Periodic Table of Swearing

[Rystefn]

There are some sick fucking people using this forum.

Yeah, and?

[Mr Danksworth]

Whoh, we gots a snippy one here, kids.

[Plonk]

She would have been happier in the '80s

http://i.imgur.com/4KKt3.jpg

[Al Stefanelli]

There are some sick fucking people using this forum.

Yeah, and?

Allow me to translate into the Kings' English:

"Therest are physically I'll persons who, whilst engaging in copulation, also useth this communication venue"

[comslave]

There are some sick fucking people using this forum.

Thank you. I resemble that remark.

:lol: :goatsebun:

[Steersman]

Men’s Rights Redditor warns men: “Be careful with your sperm. Your very freedom is at stake.”

It's a feminist trope that this is not true, feminists have a few words for it to mock it, spermjacking, spermburgling, but sadly, it is more true than not.

Schrodinger’s spermburgler? That if might happen in a number of cases seems rather a questionable basis for acting in rather a paranoid fashion – as in the analogous case – by, apparently, tarring the whole sex with that rather wide brush.

This was the news today: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/29/39 ... -from.html

From a quick read of the article it seems that the claimants don’t have much of a leg to stand on as it contravenes a “2007 Kansas Supreme Court ruling”.

There are many cases of courts going after men for child support when one or more of the following have occurred. ….

And how many is “many”? You have some documentary evidence on those numbers? Which might be a little hard to come by as I would think that in at least some of the cases you described the woman might have quite a different story to tell.

But even assuming that that scenario happens in more than a few cases I wonder how you would defend the two other examples I provided, the guy who was apparently defending pedophiles “raping” under-age prostitutes and the guy who said “women already have a dark and selfish nature”. Either that latter one qualifies as some seriously sloppy writing – he could have qualified that with “some” – or it qualifies as prima facie evidence of sexism if not misogyny.

Futrelle is the crackpot, don't you be one too.

Curious that he seems to have a similar opinion about a very large percentage of the whole men's rights movement. However, as mentioned, I’ll concede that his “logic” in many cases is decidedly questionable, but it seems that many of the “facts” he provides, even if he’s trying to fit them into a questionable thesis, suggest that more than a few guys flying the men’s-rights flag aren’t particularly nice people – to say the least. Not quite sure why you would apparently have some difficulty with the concept – a spectrum in demographic – since many here apparently don’t have much of a problem with it applied to feminists and to theists.

[Rystefn]

There are some sick fucking people using this forum.

Yeah, and?

Allow me to translate into the Kings' English:

"Therest are physically I'll persons who, whilst engaging in copulation, also useth this communication venue"

LoL... That = truth. Or, if not "whilst," at least "in near temporal proximity to."

[AchronTimeless]

PageNest is another alternative...not sure how it compares with HTTrack never used either but I have a friend who swears by PageNest.

My initial sniffing around leads me to believe that there is no way to snag a complete copy of a phpbb board without a lot of manual work (except for tiny boards) or a fair bit of php programming. I don't so php, but I'm teaching myself python, and that might be a suitable project for me to try out once I've got the basics down.

Still catching up on the pages that appeared while I was unconscious (yay being sick is fun) but this might help point you in a useful direction:

http://superuser.com/questions/116201/h ... hpbb-forum

[franc]

PageNest is another alternative...not sure how it compares with HTTrack never used either but I have a friend who swears by PageNest.

My initial sniffing around leads me to believe that there is no way to snag a complete copy of a phpbb board without a lot of manual work (except for tiny boards) or a fair bit of php programming. I don't so php, but I'm teaching myself python, and that might be a suitable project for me to try out once I've got the basics down.

Still catching up on the pages that appeared while I was unconscious (yay being sick is fun) but this might help point you in a useful direction:

http://superuser.com/questions/116201/h ... hpbb-forum

From the same forum I linked earlier, another wget variant -

http://forum.httrack.com/readmsg/16539/16484/index.html

[somedumbguy]

Men’s Rights Redditor warns men: “Be careful with your sperm. Your very freedom is at stake.”

It's a feminist trope that this is not true, feminists have a few words for it to mock it, spermjacking, spermburgling, but sadly, it is more true than not.

Schrodinger’s spermburgler? That if might happen in a number of cases seems rather a questionable basis for acting in rather a paranoid fashion – as in the analogous case – by, apparently, tarring the whole sex with that rather wide brush.

Well then you're uninformed and you're taking your uninformed state and deciding that you must be right. But in fact you're uninformed and committing a huge fallacy.

