Periodic Table of Swearing

#1621

While I'm here posting I'd like to congratulate the genius at freethoughtblahgs who came up with

If youâ€™re not whining about the made-up problem then youâ€™re part of the made-up problem

Like I said, genius.

#1622

@AndrewV69

Well, to be honest, I didn't make any points that could really touch a nerve - just two minor responses to Illumanata, who clearly blew a fuse over me, as her invective-filled protests to the contrary illustrated.

For some reason, the baboons really hate it if you don't take them seriously. Can't think why. :lol:

#1623

bhoytony wrote:While I'm here posting I'd like to congratulate the genius at freethoughtblahgs who came up with

If youâ€™re not whining about the made-up problem then youâ€™re part of the made-up problem

Like I said, genius.

Now THAT would make a great t-shirt...

#1624

Boy, you go off-line for a day due to interesting weather, and have to spend hours catching up. I love this thread.

Re Surly Amy's tearful reaction to the dread t-shirt: it's a bit rich, from an ally of a commentariat who routinely mock rational dissenters for having "hurt fee-fees".

Re Surly Amy's post going up unchanged on FreethoughtBlahgs: brilliant! I'm reminded of the SNL skit where Tina Fey parodied Sarah Palin by using her own words.

Re Ryan Grant Long's excellent post: good on him! But it seemed to me that Ms Benson's reply to it was more than usually dishonest.

As for me, I'm going to start saving my pennies right now, so I can go to TAM next year. It'll be lovely to feel perfectly safe.

#1625

Tigzy wrote:@AndrewV69

For some reason, the baboons really hate it if you don't take them seriously. Can't think why. :lol:

Actually, I was going to ask them a serious question but having read up to comment #170, I think i will leave it for another day. They are working themselves up in a tizzy over there.

#1626

AndrewV69 wrote:
Tigzy wrote:@AndrewV69

For some reason, the baboons really hate it if you don't take them seriously. Can't think why. :lol:
Actually, I was going to ask them a serious question but having read up to comment #170, I think i will leave it for another day. They are working themselves up in a tizzy over there.

Reasonabel has been going great guns over there, though - clearly getting the idea that the baboons are not to be discussed with, only dissed. Doing a great job of it, too.

#1627

Does PZ leave this talk to walk over to sit with RW? [youtube]CyNjpElNSoU[/youtube] That is the back of RW hair no? Was she there? 2:50 or so

#1628

I'm sorry, but I have to say that all this blather about not criticising Amy's "art" is fucking thought police 101.

In a very real sense, one of Art's reasons for existence is to be criticised. If we cannot criticise so-called art, then what thoughts and opinions can we have?

Art is for judging; criticising; valueing, etc., ad infinitum. That's what art is all about.

Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.

However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.

And anyway, it's not even fucking art; it's crafts. It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.

Let's get a grip here.

#1629

RebeccaB wrote: As for me, I'm going to start saving my pennies right now, so I can go to TAM next year. It'll be lovely to feel perfectly safe.

And I'm sure it will be better if none of the FC5 and their groupies and associates turn up.

I'd feel a lot safer not being surrounded by intellectually thuggish culties...

#1630

John Greg wrote: Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.

However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.

Agree. This is kind of what I meant to say, although I'm pretty sure Dilurk said it much clearer a while back. If you're trying to make a point about Amy's claim of harassment and its veracity/ridiculousness level, saying "her art sucks" does nothing to help make the point.

Feel free to critique and/or make fun of her artwork outside of that scope, though. (Or within that scope, if you feel it necessary; I personally just consider it an ad-hominem-type low blow. Everyone's mileage may vary.)

#1631

Art, or not?

#1632

John Greg wrote:It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.

Let's get a grip here.

Have you ever weaved a basket?? Thats fucking HARD! *FOUR-H MOTHER FUCKAHS!!!*

And I love Amys art! Very colorful, but needs more glitter! I would totally put it up on the fridge*!

