassed all the creationists they've ripped into, ridiculed, hated, despised and snarked at ten times worse. Of course, creationists are "evil", so "It's not the same thing! IT'S OK WHEN WE DO IT!"...

[German LurkBoatsman]

Ophelia said that she, as a professional blogger, uses as her work/office space, the internet.
Therefore if someone "makes derogatory or critical remarks" about her on the internet then this is equivalent to a work colleage or colleagues doing the same thing in an office.

Rather fortunate she doesn't walk the streets.

:rimshot:

[Ericb]

Ophelia said that she, as a professional blogger, uses as her work/office space, the internet.
Therefore if someone "makes derogatory or critical remarks" about her on the internet then this is equivalent to a work colleage or colleagues doing the same thing in an office.

Rather fortunate she doesn't walk the streets.

:rimshot:

So does this mean that the entire internet is her "personal space"? Empress of the Internet.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Did readhead-yellowshirt Groucho Marx just use the term "kafir"? Are we still dealing with Atheists here?

Ugh, don't tell me you're using the dictionary definition of kafir.

Surely lil' Alex meant:

a grain sorghum with stout, short-jointed, somewhat juicy stalks and erect heads.

[German LurkBoatsman]

Thanks for introducing the phrase "hair cancer". That made me chuckle.

It's a common affliction over here.
I'm a survivor.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The obvious retort is: are the Muslims the only ones responsible for terrorist attacks? As the people from Boston would say, no they aren't. So racial profiling is bollocks.

The Tsaernov boys were two muslims from Goatfuckistan. I assure you, the FBI was not on the lookout for a Vietnamese buddhist holed up in Watertown.

[windy]

Benson has the post up http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -contrast/. What a cunt she is. If an Afgan girl, Malala Yousafzai, is targeted for speaking against the patriarchy then how wonderful is that. If the CIA drops a bomb on some poor smuck, Nabila Rehman an eight-year-old girl, working in the fields then thats just a bit of ethically dubious high tech stuff.

Blow up an old lady in front of her grandkids: "ethically dubious"
Call her ugly and say you wouldn't have sex with her: vile, horrible, unforgivable harassment

[TiBo]

I agree that profiling is a useful tool, but Harris is just being lazy and a bit cowardly in his profile "muslims" shit...[...]...Um, look Sam, i know you have this really specific idea of what it takes to be dangerous, but I'm going to point out that a small child can carry explosives, ...[...]...it makes them more attractive to terrorists.

Reminds me of a saying Hitchens introduced, while talking about the possibility of reperations towards the descendants of slaves.

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien / The perfect is the enemy of the good."

I would argue that there is no need to instate a profiling system which promises to be 100% perfect.
For a start, it's sufficient to instate a system, which focuses on characteristics which we already KNOW were present in the terrorists who compromised airline security in the past. And that system should not be restricted to a single factor, and should also not exclude factors which are considered 'offensive'. The experiences from that system will be the foundation for later improvements and (if neccessary) for swift reactions, concerning changing behaviour of terrorists.

Apparently, the Israelis do their screening successfully. I'd suggest: Because they are forced to.
They don't have the typical western luxury of intellectually detracting themselves from what is important: Defending themselves.
It's one thing to look back a decade and fantasize about what perfect measurements one could exercise in the future, and it's another thing to be surrounded by sworn enemies who try to attack you on a daily basis. Only one of them forces you to put things into perspective and get your act together.

To me, argueing in favor of a perfect solution, instead of a good solution, is highly supicious. Not only because it reminds me so much of presuppositional apologetics a la ten Bruggencate (99% certainty = 0% because no perfect epistemology without god at its foundation), it also makes me wonder, if the proponent isn't secretly holding the view, that society should carefully weigh potential fatalities of a terrorist attack against abandoning the pretense of unconditional openness towards outsiders, in short: As long as we can pretend to not be prejudiced, it doesn't really matter that a few of our people will eventually die.

[Southern]

More siliness from feminists...within the article, there is an assumption that portraying scantilly-clad women in media is "sexism" and "reinforces gender stereotypes." News to feminists: men are portrayed throughout media buff and shirtless just about as much or even more than women are portrayed as scantily clad. Sex sells. Advertisers know their markets...and the men/women are happy 'showing off' and celebrating their bodies. Just one more reason I can't take modern feminism seriously...http://timesleader.com/news/apfeatures/ ... smartphone

http://timesleader.com/news/apfeatures/ ... t-movie-ra

(AP) You expect movie ratings to tell you whether a film contains nudity, sex, profanity or violence. Now movie theaters in equality-minded Sweden are introducing a new rating to highlight gender bias, or rather the absence of it.To get an "A'' rating, a movie must pass the so-called Bechdel test, w...

timesleader.com

LikeCommentShare

You know what passes the bechtel test more than any other genre?

