Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

Old subthreads
jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16321

Post by jet_lagg »

Just reading through some of the comments at Nugent's blog (which, thank christ, have been deleted, and now only exist in my email). Nager is Nec? that explains a lot.

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16322

Post by jet_lagg »

And Cunt is back?????

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16323

Post by jet_lagg »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Jet_lagg should be here. He gets "cunt".
I think Cunt has me on ignore :*(

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16324

Post by Skep tickle »

Lsuoma wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:Ho, ho! I was researching rectal bleeding and found this truncated definition:

[.img]http://slymepit.com/staticimgs/rectbleed.jpg[/img]
Did they do any biopsies during your colonoscopy today?*

*Disclaimer: You should only reveal as much of your personal medical history online as you are comfortable having others know, and in revealing even limited personal medical information you should recognize that it's possible others might speculate about what's going on, and/or make jokes about the situation.
Love the disclaimer. Yes, I had a 2cm polyp, likely an adenoma, removed about three centimeters up the rectum from the anus. The doc said there might be some rectal bleeding, but I've passed around 15ml of fresh blood so far, which seems a bit excessive.
2 cm - whoa, glad you had that colonoscopy.

They probably gave you written instructions after the procedure, and maybe a phone number to call if you had problems?

Urgent care can assess you for significant blood loss (vital signs, labs) and give fluids and tell you if they think you need to go to ER and/or be admitted but they can't stop the bleeding.

Unless the bleeding increases overnight, your best bet may be to call the GI doc's office in the AM (or now if they gave you a 24 hr number to call). They may want to take a quick look (w/ a shorter scope) & see if there's a bleeding vessel that needs help (epinephrine injection, etc) to stop.

aratina
.
.
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:49 pm
Location: The Bluff City, USA
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16325

Post by aratina »

:popcorn:
franc wrote:
aratina wrote:P.S. Does he know because he goes to church there?
You fucking stupid cunt cunt. I even said I had often been there for easter masses. You stupid cunt. The monastery even housed the orthodox southern hemisphere patriarch for some time. The place is as well known of as the Vatican to slavs down here. You stupid cunt. This is how much "research" you do with your sewer crawling.
I hope you all read that. :lol:

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16326

Post by Skep tickle »

jet_lagg wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Jet_lagg should be here. He gets "cunt".
I think Cunt has me on ignore :*(
CaptainFluffyBunny might want to try that approach, himself.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16327

Post by Aneris »

Aratina wrote:When PZ had a list of who was banned, he got yelled at for it. When we made a list of who The Block Bot blocked, we got yelled at for it. Because of that, I don't think making lists of who is banned is held in high regard here. Also, it's difficult to know if and how a person moderates their blog. Some silently do it, others make a big show of it. There isn't really a professional rule about it.
I didn't mean a list of The Banned, or an online pillory that is misleading and pretends people who disagree on some twitter argument were heinous harassers. I merely mean:
  • Rules on the Blog:
    Example Rule 23: people who's nickname starts with "A" will find their comments deleted.
Aratina wrote: This comment was deleted, because Aratina is a name starting with A and that is not allowed as per Rule 23.
And in that situation:
Skep Tickle wrote: This comment was deleted, because this poster was asked to not longer comment here.
Or
Skep Tickle wrote: This user was banned because of Rule 42 [Registered Users on the Slymepit aren't allowed to comment]
I hope that clears it up.

aratina
.
.
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:49 pm
Location: The Bluff City, USA
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16328

Post by aratina »

Tribble wrote:
Guestus Aurelius wrote:@Aratina:

Sorry if you already addressed this and I missed it, but I wanted to ask: did you do what franc says you did? Did you prank call end-of-life care patients?
Would he admit it if he did? Is franc lying? We don't have any real to know.

However, having watched both parties involved, I'd tend to take franc's word over ariatna's simply because of the general conduct of the parties, especially regards to truthful and accurate reporting, in other environments.
Let's see. How about you ask this again:

Tribble wrote:Is franc lying?
And again:
Tribble wrote:Is franc lying?
Mmm, maybe a fourth time, just in case:
Tribble wrote:Is franc lying?
And Captain Fluffy Bunny, might want to check your paranoia. Verging on francish levels.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16329

Post by franc »

aratina wrote::popcorn:
franc wrote:
aratina wrote:P.S. Does he know because he goes to church there?
You fucking stupid cunt cunt. I even said I had often been there for easter masses. You stupid cunt. The monastery even housed the orthodox southern hemisphere patriarch for some time. The place is as well known of as the Vatican to slavs down here. You stupid cunt. This is how much "research" you do with your sewer crawling.
I hope you all read that. :lol:
You really have no clue do you? About anything at all. Other than what's spoon fed to you. Stupid cunt. That's why baboons v. 'pit has always been butter knives v. razors - no clue at all about how absurd you stupid cunts actually are, so easy to laugh at. Normally, picking on retards is taboo. But you retards have chosen to attack the entire planet with your retard SJW first strike, so taboo forfeit.

You have to be the only stupid cunt here that has failed to understand why exactly you are a stupid cunt. Stupid cunt.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16330

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

aratina wrote:
Tribble wrote:
Guestus Aurelius wrote:@Aratina:

Sorry if you already addressed this and I missed it, but I wanted to ask: did you do what franc says you did? Did you prank call end-of-life care patients?
Would he admit it if he did? Is franc lying? We don't have any real to know.