So for instance, you're some dumbass on the internet, with no legal background, no knowledge that this occurs, and your first assumption is that this is not a big deal.

And no one is tarring the whole sex, except for Futrelle. Telling men that this is the current legal environment, these are the decisions that are being handed down, that's usually considered wise, except in your and Futrelle's and Feminist minds where you think discussing this is misogyny.

But here is Jonathan Turley, constitutional lawyer, professor, who can tell you this is a real issue. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/01/il ... e-herself/

Had you decided to do your homework instead of fall into a solipsistic fallacy that you think therefore you don't need to google, you would realize that when there are surveys showing plenty of women would lie about birth control, in an environment where states are told by the feds to go after fathers, that there is nothing extreme at all in telling people to be careful about their sperm.

And in fact, a usual comment at feminist forums that do discuss this, is to excoriate the men and blame them for the bad behavior of the woman as you are doing, and then tell them the same damn thing: becareful with your sperm, or don't have sex.

So thank you for being an ignorant dumbass, refusing to google, claiming a legal background you have never substantiated, relying on a bad source, and then choosing to ignore links and information I give you.

If you had a shred of intellectual curiosity about this, you would not be whining that this guy really is paranoid, but you would be doing some research to back up your claims.

But if you had that intellectual honesty, you would not be Steersman.
[/quote]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I haven't finished reading everything (I'm back at page 786), but what's with (most) everyone getting on Eucliwood's ass? She wasn't doing so bad as a first poster on a forum with no edit function.

I really wouldn't like to witness a Pit pile-up for no reason.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Ok, make that page 776...

And what's with that:

You cannot make another post so soon after your last

???

[Steersman]

As for an earlier comment of yours, I would say that while you may not have actually convinced me of anything, you’ve certainly provided quite a bit of welcome information on, among other things, the history of feminism and some very questionable aspects of it.

Anyway, I suggest you try this perspective also seeing as you may already be partly there. From whence come the baboons? What forces have shaped them?

My supposition is that they have gone through a process. I also posit that the MRAs that the baboons sneer upon (the Reddit MRAs as I think of them), are in fact their bretheren, but their response to the process has bent them differently.

Otherwise, they are interchangeable.

“Bent” is probably a quite descriptive and an entirely accurate word to apply in those cases – sort of like bimetal strips. But that doesn’t mean that the values that shaped each of those groups are necessarily the same – only that some of the underlying principles might be the same. In the same way that bimetal strips can be made with steel and copper or brass and copper while the principle – differential expansion – is the same in both cases.

However, from a less theoretical perspective you might be interested in this post by astrokid.nj in which he quotes from a book titled The New Thought Police:

Ms. Bruce talked about her book, The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds, published by Prima Publishing. The book discusses the Left’s impact on cultural issues in the United States. Ms. Bruce argues that the Left has created an environment in which legislation is used to control how people think and McCarthyite tactics are used to destroy those who express politically incorrect ideas. She discusses the cases of radio host Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Politically Incorrect host Bill Mahr, and murder victims Matthew Shepard and Daphne Sulk. Ms. Bruce also talks about her own experience working within the liberal organizations that she now criticizes. Ms. Bruce answered questions following her remarks.

The principle basically being, apparently, that all groups have a tendency to enforce a particular dogma, one way or another. [Joé McKen, please note]

[franc]

With all the baboons dog-piling on Shermer, it got me to dust off "Why People Believe Strange Things". Pertinent with all the cult stuff being discussed, and well worth revisiting, are the introduction notes about the cult of Ayn Rand and Objectivism -

Stephen J. Gould's intro -

The old cliché that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty must be the watchword of this movement, for if the apparently benign cult maintains the same structure of potentially potent irrationality as the overtly militant witch hunt, then we must be watchful and critical of all movement based on suppression of thought. I was most impressed, on this theme, by Shermer's analysis of the least likely candidate for potent harm — Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" movement, which would seem, at first glance, to be part of the solution rather than the problem. But Shermer shows that this sect, despite its brave words about logic and rational belief, acts as a true cult on two key criteria—first, the social phenomenon of demanding unquestioned loyalty to a leader (the cult of personalities), and second, the intellectual failure of a central irrationalism used as a criterion of potential membership (the false belief that morality can have a unique and objective state—to be determined and dictated, of course, by the cult leaders).