Lesbian Porn.

Also, a movie version of a volleyball combat video game. Starring Eric Roberts.

The bechtel test is an interesting guideline, but like all such things, it's been given a status it really doesn't deserve.

WHAT? The DOA movie passes the Bechdel Test?! This cannot be, John C. Welch, you're being silly...

http://bechdeltest.com/view/4202/doa:_dead_or_alive/

Well, would you look at that.

[Gefan]

...My favorite piece of rabbit-hole reasoning by Ophelia was when she found a definition of office harassment that said something along the line of: "office harassment occurs when someone in your work environment (office, cubicle space, canteen etc) makes derogatory or critical remarks about you".

Ophelia treated this like a kind of "Eureka" moment - a definition that directly applied to her own situation and which she could use to prove she was being harassed.
Ophelia said that she, as a professional blogger, uses as her work/office space, the internet.
Therefore if someone "makes derogatory or critical remarks" about her on the internet then this is equivalent to a work colleage or colleagues doing the same thing in an office.
And thus it is harassment.

If I read someone else writing that kind of argument I would assume they were joking.
Unfortunately this is Ophelia we are talking about here.

The internet is Oafie's personal office?
I had no idea. Does this mean we have to wipe our feet before logging on?

[Jan Steen]

And speaking of probability. I highly recommend Proving History. Really the best introduction to Bayes' Theorem for non-math types. http://astore.amazon.com/supportcarrier ... 65-0547719

WARNING

That "supportcarrier-20" in the URL is an Amazon Associates tag, and means that the owner of the tag will get 4-6% referral fees on all item purchased at Amazon for a couple of hours after the link is followed.

Either Mr Lagg knows this or he does not. I suspect the former, and that he either IS Carrier, or a buddy, or is just trying to get you to give him money.

Whoa, dude. Paranoia?

I like the book, and I think good scholarship should be supported. If you really dislike Carrier so much you'd prefer not to give him any money at all, then download the thing off piratebay. Jesus...

As a (somewhat) math type I find Proving History confused and pompously written.

That's probably because you're a math type. And I mean that in a non snarky way, seriously.

In my experience, those from mathematical fields tend to not get what the humanities are doing in the same way those in the humanities tend to not get what those in mathematical fields are doing. Suffice to say, his work is peer reviewed by a mathematician who specializes in bayes, and I've yet to see an actual critique of it (from a mathematician or otherwise) that brings up any points which aren't already addressed in the book (particularly the footnotes, which often reference much more technical literature backing Carrier's position).

Here are some critiques (see also the comments) from someone who appears to know far more about probability theory than Carrier does:

http://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/p ... troductio/
http://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/t ... s-theorem/

[windy]

"If you disagree with A+ and FTB, ignore it and it will go away." -NSC

What a whiny cunt.

Awareness fail in the comments:

NonStampCollector 4 hours ago
"Cult" my ass. "Movement" is even a bit too ambitious. "Blog post" is more accurate.

but:

Philip 6 hours ago
I like your stuff NSC, but TF's comment really hits the nail on the head with this issue.

NonStampCollector 4 hours ago
His "comment"? Singular?

He'll still be going on about it in 2019.

#keepingitalive

A+ is a "blog post" (singular!) but TF will still be "keeping it alive" in 2019. How does that work, exactly? Can't they just ignore Thunderfoot?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I just checked Ophelia's harassment post again (over 170 comments! - about ten times her normal rate!)
As usual the sycophants are justifying their shitty behavior towards the slymepit because we are, according to them "harassers".

Interestingly one of them actually links to a definition of the crime so that we can check if we measure up to the publicity.

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

I believe that was in response to my point that none of the content at the Pit constitutes harassment.

Benson is still too afraid to post my counter-response
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=373

where I challenge them to provide hard evidence of legal harassment, or for Ophie to either take legal action or shut her fat gob.