However, having watched both parties involved, I'd tend to take franc's word over ariatna's simply because of the general conduct of the parties, especially regards to truthful and accurate reporting, in other environments.
Let's see. How about you ask this again:

Tribble wrote:Is franc lying?
And again:
Tribble wrote:Is franc lying?
Mmm, maybe a fourth time, just in case:
Tribble wrote:Is franc lying?
And Captain Fluffy Bunny, might want to check your paranoia. Verging on francish levels.
What paranoia? I simply addressed your M.O. You seem incapable of realizing false accusations and doxxing are not trivial events for many people. Prove me wrong.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16331

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Skep tickle wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Jet_lagg should be here. He gets "cunt".
I think Cunt has me on ignore :*(
CaptainFluffyBunny might want to try that approach, himself.
Forgive me, I am weak sometimes. Often. Okay, a lot.

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16332

Post by jet_lagg »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Forgive me, I am weak sometimes. Often. Okay, a lot.
No. No. Sometimes it's right to be weak. You have to indulge yourself occasionally, or what's the point of living?

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16333

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

jet_lagg wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Forgive me, I am weak sometimes. Often. Okay, a lot.
No. No. Sometimes it's right to be weak. You have to indulge yourself occasionally, or what's the point of living?
Yeah, but cunt wasn't up to form. Weak Sauce. And you and I seem to be the only ones who enjoy the rare sport of cunt-baiting. In deference to the fine people here, I will restrain meself.

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16334

Post by jet_lagg »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Forgive me, I am weak sometimes. Often. Okay, a lot.
No. No. Sometimes it's right to be weak. You have to indulge yourself occasionally, or what's the point of living?
Yeah, but cunt wasn't up to form. Weak Sauce. And you and I seem to be the only ones who enjoy the rare sport of cunt-baiting. In deference to the fine people here, I will restrain meself.
Fair enough. It's a moot point at any rate, as he seems to have blocked me.

aratina
.
.
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:49 pm
Location: The Bluff City, USA
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16335

Post by aratina »

Aneris wrote:I didn't mean a list of The Banned, or an online pillory that is misleading and pretends people who disagree on some twitter argument were heinous harassers. I merely mean:
  • Rules on the Blog:
    Example Rule 23: people who's nickname starts with "A" will find their comments deleted.
Aratina wrote: This comment was deleted, because Aratina is a name starting with A and that is not allowed as per Rule 23.
And in that situation:
Skep Tickle wrote: This comment was deleted, because this poster was asked to not longer comment here.
Or
Skep Tickle wrote: This user was banned because of Rule 42 [Registered Users on the Slymepit aren't allowed to comment]
I hope that clears it up.
OK. I did think you meant a more dungeon style list. It might have been a better policy regarding Skep Tickle, since she'd probably actually politely acquiesce to it. I see people here now saying they loved being in the dungeon and on the block list, but let me tell everyone here, some people go crazy when you ban them or block them. We had a lot of people try to shut down the bot on Twitter in anger over being on it, some even threatened a lawsuit! I appreciate the people who took it in good stride and even those who tried to make a game of it (we had fun) but not everyone is as happy about being unable to have their say on a blog or Twitter or wherever.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16336

Post by cunt »

aratina wrote:
Aneris wrote:I didn't mean a list of The Banned, or an online pillory that is misleading and pretends people who disagree on some twitter argument were heinous harassers. I merely mean:
  • Rules on the Blog:
    Example Rule 23: people who's nickname starts with "A" will find their comments deleted.
Aratina wrote: This comment was deleted, because Aratina is a name starting with A and that is not allowed as per Rule 23.
And in that situation:
Skep Tickle wrote: This comment was deleted, because this poster was asked to not longer comment here.
Or
Skep Tickle wrote: This user was banned because of Rule 42 [Registered Users on the Slymepit aren't allowed to comment]
I hope that clears it up.
OK. I did think you meant a more dungeon style list. It might have been a better policy regarding Skep Tickle, since she'd probably actually politely acquiesce to it. I see people here now saying they loved being in the dungeon and on the block list, but let me tell everyone here, some people go crazy when you ban them or block them. We had a lot of people try to shut down the bot on Twitter in anger over being on it, some even threatened a lawsuit! I appreciate the people who took it in good stride and even those who tried to make a game of it (we had fun) but not everyone is as happy about being unable to have their say on a blog or Twitter or wherever.
Is there some point in any of this or are you just even more bored than I am?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16337

Post by Steersman »

HunnyBunny wrote:
Steersman wrote: While I sort of apologize to Skep tickle for discussing the issue and maybe broadcasting her information wider than would otherwise be the case, I think the cat is out of the bag, and that it is more important to emphasize the rather odious lengths that PZ and company will go. In addition, my impression is that search engines aren’t going to be analyzing images in YouTube videos so a “blur” is unlikely to have any effects. And my link to the video doesn’t, in itself, disseminate that information, but is likely to further discredit Myers.
*snip*
That is a notpology in the finest of Ophelia traditions.
It wasn’t really intended as a real apology – hence the “sort of”. It was more along the line of “sorry I have to make a mess in the kitchen but I have to break a few eggs to make an omelette”. Or, as it was phrased in the Gospel according to St. Spock, “[sometimes] the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. And while we might quibble about the relative amounts of harm in each case, I thought it of some importance to correct Aneris’ apparent misunderstanding of the events that led up to Myers’ and Watson’s petty dickheaded harassment of Skep tickle.