*Ive been hanging out with a 6 and 8 year old a lot lately, so my ruler might be a bit skewed...

#1633

John Greg wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to say that all this blather about not criticising Amy's "art" is fucking thought police 101.

In a very real sense, one of Art's reasons for existence is to be criticised. If we cannot criticise so-called art, then what thoughts and opinions can we have?

Art is for judging; criticising; valueing, etc., ad infinitum. That's what art is all about.

Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.

However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.

And anyway, it's not even fucking art; it's crafts. It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.

Let's get a grip here.

+1. I was thinking more or less the same as I sat coiling one out this morning. I'm not saying that nobody would find it attractive or wish to purchase it.

For me though, it's trite and banal, and completely devoid of any artistic value. That's entirely divorced from any opinions I might have about Surly Jon Roth.

Regarding her, however, to me she comes across from t-shirtgate as a whiny, immature, self-centered person who really needs to do a lot of growing up. It's not all about her (it's all about the Blue Haired Monster, amirite?)

#1634

John Greg wrote:
And anyway, it's not even fucking art; it's crafts. It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.

Let's get a grip here.

How can you say this is not art? You philistine.

http://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/518569 ... 029616.jpg

#1635

[quote="ERV"
Have you ever weaved a basket?? Thats fucking HARD! *FOUR-H MOTHER FUCKAHS!!!*

And I love Amys art! Very colorful, but needs more glitter! I would totally put it up on the fridge*!

*Ive been hanging out with a 6 and 8 year old a lot lately, so my ruler might be a bit skewed...[/quote]

serious LOL on that, ERV.

#1636

bhoytony wrote: How can you say this is not art? You philistine.

I take the point that being critical of her art could be taken as a proxy for being critical of the Surly persona itself.

In my case, all I will say is that the art does not appeal to me, and as such is not worth any discussion on my part.

#1637

I'm with John Greg

John Greg wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to say that all this blather about not criticising Amy's "art" is fucking thought police 101.

In a very real sense, one of Art's reasons for existence is to be criticised. If we cannot criticise so-called art, then what thoughts and opinions can we have?

Art is for judging; criticising; valueing, etc., ad infinitum. That's what art is all about.

Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.

However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.

And anyway, it's not even fucking art; it's crafts. It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.

Let's get a grip here.

#1638

I don't know how you can say SurlyRamics is not art. Next thing you'll be telling me that this is not literature

http://www.hosanna1.com/keepyr/img38.gif

#1639

#1640

As someone else who works in a creative business, I do wish Amy all the best in her efforts - it can be pretty tough going, and people aren't shy about expressing their opinions about one's work. And not shy about saying how much they think it sucks, either.

Which is all the more reason why Amy needs to develop a thicker skin; she's not gonna go anywhere unless she has the capability of shrugging off the jibes and plodding on.

So far, the omens are...not good for her.

#1641

Tigzy wrote: So far, the omens are...not good for her.

Is that...a threat?

#1642

AndrewV69 wrote: I take the point that being critical of her art could be taken as a proxy for being critical of the Surly persona itself.

Do you still care what the baboons or any of the other sides think of you? If so, you havent been at this long enough.
And within the SlimePit, how many of us here cant tell the difference between the different types of criticism?

Few years ago when I used to read Gollum Phil Plait's blog, he used to promote all his wimmin-friends's work.. surly Amy's was one. I looked up her stuff and was wondering what's so special about that crap, as some commenters there seemed very enthusiatic. But then, I also never understood why Gollum is called a skeptic either..Reading his blog, I couldnt figure out what skeptical work he really does.

#1643

Lsuoma wrote:
Tigzy wrote: So far, the omens are...not good for her.
Is that...a threat?

Oops! Nope - not a threat at all. Just saying that if she's the type who gets upset about some words on a t-shirt, then she is going to have a seriously rough time in coping with criticism of her creative efforts.

#1644

Tigzy wrote: Oops! Nope - not a threat at all. Just saying that if she's the type who gets upset about some words on a t-shirt, then she is going to have a seriously rough time in coping with criticism of her creative efforts.