[Trophy]

More siliness from feminists...within the article, there is an assumption that portraying scantilly-clad women in media is "sexism" and "reinforces gender stereotypes." News to feminists: men are portrayed throughout media buff and shirtless just about as much or even more than women are portrayed as scantily clad. Sex sells. Advertisers know their markets...and the men/women are happy 'showing off' and celebrating their bodies. Just one more reason I can't take modern feminism seriously...http://timesleader.com/news/apfeatures/ ... smartphone

http://timesleader.com/news/apfeatures/ ... t-movie-ra

(AP) You expect movie ratings to tell you whether a film contains nudity, sex, profanity or violence. Now movie theaters in equality-minded Sweden are introducing a new rating to highlight gender bias, or rather the absence of it.To get an "A'' rating, a movie must pass the so-called Bechdel test, w...

timesleader.com

LikeCommentShare

You know what passes the bechtel test more than any other genre?

Lesbian Porn.

Also, a movie version of a volleyball combat video game. Starring Eric Roberts.

The bechtel test is an interesting guideline, but like all such things, it's been given a status it really doesn't deserve.

:lol: That's so ridiculous. Any movie on Robinson Crusoe is so going to fail these on so many levels.

To get an "A'' rating, a movie must pass the so-called Bechdel test, which means it must have at least two named female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man

*snip*

The Bechdel test got its name from American cartoonist Alison Bechdel, who introduced the concept in her comic strip "Dykes to Watch Out For" in 1985. It has been discussed among feminists and film critics since then, but Tejle hopes the "A'' rating system will help spread awareness among moviegoers about how women are portrayed in films.

Way to miss the whole point of "Bechel test" for these law makers. The point isn't that any movie that passes the test is not sexist. The point of the "test" (which was supposed to be funny in a bitter way) is raising consciousness regarding gender biases and imbalances. If you are a producer and you are fucking aware of that, then good. You don't have to insert two magical women in every movie that you produce or every book that you write to get a meaningless "A" rating.

[John D]

Haha. Man charged with crime after using a taser on his wife. Dumb-asses!

"Nicole Grant told police she didn’t think her husband would actually use the Taser on her."
http://www.freep.com/article/20131106/N ... bet-couple

[ERV]

The world just cant handle a genius of Rebeccas caliber.

[youtube]hXud6iXXSqw[/youtube]

[Tapir]

Coming soon: Let's Play with Rebecca Watson. First game on the list - Duke Nukem.

[Tapir]

Just think, Abbie, if only you hadn't wasted all that time doing science you could be one difficulty level away from conquering Civ-5.

[Tribble]

And to think she could just get a job instead of whining for money on the Internet.

[Ericb]

And to think she could just get a job instead of whining for money on the Internet.

Does anyone know if she has an actual day job?

[Dick Strawkins]

And to think she could just get a job instead of whining for money on the Internet.

Does anyone know if she has an actual day job?

Yes.
She's a professional science journalist, writing for 'Popular Science'.

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/unpo ... th-science

[Dick Strawkins]

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/unpo ... th-science

Regarding her latest column, it looks like she's giving up any pretence of writing anything about real science, even that of the fringe variety, and decided to hit the low hanging fruit of ghost hunters, using her favorite weapon - snark.

Unfortunately she is neither a good nor a funny writer and the piece ultimately comes across as lazy and disrespectful of the reader.
A couple of wikipedia searches is hardly what I would call real background research - especially when writing for a science publication.

[JAB]

http://i.imgur.com/0YGFPAB.png

Wow... I didn't know Fluevogs even made pencils.

[Southern]

Well, I play lots of videogames and I have an actual day job. So she could, in theory, have a honest-to-god job.

Of course... because of my day job, I have an awfully long backlog of games that I bought and have yet to play. I bought Gran Turismo 5 and I barely run a couple of races in a VW Wagon. I bought Tales of Xillia, which has two main characters with two different endings (so, twice the already long 100+ hours of gameplay) and I have yet to start playing it. Hell, I bought Disgaea 4 (a notorious time-sink) and I didn't remove the plastic wrap from it.

Maybe I should quit my job and start boozing up and begging for money to solve that. Is there any ladies in the Pit that would wish to Patron me? Maybe an unfunny cartoonist one? A middle-aged college teacher? I can colour my hair if it does for you.

[katamari Damassi]

"What social justice warriors need to understand" by Ryan Grant Long

http://ryrant.blogspot.com/2013/11/what ... o.html?m=1

Oh, excellent.

That was excellent but will do little good. He might be a minority by being gay, but will have next to zero minority cred with the SJW's because he is a white gay man. WGM fall just below Republicans on the privilege scale. Even trans and lesbian activists seem to see all white gay men as little Andrew Sullivans-rich, self obsessed conservatives. I've seen trans activists rail against gays because we were fighting for marriage rights and not focusing on trans discrimination regarding public toilets, even though trans people could already be married in most states.