Not sure you, and many others, really understand or appreciate the fact that peddling lies & promoting falsehoods of one sort or another has any number of problematic consequences, that it is largely tantamount to shooting ourselves in the feet. Although I’m not so dogmatic as to insist that there can’t ever be any extenuating circumstances. But I think Philip Wylie, in his Generation of Vipers, put it more succinctly than most:
... man – individual man – ... should employ the scientific method for the purpose of studying himself …. He would find that truth cannot be escaped within, any more than it can be escaped without. He would learn that when he kids himself, or believes a lie, or deceives another man, he commits a crime as real and as destructive as the crime of deliberately running down a person with an automobile. (pg 21)
And I find it rather disconcerting, to say the least, that you apparently think that doing so – “deceive another man” – is “ok when we do it”.
HunnyBunny wrote:What is it with people these days, not being able to stop at just 'I'm sorry' . Or 'that's horrible', always got to add something like ' .. but those cartoonists had it coming' yadda yadda.
Maybe because there might be other dimensions to the issue that “you” aren’t really considering? But since that seems another riff on your previous “victim blaming” comment which I had intended to respond to, I’ll do so now – kind of kill two birds with one stone.

But you had said there in response Aratina’s suggestion, apparently, that Myers was “justified” in “doxxing” Skep tickle:
Here's another example of justification -

She was wearing a short skirt, low cut top and drunk. It was awful she got raped, but should have thought of that before she went out...

It was awful those cartoonists were murdered for drawing pictures, but...
And I think the problem is that people are somewhat unclear on the meaning and implications of the word:
justified: adjective
1.
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.
Personally, I think the word that is most applicable in those circumstances is “understandable”, i.e., “expected under the circumstances, comprehensible”:
  1. It is understandable that she got raped because some guys have the moral sense of a pack of rabid dogs;
  2. It is understandable that some Muslims would murder cartoonists for drawing pictures because they have the same moral sense, and a clear inability to function in democratic societies which should thereby preclude their right to immigrate;
  3. It is understandable that Myers & Watson would “doxx” Skep tickle for having made a rather clear jest because they too have the same moral sense and are, to boot, petty, narrow-minded demagogues.
But for “good or legitimate reasons”? Ha!

However, there are, of course, the reasons why people would want to engage in the actions – getting drunk while wearing a short skirt, publishing cartoons, making jests – in the first place which precipitated the corresponding – understandable – responses, at least given the nature of the people making them. But I’m not sure that the three cases are as analogous as you, and Aratina and others, seem to be arguing. While they may be the same or similar in that “society” might have a reasonable expectation that we all “should” not engage in “disproportionate” or inappropropriate responses, it seems that the anti-Islamic cartoons are a rather different kettle of fish, at least in terms of rights and responsibilities.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16338

Post by Dick Strawkins »

aratina wrote:
Aneris wrote:I didn't mean a list of The Banned, or an online pillory that is misleading and pretends people who disagree on some twitter argument were heinous harassers. I merely mean:
  • Rules on the Blog:
    Example Rule 23: people who's nickname starts with "A" will find their comments deleted.
Aratina wrote: This comment was deleted, because Aratina is a name starting with A and that is not allowed as per Rule 23.
And in that situation:
Skep Tickle wrote: This comment was deleted, because this poster was asked to not longer comment here.
Or
Skep Tickle wrote: This user was banned because of Rule 42 [Registered Users on the Slymepit aren't allowed to comment]
I hope that clears it up.
OK. I did think you meant a more dungeon style list. It might have been a better policy regarding Skep Tickle, since she'd probably actually politely acquiesce to it. I see people here now saying they loved being in the dungeon and on the block list, but let me tell everyone here, some people go crazy when you ban them or block them. We had a lot of people try to shut down the bot on Twitter in anger over being on it, some even threatened a lawsuit! I appreciate the people who took it in good stride and even those who tried to make a game of it (we had fun) but not everyone is as happy about being unable to have their say on a blog or Twitter or wherever.
I have no problem with a blocking tool that simply excludes those whose comments are too damaging/dangerous for those who need that kind of personal firewall (and I can easily imagine that there will be some who would find the internet far too triggering without this kind of protection.)

Where I see a problem is the idea that such a list of excluded voices can be publiShed and labelled as 'harassers' or misogynists etc - especially when the reason for inclusion is so arbitrary. At the moment the main criteria for inclusion seems to be tribal rather than actual behaviour. Everyone on the pit seems to be automatically placed on level 2 and it's not uncommon to find famous figures ending up there too - just because they said something that annoyed a member of the blocking team (Obama, Lady Gaga etc)

Of course the inclusion of the likes of Lady Gaga and Obama demonstrate a lack of seriousness about the whole thing which mitigates the effectiveness of the tool but the principle remains problematic - namely that there is an attempt to link decent people who simply happen to disagree with the blockbot team on a small number of issues with genuinely sociopathic twitter trolls. I see this as smearing individuals with implications of behaviour that they find abhorrent.

I'll give two analogies which might explain it better.
Imagine, Aratina, that you were not involved with the blockbot team but one of them found an old quote of yours that could be considered questionably transphobic - for example when you called a transwoman a 'transfatty'.
While it is possible that someone could take offense at such an insult I wouldn't think it's enough to condemn you as a transphobe, but getting blocked by the blockbot doesn't depend on how I think - it depends on how the individual blockers think and it's perfectly understandable that one of those could spot that comment and send you to any level they want.
So there you are, level one, the worst of the worst, convicted transphobe.