Thats a threat. Tigzy. Thats a threat. Say it 10 times and you will internalize it. Ever heard of Listen to the assertion fallacy?

#1645

Caede wrote:
John Greg wrote: Perhaps what people are trying to say is that to criticise Amy through her art, i.e., to say that Amy sucks because her art sucks, is indeed wrong.

However, to say her art sucks is not wrong. It does.
Agree. This is kind of what I meant to say, although I'm pretty sure Dilurk said it much clearer a while back. If you're trying to make a point about Amy's claim of harassment and its veracity/ridiculousness level, saying "her art sucks" does nothing to help make the point.

Feel free to critique and/or make fun of her artwork outside of that scope, though. (Or within that scope, if you feel it necessary; I personally just consider it an ad-hominem-type low blow. Everyone's mileage may vary.)

Seems obvious to me. It's fine to say Amy is a terrible person because of what she does, not her art. Her art may suck but that's not what makes Amy a terrible person, though it could show the bigoted portions of her psyche through her art. Go crticise the art. knock yourself out, just don't claim she is a terrible person because of it, unless the nasty parts of her are directly shown in her art.

meh Have I finally made myself clear yet? ; = )

#1646

ERV wrote:
John Greg wrote:It's fucking basket weaving, and way, way, way overpriced. Her gewgaws do not deserve the honour of being called art.

Let's get a grip here.
Have you ever weaved a basket?? Thats fucking HARD! *FOUR-H MOTHER FUCKAHS!!!*

And I love Amys art! Very colorful, but needs more glitter! I would totally put it up on the fridge*!

*Ive been hanging out with a 6 and 8 year old a lot lately, so my ruler might be a bit skewed...

Indeed. None of it is fine art, I've recently seen the Van Gogh exhibit here in Ottawa at the National Gallery, now that was fine art. Her stuff is craft work, not fine art compared to say Van Gogh, and totally adequate for a fridge magnet.

#1647

could somebody please point me to the place where somebody has said Surly is wrong because her "art" is shite. It hasn't happened, so I wish people would stop acting as if it had. Is this FfTB?

#1648

bhoytony wrote:could somebody please point me to the place where somebody has said Surly is wrong because her "art" is shite. It hasn't happened, so I wish people would stop acting as if it had. Is this FfTB?

Agreed. I haven't seen it either. Can we move on please? *ahem*

#1649

I'm just gonna leave this here: Sometimes, talking about sexism IS the problem.

#1650

According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.

She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.

#1651

reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.

She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.

Welcome to the Pit, resonabel - I think you've been doing an incredible job of holding your own against the massed tranks of the Baboollies over at pharyngula.

This is a much more congenial place...

#1652

Optimus Primate wrote:I'm just gonna leave this here: Sometimes, talking about sexism IS the problem.

To anyone interested in linguistics, the nonsense of brain sex has been debunked on language log The first comment in your linked article about women supposedly speaking more than men, has been shown to be wrong using phone records. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 03836.html for example.

What this study did not show is the body language, that is a factor as well. I have had to deal with condescending males in a work environment, but I don't cry at their T shirts.

#1653

Caede wrote:Did I see that someone made a comparison between Surly Amy's 'harassment' and Jessica Ahlquist? I'm thinking I must reside on a different planet from some people.

I think the reaction to the t-shirt was majorly over-the-top-whiny. If a shirt makes you feel uncomfortable, unless it's revealing something you don't want to see (I'm thinking major manboobs here)... ignore it and move on. That's no more harassment than someone with a bumper sticker that espouses a view contrary to mine or mocks a group I belong to.

If she was really put under the type of surveillance by JREF that she claims (after she reported harassment), I could see being made uncomfortable by that rather than feeling more secure. The t-shirt business is crap, though.

I do think it was a little unclassy for Hall to wear it three days in a row, unless she had three of them. Come on, can you really wash a t-shirt each night that fast? There must have been some smell going on there.