[Karmakin]

Well, I play lots of videogames and I have an actual day job. So she could, in theory, have a honest-to-god job.

Of course... because of my day job, I have an awfully long backlog of games that I bought and have yet to play. I bought Gran Turismo 5 and I barely run a couple of races in a VW Wagon. I bought Tales of Xillia, which has two main characters with two different endings (so, twice the already long 100+ hours of gameplay) and I have yet to start playing it. Hell, I bought Disgaea 4 (a notorious time-sink) and I didn't remove the plastic wrap from it.

Maybe I should quit my job and start boozing up and begging for money to solve that. Is there any ladies in the Pit that would wish to Patron me? Maybe an unfunny cartoonist one? A middle-aged college teacher? I can colour my hair if it does for you.

I skipped Tales of Xillia so I could get Disgaea D2. (Which I enjoy MUCH more than either 3 or 4)

And yeah, full-time job and all that. Although for me it's a night job and not a day job.

[Trophy]

@southern:

Damn, we are totally incompatible in gaming.

[AndrewV69]

Benson has the post up http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -contrast/. What a cunt she is. If an Afgan girl, Malala Yousafzai, is targeted for speaking against the patriarchy then how wonderful is that. If the CIA drops a bomb on some poor smuck, Nabila Rehman an eight-year-old girl, working in the fields then thats just a bit of ethically dubious high tech stuff.

Blow up an old lady in front of her grandkids: "ethically dubious"
Call her ugly and say you wouldn't have sex with her: vile, horrible, unforgivable harassment

Oh FFS! Everyone has standards. Give the old goat a break will ya people?

*sheesh*

[German LurkBoatsman]

Benson is still too afraid to post my counter-response
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=373

where I challenge them to provide hard evidence of legal harassment, or for Ophie to either take legal action or shut her fat gob.

Dude, FTB is not a legal court thing. Duh! You can't hold them blog post and comments to such legalese concepts as "checking things" or "making sense"!
Sometimes I sure think you Pitters are the stupid.
Floooosh...

[Gefan]

Does anyone know if she has an actual day job?

Yes.
She's a professional science journalist, writing for 'Popular Science'.

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/unpo ... th-science

Beckybooze is a science journalist?

Great. I'm a satirical film-maker.

[Southern]

@southern:

Damn, we are totally incompatible in gaming.

I know, I know. I'm in too deep in narmy JRPGs and I can't go back. I haven't shot anything in years, I don't play action games, I just want to see big numbers fly from my enemies, not to see their guts.

I also have to shame myself and inform that I didn't play GTA V yet past the intro, because I'm too hooked up in a PS2 game called Mana Khemia 2 right now. My gaming creed is eroding fast BUT I REGRET NOTHING!

[Sulman]

Best put your umbrellas up.

http://www.starstryder.com/2013/11/06/t ... -humanity/

[James Caruthers]

"If you disagree with A+ and FTB, ignore it and it will go away." -NSC

What a whiny cunt.

Awareness fail in the comments:

NonStampCollector 4 hours ago
"Cult" my ass. "Movement" is even a bit too ambitious. "Blog post" is more accurate.

but:

Philip 6 hours ago
I like your stuff NSC, but TF's comment really hits the nail on the head with this issue.

NonStampCollector 4 hours ago
His "comment"? Singular?

He'll still be going on about it in 2019.

#keepingitalive

A+ is a "blog post" (singular!) but TF will still be "keeping it alive" in 2019. How does that work, exactly? Can't they just ignore Thunderfoot?

You just don't understand. If you ignore a bunch of loud, obnoxious whiners who go around calling the biggest names in atheism misogynists and rapists, and crying for special conference rules and new laws to punish (mostly male) sexuality, if you just ignore them, they will totes go away!

On an unrelated note, keep the Bjarte Flooshhog comics coming, Parsehole. My sense of humor is weird, so I find them hilarious.

[Dick Strawkins]

Best put your umbrellas up.

http://www.starstryder.com/2013/11/06/t ... -humanity/

It's Pamela Gay, the astronomer who frequently speaks at skeptic events.

She doesn't name names here but I get the impression she is talking in the second half of the post about Michael Shermer (and perhaps some other incident connected with her work? - it's unclear, especially how anything to do with Michael Shermer would adversely affect her career - he's a name in the skeptic community, not the academic science field.)

She says three things about an incident in 2008.