The second analogy involves a different scenario.
Imagine that instead of it's current focus on misogyny, anti-feminist and transphobia, the blockbot decided to exclusively focus on racism.
So it collects a list of the worst racists around - all KKK, stormfront, neo-nazi trolls etc.
Fair enough, horrible bunch.
Next this blockbot team decides to include 'islamophobia' in its definition of racism and adds the likes of bigots like Pam Gellar.
Next a blocker spots a tweet highly critical of Islam by Opelia Benson and deems this islamophobic and adds her to the published blocklist.
It is certainly possible that Bensons comments would be seen as Islamophobic by some people (since any criticism of Islam is deemed Islamophobic.)
But does she deserve to be included in a published list mainly featuring nazis and klan members?
I don't think so.
I think that Ophelia would feel justified in such a situation in claiming that blockbot is deeply flawed and results in the smearing of non racists, like her, with the implication that she shares beliefs or actions with genuine racists.
I think the same problem exists with the current blockbot linking good people to the behaviour of sociopathic trolls and genuine misogynists.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16339

Post by Skep tickle »

aratina wrote:
Aneris wrote:I didn't mean a list of The Banned, or an online pillory that is misleading and pretends people who disagree on some twitter argument were heinous harassers. I merely mean:
  • Rules on the Blog:
    Example Rule 23: people who's nickname starts with "A" will find their comments deleted.
Aratina wrote: This comment was deleted, because Aratina is a name starting with A and that is not allowed as per Rule 23.
And in that situation:
Skep Tickle wrote: This comment was deleted, because this poster was asked to not longer comment here.
Or
Skep Tickle wrote: This user was banned because of Rule 42 [Registered Users on the Slymepit aren't allowed to comment]
I hope that clears it up.
OK. I did think you meant a more dungeon style list. It might have been a better policy regarding Skep Tickle, since she'd probably actually politely acquiesce to it.
What do you mean by this last line? I was banned at Pharyngula in 12/2012 in the "An experiment: Why do you despise feminism" thread and have never tried to post there since. Ironically, the thread in which I was banned invites dissenters in the OP, which reads in part: "So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists. I’d like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses."

(I do not consider myself an anti-feminist, but 3rd-or-whatever-wave feminists might, or do. I considered myself a feminist for about 30 years - I fell into the "2nd wave" group - but have stopped using the term for myself, though I'm okay with "equity feminist" - though in that case it's not clear why there needs to be a gendered word in the term.)
aratina wrote:I see people here now saying they loved being in the dungeon and on the block list, but let me tell everyone here, some people go crazy when you ban them or block them. We had a lot of people try to shut down the bot on Twitter in anger over being on it, some even threatened a lawsuit! I appreciate the people who took it in good stride and even those who tried to make a game of it (we had fun) but not everyone is as happy about being unable to have their say on a blog or Twitter or wherever.
Perhaps those were the people whose RL identities were apparent from their twitter handles and who took exception to being publicly labeled as "the worst of the worst", "the nastiest", harassers, trolls, and similar - or lumped with that group when their qualifying trespass only got them a level 2 or 3 ranking. Wild guess, maybe some of them considered that to be defamation.

Damion wrote here about the lumping of the levels that Newsnight (that BBC program that the best-known Blockbot creator appeared on) did, but from what I recall of the video clip, Billingham himself gave that impression in the discussion (whether or not that's what he intended).
Damion wrote:While the newly tiered system is undoubtedly a major improvement, it creates the risk that the level three blocklist will be lumped in with the worst-of-the-worst, perhaps even on widely-viewed television programs. So far as I can tell, the BBC program excerpted above makes no effort to separate the mildest “offenders” (genuinely decent, readily identifiable individuals whom I admire, people like Blackford, Drescher, Maltseva, Mayhew, Stangroom, Wainwright, Wachs, and Zara) on the blocklist from the sort of people who anonymously spew venomous invective and issue violent threats. Instead, Newsnight lumps them altogether under the single heading of “shared list of abusers” and barely even alludes to the fact that the blocking system is multi-tiered. I wouldn’t personally go so far as to call it defamation, wantonly grouping these good people in with those who threaten rape and men who are “raised to hate women,” but then again I’m an American and have an unusually narrow view of what that word should be taken to mean.

My submariner friend has coined the term “weaponized fallacy of equivocation” for the situation when someone shifts the meaning of a term mid-argument in order to attack someone’s character. Even though the Block Bot website itself makes it quite clear that their inclusion criteria are quite lax at the bottom level (characterizing those included as “merely annoying and irritating Twitterers” who disagreed with the Atheism Plus program at some point) the producers of Newsnight saw fit to paint the entire list with the same hateful brush. This is irresponsible yellow journalism at best, agenda-driven anti-skeptical character assassination at worst.

For failing to do even the smallest modicum of online research into the nature of the Block Bot, for failing to consult anyone targeted by the bot’s creators for that side of the story, and for nevertheless making sweeping and unevidenced claims smearing the character of over three-hundred people on the level-three blocklist, Newsnight should be profoundly ashamed. They have failed their employers, their viewers, and themselves.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16340

Post by James Caruthers »

So what's going on now, cunts?

Did you all get the aratina out of your systems?

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16341

Post by James Caruthers »

I need some pointy tits and also some tips on playing this Magic game I hear the cool virgins play these days. I will play Black of course because I am a rough man. Demons because why not, Chaos is your master now.