Shermer's intro -

The bane of hypocrisy is not its visibility to others, it is its invisibility to the practitioner. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus pointed out both the problem and the solution:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5)

While winding down a national publicity tour in the summer of 1997 for the hardcover edition of this book, I witnessed just such an example. I was scheduled to appear on a radio program hosted by Ayn Rand's hand-picked intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, the Objectivist philosopher who, like a medieval monk, has carried on Rand's flame of Truth through books, articles, and now his own radio show. We were told that Peikoff was interested in having me on because I had written a book praising the value of reason, the highest virtue in Objectivist philosophy. I assumed I was actually booked because I had written a chapter critical of Ayn Rand, and that Peikoff did not intend to allow this critique to go unchallenged. Frankly, I was a bit nervous about the appearance because, although I know Rand's philosophy fairly well (I have read all her major works and most of her minor ones) Peikoff is a bright, acerbic man who knows Rand's works chapter and verse and can quote them from memory. I have seen him reduce debate opponents to intellectual mush through wit and steel- cold logic. But I wrote what I wrote so I figured I would buck up and take it like a man.

Imagine my surprise, then, when my publicist informed me that the interview had been canceled because they took exception to my criticism of Rand's personality, movement, and followers, they objected to my classification of them as a cult, and they would not acknowledge a book that "contains libelous statements about Ms. Rand." Obviously, someone from the show had finally gotten around to reading the book. They said they would be happy to debate me on the metaphysics of absolute morality (they believe there is such a thing and that Rand discovered it), but not in a forum that would give recognition to my libelous book. The real irony of all this is that my chapter on Rand focuses on showing how one of the telltale signs of a cult is its inability or unwillingness to consider criticisms of the leader or the leader's beliefs. So, while denying they are a cult, Peikoff and his Ayn Rand Institute did precisely what a cult would do by squelching criticism.

Amazed that anyone could be this blind to such obvious hypocrisy, I called the producer myself and pointed out to him the two important caveats I included in that chapter: "One, criticism of the founder or followers of a philosophy does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the philosophy. Two, criticism of part of a philosophy does not gainsay the whole." I explained to him that on many levels I have great respect for Rand. She is the embodiment of rugged individualism and unsullied rationalism. I embrace many of her economic philosophies. In a pluralistic age in search of nontraditional heroes, she stands out as one of the few women in a field dominated by men. I told him that I even have a picture of her on my wall. This got his attention for a moment so I asked him for a specific example of libel, since this is a mighty strong word that implies purposeful defamation. "Everything in the chapter is a libel of Ms. Rand," he concluded. "Give me just one example," I insisted. Did she not cuckold her husband? Did she not excommunicate followers who breached her absolute morality, even over such trivial matters as choice of music? He replied that he would have to reread the chapter. He never called back. (It is only fair to note that a very reasonable group of scholars at The Institute for Objectivist Studies, headed by David Kelly, are very open to criticism of Rand and do not hold her in worshipful esteem as "the greatest human being who ever lived," in the words of an earlier intellectual heir, Nathaniel Branden.)

Ayn Rand seems to generate strong emotions in anyone who encounters her work, both for and against. In addition to libel, I was accused of presenting nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Rand. I meant to do neither. I wanted merely to write a chapter on cults.

[Skep tickle]

I haven't finished reading everything (I'm back at page 786), but what's with (most) everyone getting on Eucliwood's ass? She wasn't doing so bad as a first poster on a forum with no edit function.

I really wouldn't like to witness a Pit pile-up for no reason.

I had to skim ~10 pages then skip ~10 pages, hard to keep up what with working then traveling. Would have been nice to catch up while on the plane but I didn't have the privilege of WiFi in-flight. :D Let me know when there's a chip & I can just plug the Slymepit into my brain & stream it live.

Anyway, it seems like Eucliwood jumped right in, making a bunch of posts in just a few days. Thing about this free-flowing megathread is that not every topic that comes up can be discussed to a natural conclusion, and not everyone needs to have a say on every topic that comes up. (Not that that's necessarily what Eucliwood was trying to do, but what I saw kinda looked like it.)

Reminds me of wind's early days at Atheism+ (from my lurking there) but I decided that it's quite unlikely they're the same person.

[CommanderTuvok]

Joe McKen:

As some of you may be aware (and not just because I mentioned it in last night’s Daily Blend), atheist journalist/activist Al Stefanelli recently made a video wherein he launched a veritable Gish Gallop’s worth of attacks and smears against several writers involved with Freethought Blogs (where he briefly resided)............. I was content to link to Ed Brayton’s excellent debunking and leave it at that (I found his comparison to the rhetoric from religious-Right cranks particularly fitting).