"I learned that a witnesses to an event that occurred in 2008 is discussing that event and naming names. During the event in question, a man in power who I’d previously never met made a lunge at my breasts."

"Because someone witnessed a man in power attempt to grab my boobs, I have been warned that I need to worry about my career being actively destroyed by others."

and

"And then that man with power – the one who staggered at my breasts at the moment of our introduction – emailed me out of the blue on Halloween, denying anything happened between us because he’s never done anything like that, and if he has never… then he never did with me."


I get the impression that Shermer was drunk at some meeting and acted in a way that made Pamela Gay think he was trying to grope her breasts when he met her for the first time.
It also sounds like he never made physical contact with her - which pretty much makes it difficult to say he really did or even tried to grope her. Drunks stagger all the time and the guy (Shermer?) seems to be denying her interpretation of the event as one of attempted sexual assault.

[German LurkBoatsman]

Pamela Gay's 2012 TAM talk she writes about is here:

[youtube]8WSNGCD3PJE[/youtube]

[James Caruthers]

Best put your umbrellas up.

http://www.starstryder.com/2013/11/06/t ... -humanity/

Am I going insane due to the crazy rhetoric in this post, or is this entire diatribe, complete with "PTSD" claims, due to a drunk guy trying to grab her tits? I mean, that's it, right?

Flip the genders and let's see if "it gave me PTSD" is still a reasonable reaction.

"A drunk woman tried to grab my dick."

And then last week, the fading scars of what happened were cut open with a rusty blade.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[gust]

not getting it.

http://www.anony.ws/i/2013/11/06/GZfP.png

[Sulman]

For context, James, it is all aboot TAM.

[Brive1987]

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/unpo ... th-science

Regarding her latest column, it looks like she's giving up any pretence of writing anything about real science, even that of the fringe variety, and decided to hit the low hanging fruit of ghost hunters, using her favorite weapon - snark.

Unfortunately she is neither a good nor a funny writer and the piece ultimately comes across as lazy and disrespectful of the reader.
A couple of wikipedia searches is hardly what I would call real background research - especially when writing for a science publication.

Hi, any chance of a freezepage for the discriminated against Australian? .... Please.

[Badger3k]

...My favorite piece of rabbit-hole reasoning by Ophelia was when she found a definition of office harassment that said something along the line of: "office harassment occurs when someone in your work environment (office, cubicle space, canteen etc) makes derogatory or critical remarks about you".

Ophelia treated this like a kind of "Eureka" moment - a definition that directly applied to her own situation and which she could use to prove she was being harassed.
Ophelia said that she, as a professional blogger, uses as her work/office space, the internet.
Therefore if someone "makes derogatory or critical remarks" about her on the internet then this is equivalent to a work colleage or colleagues doing the same thing in an office.
And thus it is harassment.

If I read someone else writing that kind of argument I would assume they were joking.
Unfortunately this is Ophelia we are talking about here.

The internet is Oafie's personal office?

I had no idea. Does this mean we have to wipe our feet before logging on?

Does that mean she is responsible for all the porn and piracy out there?

On a somewhat related note, if you watch cartoon network at all you might have seen all the anti-bullying commercials they have. Most are ok, but they have one where they say that kids keeping another kid from sitting with them is bullying. I mean, it can be a symptom, but I thought we had the right to associate with who we want, and who we choose to sit with can have absolutely nothing to do with bullying. This type of thinking is similar to what we see with these SJWs.

[Dick Strawkins]

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/unpo ... th-science

Regarding her latest column, it looks like she's giving up any pretence of writing anything about real science, even that of the fringe variety, and decided to hit the low hanging fruit of ghost hunters, using her favorite weapon - snark.

Unfortunately she is neither a good nor a funny writer and the piece ultimately comes across as lazy and disrespectful of the reader.
A couple of wikipedia searches is hardly what I would call real background research - especially when writing for a science publication.

Hi, any chance of a freezepage for the discriminated against Australian? .... Please.

I'm over my freezepage limit and it won't let me freeze it.
Perhaps someone else can oblige.

[Kareem]

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/unpo ... th-science

Regarding her latest column, it looks like she's giving up any pretence of writing anything about real science, even that of the fringe variety, and decided to hit the low hanging fruit of ghost hunters, using her favorite weapon - snark.

Unfortunately she is neither a good nor a funny writer and the piece ultimately comes across as lazy and disrespectful of the reader.
A couple of wikipedia searches is hardly what I would call real background research - especially when writing for a science publication.

http://i.imgur.com/GXltwzu.png?1