So teach me about these card games, turbonerds. What is a "land" and how many do I need before I can own Park Place and Broadway and summon Satan? Maybe Raep can help with that last part.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16342

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

franc wrote: I view the orthodox church much the same way that many atheist Jews view Judaism. It's there and it's got a pretty rich cultural heritage. I even recommend godless folks experience the orthodox easter midnight mass first hand if they ever get the chance - especially at one of the older churches. It is a fascinating piece of anthropological theatre and you really get to see first hand exactly how blurred the lines are between early xtianity and paganism. It is good value if you have an interest in the outside world, how it formed and have a desire to educate yourself about it. So natch, this is all alien to Ratty and the baboon troop. It risks changing preconceptions and immutable beliefs.
I was once invited to an Orthodox mass by a friend. It was held in a huge basement with wonderful fornication*, no particular decoration except for a few icons, and the communion was made with actual bread dipped in wine.

I'm not a believer at all, but it was a great experience, history-wise. It did have that feeling of early christianity.




*not what you think. Look it up.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16343

Post by rayshul »


Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16344

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Where I see a problem is the idea that such a list of excluded voices can be publiShed and labelled as 'harassers' or misogynists etc - especially when the reason for inclusion is so arbitrary. At the moment the main criteria for inclusion seems to be tribal rather than actual behaviour. Everyone on the pit seems to be automatically placed on level 2 and it's not uncommon to find famous figures ending up there too - just because they said something that annoyed a member of the blocking team (Obama, Lady Gaga etc)
I was put on level 2 at the block bot when I still had a twitter account. Which was weird, because I used my account mostly for musical purposes and thus was more than mild mannered. But I was of the Slymepit, so fuck me, and I decided to delete my account.

Thanks, fucking block bot.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16345

Post by Brive1987 »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:It was on twitter after he was doxxed, much as Skep owned her name, after she was doxxed.

There is no evidence that the dude wanted his name and nym linked pre outing, which makes publishing and repeating that original linkage verboten. No?
The first time I saw his real name mentioned was on that TERF post, however I don't think they strictly speaking doxxed him. I think he revealed his name and picture a short time before Brennan wrote that blockbot team post. I was able to find several examples of him apparently intentionally revealing his name and photo that must have existed before the TERF post (because they were obviously posted before Brennans), which I presumed must have been where Brennan and her TERF mates got his name in the first place.

As I said previously, I presumed Aratina revealed his RL name around about the time the blockbot was getting a lot of publicity to try to get his fair share of the blame credit for writing the thing.

So I don't think revealing Aratina's name is fair to claim as a doxxing.

Some of the other members of the blockbot may have really been doxxed in that Brennan post - but I have no real knowledge of them so I wouldn't be able to presume one way or the other.

I think a major problem with claims of doxxing is that we have no agreed definition.
Without us agreeing what constitutes doxxing we are talking past each other.

I tend to see it as revealing private personal information with the aim of causing real life harassment.

A classic example would be the AVFM page where they doxxed women they hated for various reasons (some were dangerous criminals, while a lot were simply idiotic university student SJWs.

Or skepchick's doxxing of Skep tickle.

The closest we have seen to that behaviour here was Vacula with Surly Amy's address - and even that case was more unwitting stupidity on Vacula's part rather than intentional harassment.

The slymepit is a terrible place to post an intentional doxxing for the simple reason that its a fast moving thread and will be lost in the stream of new posts in a could of hours (and that is presuming that it wasn't deleted by Lsuoma or one of the mods).

To be fair we could say the same about the pharyngula comment section.

A real doxxing requires the ability to keep the information up-front and disseminated to enough people - which is why the twitter account of someone with enough followers seems a perfect tool for this job.

In other words, whether commenters on here or pharyngula intend to doxx or not (and we are generally agreed that we, here, do not intend to do so), the real damage is done by twitterers with large numbers of followers who publish private information with the implicit motive of inciting retaliation.
I'd agree with most of that and certainly the last bit, that there is a sliding scale of intended pain in different doxxing actions.

I think you will find though that Aratina had scrubbed previous name linkage in the same way (though with more revealed baggage) Skep owned her name but then clearly wanted to revert to stealth mode. I don't believe Ratty wanted his real name to be in play at the blockbot post time.

I'm happy to be proved wrong though.

I have what's probably an unpopular personal view on doxxing. Don't doxx people you disagree with. Report people making criminal threats.

But.

But once you doxx like what happened to Skep, malicious, directed focused RL harm directed doxxing, well then you have lost the protection of civil restraint. SZvan, Watson, Myers, Benson can all be doxxed to hell now as far as I'm personally concerned. They didn't just name names, or name work places - they pointedly directed their lynch mobs and stood back to see if the flames would take.

Live by the sword, die by it.

The Ratty naming is less intense, but if he didn't want to be personally IDed and this was clear at the time then he shouldn't have been. A doxx is a doxx.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16346

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

James Caruthers wrote:I need some pointy tits and also some tips on playing this Magic game I hear the cool virgins play these days. I will play Black of course because I am a rough man. Demons because why not, Chaos is your master now.

So teach me about these card games, turbonerds. What is a "land" and how many do I need before I can own Park Place and Broadway and summon Satan? Maybe Raep can help with that last part.
"Land" is basically your "mana". You need them to summon creatures, cast instants or permanent spells, use your creatures' abilities, use artifacts... one land equals one mana, so the more lands (and eventual multipliers) the better.

The number of lands in your deck is limited, but I don't know what the rules about that are these days.

The rest of the game is pretty basic. Oh, and if you go black, never go back. But maybe think of a "rats" deck. It's deadly. I used a red/white one, which was pretty effective in both attack and defense.

Enjoy the game, it is great fun.

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16347

Post by Søren Lilholt »

HunnyBunny wrote:Alex Gabriel has been quiet of late, but he's surfaced and make a complete arse of himself.