Joe is obviously using the Baboon definition of "debunking", the same "debunking" that Black Svan and PZ came up to counter Ed Clint's critique of Queen Bee's anti-evo psych talk. :lol:

What a fucking clown Joe McKen is.

[Al Stefanelli]

Joe McKen:

As some of you may be aware (and not just because I mentioned it in last night’s Daily Blend), atheist journalist/activist Al Stefanelli recently made a video wherein he launched a veritable Gish Gallop’s worth of attacks and smears against several writers involved with Freethought Blogs (where he briefly resided)............. I was content to link to Ed Brayton’s excellent debunking and leave it at that (I found his comparison to the rhetoric from religious-Right cranks particularly fitting).

Joe is obviously using the Baboon definition of "debunking", the same "debunking" that Black Svan and PZ came up to counter Ed Clint's critique of Queen Bee's anti-evo psych talk. :lol:

What a fucking clown Joe McKen is.

...where he briefly resided

Briefly, of course, meaning most of its existence, of course. Lmfao

[Skep tickle]

Calling Submor a coward is not an insult. It is an accurate statement of what I think of him. ...

It's fascinating reading that thread, thank you to whomever linked it - it's just a long, long list of things going wrong and people leaving in a huff.

Mai and Xanthe both stepped down as mods, and Xanthe left? Anyone else?

And here are some choice quotes just from the past 24 hrs, in which we learn that being mean either is or is not abusive, that maybe intent does matter, and that attacking the idea is the same as attacking the person:

Even if, if Kassiane was really being abusive towards simpleflower, if she was really just horrible and toxic and vitriolic, and I'm going to qualify here that what the hell, she wasn't, she was the victim there. Even if she was in the wrong, Simpleflower had a long and thorny history of actively abusing and harassing members.

You could not disagree with her, even in the slightest, even to save your own goddamned skin, without unleashing a barrage of abuse onto yourself, and opening yourself up to harassment by her via every medium she could get her hands on to let you know how horrible and despicable a privileged asshole you were for not allowing her to always be right even in ways that were actively hurtful and bigoted. She did that shit to me. She PMed me hateful rants, and when I didn't respond to them she PMed me more for the crime of not responding to toxic hatred. She spammed my skype with such a dedicated torrent of spam that I had to block her to get her to stop. It was literally the most fucking cruel and hateful attack I've received from anyone the goddamned internet so far. That is how fucking bad of a member she was to deal with.

And I reported her posts. And her PMs. And I gave the mods the Skype logs. I let them see every goddamned punctuation mark of the abuse she gave me, and the mods assured me that something was going to be done. But it had to be done *carefully* because Simpleflower is *fragile*. Nothing ever happened. ...

And what happens when someone finally stands up to someone who was abusing them, who had a history of abusing others? A FUCKING MODERATOR DECIDES, NOT ONLY TO BLAME THE VICTIM (and all of the others of simpleflower, collectively) FOR BEING VICTIMS, BUT TO *IGNORE* THE VICTIM FOR THE CRIME OF NOT WANTING TO BE ANOTHER GODDAMNED VICTIM. How the fuck do you even justify that?

... As a mod, you don't ignore your users. You don't victim blame. You don't side with abusers. You don't favor certain users. You don't tell one person that you'll help and then chastise someone else for having the same problem (only not being *nice* and *passive* about it). You don't. You just fucking don't. That is wrong to a level that boggles my mind to think that some people aren't seeing a huge goddamned problem here.

I know intent isn't magic, but it's not irrelevant entirely.

No, Orenda, I'm suggesting that it's a problem to take seriously people proclaiming things "abusive" because they're mean. I think putting a rule in place against being mean would be idiotic.

A rule saying "No personal attacks" you can attack what a person says, but not the person. Could work imho

You think people never thought of that? It was rejected for a reason.

Are you going to tell me the reason or do I have to guess?

It doesn't work. Functionally, you actually are your ideas on the internet. Allowing attacks upon ideas is the same as allowing attacks upon people. ...

[somedumbguy]

Men’s Rights Redditor warns men: “Be careful with your sperm. Your very freedom is at stake.”

Did you read the reddit message?

What did this crazy person say, except

1) The actual truth about child support orders, even those that occur under fraudulent conditions
2) Child support for an unwanted child will cost you $90K over 18 years?

Isn't what he says, guard your sperm, identical to what we tell men everyday, use a condom, think about whether you want kids or not?

Isn't what he says, exactly why women want abortion rights -- I am not prepared for the financial requirements of being a parent. I don't want to be a parent?