I am so glad you said it and not me, I was far too polite. Whiff. I've been to conventions/conferences and if she didn't wash that out each night, I don't want to think about it.

[/quote]
Making fun of Amy's artwork and Etsy stuff seems like a low blow, though.[/quote]

meh As I said, only if we say Amy is a nasty person because her art works sucks. It's fair game to criticise anyone's art.

#1654

Dilurk, the audio version of the story I linked addresses exactly that. The written article only covers the last bit of the original radio piece.

#1655

Lsuoma wrote:I was thinking more or less the same as I sat coiling one out this morning. I'm not saying that nobody would find it attractive or wish to purchase it.

I say, put one of your coils up on Etsy and see if anybody bites. I think it's all in the presentation, really.

#1656

Dilurk wrote:
meh As I said, only if we say Amy is a nasty person because her art works sucks. It's fair game to criticise anyone's art.

Ok, that's what I was going for.

#1657

Lsuoma wrote:
reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.

She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.
Welcome to the Pit, resonabel - I think you've been doing an incredible job of holding your own against the massed tranks of the Baboollies over at pharyngula.

This is a much more congenial place...

Hey, thanks. I wonder how those people manage to get through the day with that level of impotent rage.

#1658

reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.

She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.

Good going there, Reasonabel - you did an admirable job in sticking with it.

BTW - I'm seriously having to fight the temptation to send Amy an email asking if she does t-shirts as well...

#1659

reasonabel wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
reasonabel wrote:According to the friendly regulars over at pharyngula, that shirt was meant to convey the same level of hurt as your wife parading around in a t-shirt saying that she fucked three of your best friends. If you question that - you have no empathy.

She saw that three days in a row and broke down into tears, but she's surly yeah? Respect that.
Welcome to the Pit, resonabel - I think you've been doing an incredible job of holding your own against the massed tranks of the Baboollies over at pharyngula.

This is a much more congenial place...
Hey, thanks. I wonder how those people manage to get through the day with that level of impotent rage.

Actually, I wonder how they would manage to get through the day without that level of impotent rage.

#1660

[youtube]Qgp6oaIPIJw[/youtube]

#1661

And don't call me Shirley... (Airplane, anyone?)

#1662

Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377

Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me donâ€™t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a â€˜silly tshirtâ€™ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.

#1663

*tell me.

This not editing at all is annoying.

Come one, at least a 3min window.

#1664

Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377

Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me donâ€™t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a â€˜silly tshirtâ€™ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.

I love the smell of narratives being framed in the morning!

#1665

Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377

Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me donâ€™t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a â€˜silly tshirtâ€™ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.

I like it.
Lots of other people did lots of other things to me, but you don't need to know the specifics, just accept it as true.
I really like this scepticism stuff, it's great.

#1666

Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377

Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me donâ€™t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a â€˜silly tshirtâ€™ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.

What 'personalized items', exactly? Jesus, given that she took a few very ordinary words on a t-shirt as a personal attack, it could be bloody anything. Like what you get on a fire extinquisher, for instance: 'In case of fire, strike knob.' - 'Oh noes, that is like a totes MRA extinguisher, because only menz have knobs!!!11! This is a personal colour-blind insult to me as a womyn waaaah etc.'

Is she a paranoid delusional, or something?

And what is this context of personal attacks that Amy has been having to endure that the baboons keep on harping about? From what I can discern, it seems no more than the ongoing barbs directed at Skeptchick - most of which seem to be directed at Rebecca Watson personally. But in any case, just because you've been under pressure doesn't make you magically immune to being called out as a nincompoop when you act like a nincompoop; people deal with pressure almost every single frickin day in their jobs - it doesn't mean any of us deserve special treatment for acting like a damn fool.