He has pissed off a BBC producer and a screenwriter from Dr Who, by characterising a scene from a new drama centred on a gay

The producer got stuck into the comments of Gabriel's original post, with a typical grown-up response from young Alex

http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness ... 1/0001.png

[/url]
You see, I was kind of siding with Guy Lambert for a while on this, but when Alex Gabriel pointed out that "fuck off" I finally saw his point.

I mean - why didn't he just explain this from the start? Why leave this killer argument until so late?

I wouldn't want to be Guy Lambert right about now.

Satan
.
.
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 12:32 am
Location: Hell

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16348

Post by Satan »

James Caruthers wrote:What is a "land" and how many do I need before I can own Park Place and Broadway and summon Satan?
I never realized I was missed so much.



(/sarcasm, for the benefit of those who make others suffer for their assburgers.)

subbie1957
.
.
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:49 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16349

Post by subbie1957 »

Søren Lilholt wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:Alex Gabriel has been quiet of late, but he's surfaced and make a complete arse of himself.

He has pissed off a BBC producer and a screenwriter from Dr Who, by characterising a scene from a new drama centred on a gay

The producer got stuck into the comments of Gabriel's original post, with a typical grown-up response from young Alex

http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness ... 1/0001.png

[/url]
You see, I was kind of siding with Guy Lambert for a while on this, but when Alex Gabriel pointed out that "fuck off" I finally saw his point.

I mean - why didn't he just explain this from the start? Why leave this killer argument until so late?

I wouldn't want to be Guy Lambert right about now.
Alex Gabriel thought the producer of a programme was trolling about his own programme? That Lambert didn't know what his own programme contained?

Alex really had to work hard to reach those levels of stupidity.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16350

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

subbie1957 wrote: Alex really had to work hard to reach those levels of stupidity.
I'm not so sure about that. I think he's a natural.

subbie1957
.
.
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:49 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16351

Post by subbie1957 »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
subbie1957 wrote: Alex really had to work hard to reach those levels of stupidity.
I'm not so sure about that. I think he's a natural.
No, there has been serious re-programming of his brain.

Apparently , it is rape even if there is no intercourse.

Gabriel , in his own blog post, has to say that he presumed intercourse had happened.

You can't accuse people of something that only happened in your imagination.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16352

Post by Skep tickle »

subbie1957 wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
subbie1957 wrote: Alex really had to work hard to reach those levels of stupidity.
I'm not so sure about that. I think he's a natural.
No, there has been serious re-programming of his brain.

Apparently , it is rape even if there is no intercourse.

Gabriel , in his own blog post, has to say that he presumed intercourse had happened.

You can't accuse people of something that only happened in your imagination.
Can't be "can't" - maybe "shouldn't"?

subbie1957
.
.
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:49 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16353

Post by subbie1957 »

It also seems that Gabriel thinks rape is not a subject you can make a drama out of. Who made that rule?

I guess he is objecting to people showing the cops being called after a rape. You just don't do that! You are part of the rape culture, if you produce dramas where the police are called in to investigate rape. Don't you know that Tweeter is the place where rapes are investigated? Or FTB blogs?

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16354

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I hope Ronald McGabriel never watches Game of Thrones. Imagine what it would do to his feeble mind.

subbie1957
.
.
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:49 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16355

Post by subbie1957 »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I hope Ronald McGabriel never watches Game of Thrones. Imagine what it would do to his feeble mind.
If she wasn't dead, Alex would be straight on to Mary Whitehouse to try to get these programmes banned.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16356

Post by James Caruthers »

Satan wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:What is a "land" and how many do I need before I can own Park Place and Broadway and summon Satan?
I never realized I was missed so much.



(/sarcasm, for the benefit of those who make others suffer for their assburgers.)
assburglars is one of the great misunderstood conditions of our time

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16357

Post by James Caruthers »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I hope Ronald McGabriel never watches Game of Thrones. Imagine what it would do to his feeble mind.
I think a lot of SJWs end up watching shows like GoT and enjoy them, despite all the evil satanic immoral messages. :pray:

It's an old case of "it's okay when we/they do it" or "freedom for me, and none for thee."

Jesper
.
.
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:25 pm
Location: Skanderborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16358

Post by Jesper »

Hello Pit.

Next target: Ophelia Benson.

She's the snake in our little garden.

Discuss.

NEO

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16359

Post by Steersman »

Ta.

One good link deserves another. :-) From the same source:
‘Treason’? Speaker Boehner says Netanyahu will address Congress on danger of radical Islam

Anyone who thinks they’ve detected just a little bit of tension between the administration and House Speaker John Boehner over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming address to Congress will quickly note that Boehner’s tweet includes the administration’s banned phrase, “radical Islam.” Or perhaps Twitter’s 140-character limit kept Boehner from writing that Netanyahu would address “violent extremism based on a warped view of Islam.”
Rather shameful that Obama apparently didn’t have the balls to confront Saudi Arabia over Raif Badawi when he was there recently. And somewhat apropos of which a recent post by Kenan Malik on “Radical Islam & the rage against modernity”.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16360

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I'm going to go out of character here for a second and make some observations about Gabriel's appearance:

Alex Gabriel has one of the most punchable faces in the world. It's a face I would punch. It's a face a mother would punch. It doesn't help him one inch that he's such an ass.

Ok, not his fault he's got such a schnoz. Could happen to anyone. Neither is it his fault that his eyebrows look like two huge dead caterpillars (although things can be done about that). But to wear those fucking hipster glasses on top of all that? Glasses that, combined with the rest, summon an uneasy feeling of him trying the old Groucho Marx joke-look? Plus his clown outfits? It's borderline criminal, and all his own fault.