You read it with Futrelle's framing, and yeah, because you're an asshole you accept this man must be a misogynist jerk, Futrelle says so! But it's identical to the message we give everyday to every person that engages in sex. Use caution. Kids are expensive. You don't want an unplanned child.

Huffington Post September 2012: Despite the availability of contraception, over two in five women that don't want to get pregnant in the United States forgo any form of protection during sex, says a new survey, possibly because they misjudge how likely they are to get pregnant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... 04802.html

Instead of using bullshit, fallacious, blaming name calling tactics, why don't you address the real issue and respond what is wrong with the information this guy was giving, and what is wrong with men discussing it?

Why is it anathema to you for men to discuss the financial implications of their reproductive choices?

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

Why is it okay for women to discuss whether men lie about cheating, whether men lie about being able to pay child support, whether men would lie about all sorts of stuff, but it's not okay for men to discuss if women might lie about being on birth control?

Why are there so many studies and magazine articles about lying, but it's verboten to suggest women might lie about birth control?

Why do you take David Futrelle's framing at face value? How come you are not skeptical about that?

Cafe Mom isn't scared to talk about it:

http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/136 ... _ok_to_lie

Huffington Post / Black Voices is not afraid to talk about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 34782.html

Circle of Moms is not afraid to talk about it:

http://www.circleofmoms.com/welcome-to- ... d-527363#_

The Journal of Medical Ethics is not afraid to talk about it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598159/

But Steersman, you, David Futrelle, and PZ Myers insist that for a man to discuss this is misogyny.

[Dan]

http://i.imgur.com/cRwEA.png

Adam Lee is a stupid cunt

[Reap]

Dear...franc...

Using only yourself as a comparison as if everyone that's posted more than you by your time frame (basically, your posting rate) is a bit arrogant, franc. I notice that the exact number of posts, rather than a complaint about what you observe without going to check statistics, is the main thing here. If there was nothing to show you my amount of posts, what would you say? "Hey, Eucliwood, you're spamming Xthread, there are so many of your posts in a row compared to other posts on the page"? Because that's not what's happening, and as long as that's not happening, I don't see the issue.

As for the preview button, I don't know how many times I said it does nothing to fix the issue. I don't remember complaining that typos were the issue. Since you missed what the actual issue was, see my signature. I've already figured out a solution without your help.

I seem to get you really riled up. I suggest ignoring me, because every post you read of mine seems to irritate you a lot. I can't change the past, but I can improve the future, and I already have, by opening a new tab and refreshing to watch for new posts before I post so that I don't end up going "Oh, another thing I want to reply to!"
Searching the days posts to reply to everything that was said hours ago (and in individual posts, *ahem*. Hypocritical++) is what YOU did...and you ended up beating a dead horse.

As for the other members since I've joined, I lurk at some forums too. Take JREF, the most recent forum I've joined that I lurk on. Well, I don't regularly read the forums I'm lurking on, but yeah.

Dear...cunt...

Thank you for the consideration, but I'm not sure what a dog pile is. It's that thing in dominoes, right? I know that much.

Dear...Gefan...

I want to ask you, what is Simple Flower?

Dear...Reap...

I find it ironic that you tell me to "lurk moar" (An A+ move, btw) to figure out "how things work" around here and then tell me not to try so hard to fit in. These are conflicting messages. Unless that was sarcasm. Hm. Excuse my stupidity if it was. Either way, I will take the latter advice and continue not trying very hard at all to "fit in." I believe everyone being up front about what they're like is better.

As for input, I'm not sure what input you're talking about. I really hope you aren't attempting to bring up the stuff that was already put to death a while ago. If not, I have no idea what you mean. Clarify? :hand:

You also might want to look up the definition of internet troll. One can't be a troll without deliberately trolling.

You also might want to consider using more commas, because reading that all at once sounded sort of like a funny run on traffic jam of a post.

Dear fuckhead
get over yourself all your banter will get you nothing but ignored You have impressed no one and I'm sorry you don't have any friends but not at all surprised take all the commas I left out here and shove them up your ass you aren't my english teacher have a nice day and go fuck yourself.

[AchronTimeless]

Well, to just add to the "spermburglar" conversation, I do have one bit of anecdotal evidence.

Back when I was still pretending to be a guy for the sake of other people, my wife came home from hanging out with her friends one night and told me how one of them had gotten a bit drunk and kept wanting to show them how to poke holes in a condom without leaving any marks on the wrapper, and how that's what she did to get her kids.