#1667

bhoytony wrote:
Skeeve wrote:Why didn't anyone tell the the story had changed?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-224377

Surly Amy wrote:
This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence. I only bring up the Harriet Hall instance because she is already in the spotlight as a leader in our community and because she was someone I looked up to. The other people who targeted me donâ€™t deserve our attention at this point. So know that just a â€˜silly tshirtâ€™ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.
I like it.
Lots of other people did lots of other things to me, but you don't need to know the specifics, just accept it as true.
I really like this scepticism stuff, it's great.

We shouldn't bring attention to those horrible people who really upset me, because thats not important right now. Somebody wore a t-shirt and made me cry but thats not important either if you're critical of that.

#1668

I tend to weigh what someone thinks about me in proportion to how much respect I have for the person. So the less respect I have for someone the less I "care" about what their opinion is period, never mind if it is about me or otherwise.

One unfortunate aspect, is they may have a good idea, a plausable theory, a working hypothysis, etc. etc. which then suffers in my mind by association. A good example is "Punctuated Equilibrium", which is forever tainted, again for me, because of the association with Stephen Jay Gould.

I regard Gould as a blight, a blister, a blot, a boil on the face of humanity. Subsequent events showed me that my opinions on that odious creature were not unfounded.

The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001071

astrokid.nj wrote: Do you still care what the baboons or any of the other sides think of you? If so, you havent been at this long enough.
And within the SlimePit, how many of us here cant tell the difference between the different types of criticism?

#1669

Oh fuck - the second 'harassment' incident has just arrived: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-403111

uajamie
18 July 2012 at 4:41 pm

Thanks for all the support, everyone.

I would like to clarify that they have been taking my report of the original harassment incident very seriously. It was quite minor (a man I didnâ€™t know tried to hug me without warning and I had to actively back up and put my hand out to stop it from happening). However, the security consultants made it clear that any unwanted touching is considered assault and they considered me a victim and would investigate the incident fully. Now, honestly â€œassaultâ€ seems like a strong word for what happened, but itâ€™s clear that they are taking it seriously. They have been going over security footage and have inquired about witnesses. They made it clear theyâ€™re going to try to identify the man involved.

If anything, they are going a bit overboard. Their treatment of me has been disrespectful, but saying that, they are clearly taking reports, even minor ones, very seriously and following up and investigating. They also have made it clear that I did nothing wrong and was right in reporting it. They never made me feel like I was being blamed for the harassment.

Itâ€™s the stressful way they dealt with me that Iâ€™m still pretty upset with, not the handling of the case.

Right...so if I'm reading this correctly, a man she didn't know tried to hug her, and she had to put out a hand to stop it from happening. Given that she would no doubt have made it quite clear if the man would have ignored the hand, I think it's safe to assume the guy took the hint.

He tried to hug her, she put up a hand, he got the message so he didn't hug her.

And this is harassment how, exactly?

#1670

This was not the only incident that happened to me at TAM where people were targeting me with personalized items meant to mock or diminish my presence

This is the sloppy language of the fanatic at work. How could someone's presence be diminished, I wonder? I assume she means 'influence'. In which case - of course. In fact, one stated goal of JREF is to diminish the influence of the irrational, so TAM seems to be a resounding success, at least on one front.

#1671

Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
18 July 2012 at 12:20 pm
Thatâ€™s right, Woo. Chickenshit Tigzy, being the boring, garden-variety misogynist, just wants the bitch to stop bitching about mere â€˜words on a t-shirtâ€™.

He called â€˜vacuousâ€™ my pointing out that while he insists on being a lying asshole and erasing the context of the situation, the shirt explicitly said the word â€˜skepchickâ€™ which, being the TITLE OF AMYâ€™S BLOG, explains â€“ in part â€“ why she took it personally. Whether Hall meant it like that or not.

Since he then couldnâ€™t refute me, and I pointed out how heâ€™s too chickenshit to own up to that, he called me vacuous. You know, cuz bitches are dumb when whiny ass D00d loses an argument. LOL

I didn't cut the last and first bits because I wanted to leave the context, but take a look at the middle, because that's the core FTB position: For Dr Hall to make a factual statement, about herself, (I am a skeptic not a "skepchick") constitutes an attack on anyone else to whom that statement does not apply even if that is not Dr Hall's intention! They get to decide what other people mean by what they say.