Oh, and about being an ass, it's a face I'm quiet certain a grandmother would punch (yes, I still remember that one).

That was my angry rant for the morning. Thanks for your attendance. Try the waitress, tip the veal.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16361

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Annnnd it's finally done! Jesper is my first on ignore ever. Congrats, Danny Boy!

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16362

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

cunt wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Aratina displays this in spades; false accusations of rape, innocents doxxed instead of their real target, libellous insults don't bother him. He has no real compassion or empathy, just a vacuous morally bankrupt philosophy of "intersectional" feminism. This gives him the comfort of fooling himself into believing he is a moral agent, despite repeated actions proving otherwise.
Blah blah blah. Strut around on your high-horse some more. You're as bad as they are.
Anyone else have to remind themselves that the smug git in Cunt's avatar is David Cameron and not Cunt himself. The face fits Cunt down to a T.

Jesper
.
.
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:25 pm
Location: Skanderborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16363

Post by Jesper »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Annnnd it's finally done! Jesper is my first on ignore ever. Congrats, Danny Boy!
Well done , Phil.

The outrage finally got to you.

You're out.

NEO 8-)

subbie1957
.
.
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:49 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16364

Post by subbie1957 »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'm going to go out of character here for a second and make some observations about Gabriel's appearance:

Alex Gabriel has one of the most punchable faces in the world. It's a face I would punch. It's a face a mother would punch. It doesn't help him one inch that he's such an ass.

Ok, not his fault he's got such a schnoz. Could happen to anyone. Neither is it his fault that his eyebrows look like two huge dead caterpillars (although things can be done about that). But to wear those fucking hipster glasses on top of all that? Glasses that, combined with the rest, summon an uneasy feeling of him trying the old Groucho Marx joke-look? Plus his clown outfits? It's borderline criminal, and all his own fault.

Oh, and about being an ass, it's a face I'm quiet certain a grandmother would punch (yes, I still remember that one).

That was my angry rant for the morning. Thanks for your attendance. Try the waitress, tip the veal.
Is that his real appearance?

In all honesty, I thought it was a fake picture, to hide his real identity, or as a bit of an in-joke.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16365

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

subbie1957 wrote:
Is that his real appearance?

In all honesty, I thought it was a fake picture, to hide his real identity, or as a bit of an in-joke.
Sadly, it seems to be, from the multiple pictures of him I've seen. It's not even funny anymore.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness ... /07/01.jpg


Well, ok, still a bit funny.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16366

Post by franc »

subbie1957 wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
subbie1957 wrote: Alex really had to work hard to reach those levels of stupidity.
I'm not so sure about that. I think he's a natural.
No, there has been serious re-programming of his brain.
I concur. There's healthy, all natural, organic stupid. Like folks that manage to garble the bible so much that they think god wants them to handle real rattlesnakes in church. That's fed by bad diet, no education, in-breeding and no exposure society beyond the line of the horizon of their hog farms. Alex MacGabriel grade stupid is way beyond that level. That is deliberately cultivated over years of highly disciplined brain cauterization. For those that have not had the pleasure, this is how punch-me-I-deserve-it face defines "freethought" -

http://greylining.com/2013/09/28/what-u ... -bollocks/

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16367

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Fine, fine, funny as all fuck!

(From Franc's, I had to stop reading and post this)

http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2 ... .png?w=510

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16368

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

For the record, I don't care much about people's appearance, it's all fine. But when you push yourself to the point of being a self-parody while not being a prominent comedian, musician, jet-setter, TV host or circus freak, you may have to re-think your worldviews. You're not that important to anyone. "Anyone" probably includes your grandmother!

franc
.
.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16369

Post by franc »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
subbie1957 wrote:
Is that his real appearance?

In all honesty, I thought it was a fake picture, to hide his real identity, or as a bit of an in-joke.
Sadly, it seems to be, from the multiple pictures of him I've seen. It's not even funny anymore.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness ... /07/01.jpg


Well, ok, still a bit funny.
What has happened to our species over the last few decades? At least our liberalised western species. It's like as a whole branch of ethnicity, we have chosen biological suicide. Even the weediest, most effeminate book wormy guys in school when I was growing up would look at this twit and have to seriously suppress the urge to pound his face into the concrete. Even John Waters in the '70s never dreamt up clown caricatures like this.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16370

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

franc wrote:

What has happened to our species over the last few decades? At least our liberalised western species. It's like as a whole branch of ethnicity, we have chosen biological suicide. Even the weediest, most effeminate book wormy guys in school when I was growing up would look at this twit and have to seriously suppress the urge to pound his face into the concrete. Even John Waters in the '70s never dreamt up clown caricatures like this.
As far as France is concerned (and who gives a fuck about France?), May 68 happened. This is the toppling point when we inherited the "child is sacred", "don't hurt their feelings", "children are magical" bullshit. Then came the pseudo psychologists with their bullshit theories. And ensued a few generations (one of which I'm part of) of entitled little brats growing up to become even more entitled brats.

But then in the 80's, hope sprang as we were getting accustomed to Japanese animation (not the porn kind) and other shit. A wider cultural sensitivity. And, in the late 90's and early 2000's, came the SJWs.

I think [insert any worthy catastrophe movie here] sums the subsequent and ongoing situation.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16371

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

And now I feel like Johnny Jacobs. Again.