On an even more sinister note:

sisu
18 July 2012 at 9:33 am
@Gnumann:

Iâ€™m not too familiar with transparency rules for USAian NGOs. Is there a public list of sponsors of JREF anywhere?

The IRS requires 501c3 orgs (nonprofits) to file a form called a 990 â€“ itâ€™s the equivalent of a tax return â€“ and theyâ€™re publicly available. Thereâ€™s a number of â€œcharity reviewâ€ websites that collect and publish them â€“ hereâ€™s JREFâ€™s 2011 990. Apparently they donâ€™t have to list out individual donors the way that some other types of orgs do (like PACs and things). Iâ€™m no tax law expert!

A nonprofit will, though, typically list its biggest sponsors/financial supporters on its website/other marketing material but I couldnâ€™t find it on randi.org, which really surprises me. Odd.

What's the plan here? Some Laden-style tactics perhaps? Going to JREF's sponsors and trying to fuck things up? Surely not!

#1672

Is it mandatory when joining skepchicks that you are self absorbed, batshit crazy, emotionally unstable attention whore?

Amy i have news for you, the world doesn't give a fuck about you, the skeptic movement is not a spaced out commune, you are entitled to be offended at whatever you choose to be offended at. Everyone is else is entitled to laugh at you and not give a shit. The concepts involved here aren't hard.

#1673

Apparently you shouldn't post opinions on pharyngula. Opinions are just lies, unless they're correct opinions that is.

#1674

@horrorshow, that would make for a reality check.

Sponsor: wait you're telling me that a woman was personally attacked from the tam podium?
Baboon: yes she even wore a tshirt for three days saying she doesn't identify as a skepchick! And there was a skepchick in the hall!!!!
Sponsor: and what did she say to this woman from the podium?
Baboon: it was passive aggresive the tshirt did all the talking and it said amy wasn't welcome at Tam
Sponsor: you're a fucking dingbat, goodbye beeeeeeeeeep

#1675

Poor JREF. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It would appear that they had a security camera aimed at Surly Amy's school craft table so that they could monitor and intervene if there was any overt harassment of her, given the warnings they had received from FTB of a clear and present danger.

And uajamie says that they are going overboard on her harassment case (a forestalled hug) - wtf do they expect after all of the hysteria that FTB have generated?

#1676

And the security camera wasn't even on a monopod.

#1677

Kiwi i got to do it... This a million times this

#1678

Oh, and I have to say, I'm not digging on these people:

LeftSidePositive
SetÃ¡r, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the FreethoughtBlogs Star Chamber
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
screechymonkey
hyperdeath
Utakata
Matt Penfold
The Pint

Seriously, who the fuck are they?

Also, I missed this big PZ fail: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-222296

Hmmm. I could legitimately get a t-shirt like this:

Iâ€™m a doctor
Not a â€œskepdocâ€
Not a â€œdoctoral skepticâ€
Just a skeptic

But that would be petty and an obvious snipe at an intelligent and well-spoken person who goes by the name â€œskepdocâ€, so I canâ€™t imagine why I would.

Unless I really wanted to be an asshole.

Anyone see the problem with his "shirt"?

#1679

Za-zen wrote:Is it mandatory when joining skepchicks that you are self absorbed, batshit crazy, emotionally unstable attention whore?

That's half of it.

The other half is you have to make a career out of complaining about the inevitable repercussions of being a self-absorbed, batshit crazy, emotionally unstable attention whore.

#1680

I thought Amy said she was upset that some people wouldn't come within 10 feet of her table, as if they didn't have a right to avoid certain people (especially if they call themselves "surly"). I used to avoid a guy named Mad Dog Jackson, was I harassing him?

So she gets upset at a T-shirt, is crying about it and someone offers her a hug...what a bastard.