[youtube]c-k9VE-eEY4[/youtube]

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16372

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

aratina wrote:
Aneris wrote:I didn't mean a list of The Banned, or an online pillory that is misleading and pretends people who disagree on some twitter argument were heinous harassers. I merely mean:
  • Rules on the Blog:
    Example Rule 23: people who's nickname starts with "A" will find their comments deleted.
Aratina wrote: This comment was deleted, because Aratina is a name starting with A and that is not allowed as per Rule 23.
And in that situation:
Skep Tickle wrote: This comment was deleted, because this poster was asked to not longer comment here.
Or
Skep Tickle wrote: This user was banned because of Rule 42 [Registered Users on the Slymepit aren't allowed to comment]
I hope that clears it up.
OK. I did think you meant a more dungeon style list. It might have been a better policy regarding Skep Tickle, since she'd probably actually politely acquiesce to it. I see people here now saying they loved being in the dungeon and on the block list, but let me tell everyone here, some people go crazy when you ban them or block them. We had a lot of people try to shut down the bot on Twitter in anger over being on it, some even threatened a lawsuit! I appreciate the people who took it in good stride and even those who tried to make a game of it (we had fun) but not everyone is as happy about being unable to have their say on a blog or Twitter or wherever.
I especially loved the way Oolon oozed his way onto the BBC to explain how the block list is a jolly jape and how much fun was had by all. No question of trying to smear anyone on it, was there? Getting Twitter accounts suspended, what a larff! Some people just don't appreciate a bit of humour. You rape-supporting misogynist harasser, you.

You are either trolling, or you really are the most clueless, one-eyed rationalising prick on the planet.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16373

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

So what you are suggesting is that Aratina is aware that Myers is a nasty piece of work and you shouldn't poke him with sticks? It isn't easy to tell through the excess verbiage.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16374

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:So what you are suggesting is that Aratina is aware that Myers is a nasty piece of work and you shouldn't poke him with sticks? It isn't easy to tell through the excess verbiage.
That quote disaster was aimed at Steersman's latest Great Wall of Words.

HunnyBunny
Pit Sleuth
Pit Sleuth
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:54 am
Location: Blue

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16375

Post by HunnyBunny »

subbie1957 wrote:
Alex Gabriel thought the producer of a programme was trolling about his own programme? That Lambert didn't know what his own programme contained?

Alex really had to work hard to reach those levels of stupidity.
To clarify, Guy Lambert is a BBC producer and supporter of Russel T Davies. Davies is the ex- Dr Who producer / writer, and now Producer of Cucumber.

Lambert at least tried to engage Alex Gabriel, and seemed genuinely interested in discussing his views. Alex, of course, wasn't. He was right, Lambert was wrong. Not that Guy was holding a different subjective opinion of possible equal validity, just wrong, end of discussion. In a nutshell what I find so dislikable about the SJW cult, along with all religions, no room for acceptance of subjective viewpoints.

Dworkins Unplugged.

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16376

Post by Dworkins Unplugged. »

franc wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
subbie1957 wrote:
Is that his real appearance?

In all honesty, I thought it was a fake picture, to hide his real identity, or as a bit of an in-joke.
Sadly, it seems to be, from the multiple pictures of him I've seen. It's not even funny anymore.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness ... /07/01.jpg


Well, ok, still a bit funny.
What has happened to our species over the last few decades? At least our liberalised western species. It's like as a whole branch of ethnicity, we have chosen biological suicide. Even the weediest, most effeminate book wormy guys in school when I was growing up would look at this twit and have to seriously suppress the urge to pound his face into the concrete. Even John Waters in the '70s never dreamt up clown caricatures like this.
Feminism happened, a narrative was constructed in which women promoted the idea of wanting men to be more like "women" (meaning whining middle class feminists with egos larger than their abilities). This narrative permeated throughout media enclaves (the only places feminists seem to be able to work in without making an exhibition of themselves) and more importantly marketing and advertisers saw a niche market to develop. After almost 50 years it's hardly a surprise that many young men think being both "hip" and attractive to women means reducing all masculine signals and behaviours, to whine endlessly on phones about how unfair life is.

It probably explains why so many blokes in their late 20's to mid 40's have said fuck that and instead get stoned and spend their days on their games consoles, or go get "swole".

SoylentAtheist

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16377

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
subbie1957 wrote:
Is that his real appearance?

In all honesty, I thought it was a fake picture, to hide his real identity, or as a bit of an in-joke.
Sadly, it seems to be, from the multiple pictures of him I've seen. It's not even funny anymore.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness ... /07/01.jpg
Well, ok, still a bit funny.
Please tell me he cuts his own hair. I would hat to see a barber get hit with a multi-million dollar malpractice suit.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16378

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Again, the prick did that to himself. No appearance-shaming here. If I start walking around with a traffic cone on my head, a giant bow-tie and huge baggy pants, you can mock me as well.

And meter-long shoes.

Jesper
.
.
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:25 pm
Location: Skanderborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16379

Post by Jesper »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Again, the prick did that to himself. No appearance-shaming here. If I start walking around with a traffic cone on my head, a giant bow-tie and huge baggy pants, you can mock me as well.

And meter-long shoes.
Dear Pit.

There's your problem.

People like phil are too afraid to be controversial even when faced with truth.

And of course he can't stand me because I treat Jews and Judaism as any other religion.

To him it's something special. Namely his future wife.

So , dear pit. Treat him with care.

He's going to need it.

NEO

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: How 'bout them Hawks!?

#16380

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

So, that's how an ignored poster looks like? Fancy!

Locked