The sad part? Years later, she divorced the guy and tried to stick him with the kids. She doesn't want them. *shakes head*

[Skep tickle]

An update on my guy (ignore if you could not give a shit :)) - surgery has been scheduled for January 25th. I really love how they freak us out then we get to wait nearly 2 months before finding out more. Anyway, he's going to have the 3-4 cm lump on the side of his neck removed and looked at immediately for malignancy. I'm not completely certain but I believe based on this, they'll then put a camera down the back of his throat to look at an "anomaly". He's been told he will be in the hospital for 2-3 days and he's already attempting to buck that. I told him I would tell the nurses and doctors on him if he didn't comply. He's not happy about that.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled mayhem!

Renee, thanks for the update. That's a while to wait - how nerve-wracking!

Has he had a CT scan of his neck? And do you know how this "anomaly" in the back of his throat was found, and anything more about it?

[Dan]

http://i.imgur.com/cRwEA.png

Adam Lee is a stupid cunt

It was the fake account sorry I should have checked.

[Reap]

http://i.imgur.com/cRwEA.png

Adam Lee is a stupid cunt

It was the fake account sorry I should have checked.

Your observation is still correct so no worries

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm probably going to turn on the post flood limit feature, purely because of Eucliwood.

Ahhh.....That's why I can't spam my favourite forum right now. I was wondering what the fuck was going on.


@Eucliwood. Chill. Just log out for a bit,breathe and come back later. Get a feel for the place. Read some posts and don't take stuff so seriously.
Peace.

Also, listen to the women!!!

Sorry all, but this business is too FTB/A+/Skepchick for my taste. It looks bad, really bad. Even from 9AM on a sunday morning!

[UnbelieveSteve]

:angry-tappingfoot: Right'o people.
My previous lurking account imploded when i changed some settings :violin: , shortly before i spat at the monitor and punched the neighbour's cat just for laughs.
So here i am. New and improved.

I've read all 788 pages so i'm up to speed. Thanks for asking.

So, consider this my first post to the pit and a big hello.
A good chunk of you nutbags i know on twitter, so to those people i will politely give the middle finger and say "g'day".

Okay. nuff said.

[Steersman]

Men’s Rights Redditor warns men: “Be careful with your sperm. Your very freedom is at stake.”

It's a feminist trope that this is not true, feminists have a few words for it to mock it, spermjacking, spermburgling, but sadly, it is more true than not.

Schrodinger’s spermburgler? That if might happen in a number of cases seems rather a questionable basis for acting in rather a paranoid fashion – as in the analogous case – by, apparently, tarring the whole sex with that rather wide brush.

Well then you're uninformed and you're taking your uninformed state and deciding that you must be right. But in fact you're uninformed and committing a huge fallacy.

But I’m not making any claims – I said "seems rather a questionable basis" and “apparently tarring the whole sex”.

So for instance, you're some dumbass on the internet, with no legal background, no knowledge that this occurs, and your first assumption is that this is not a big deal.

You still haven’t provided any evidence as to the size of the problem. You said:

Had you decided to do your homework instead of fall into a solipsistic fallacy that you think therefore you don't need to google, you would realize that when there are surveys showing plenty of women would lie about birth control.

So is that “plenty” more than a handful? Less than a bunch? What are the chances that the sun will rise tomorrow? That it will rain? Unless you can put some numbers on those types of probabilities you’ve got diddly squat. And acting as if something is definitely going to happen when the probabilities are extremely low has to qualify as paranoia – at least in my book. But I suppose everyone has to assess the “pay-offs” in each case and decide whether they’re worth the risk.

However, in any case, I think you’re flogging a dead horse as I conceded the existence of the problem – the question is how big it is – again which you haven’t provided any evidence of, although I see you’ve provided some in a later comment which I’ll address later.

And you still haven’t answered my points about the pedophiles and the guy making apparently sexist or misoynist statements.

So thank you for being an ignorant dumbass, refusing to google, claiming a legal background you have never substantiated, relying on a bad source, and then choosing to ignore links and information I give you.

Pray tell where I ever made a claim to a “legal background”. And why would I want to waste time following those links when I already conceded the existence of the problem? Now if you had some links that gave some numbers I might be willing to follow them.

If you had a shred of intellectual curiosity about this, you would not be whining that this guy really is paranoid, but you would be doing some research to back up your claims.

I certainly have some curiousity about the issue, but I also have more curiousity about other topics as well as having limited resourses. I’m not about to waste the latter if there isn’t likely to be much bang for the buck. Hence my previous, repeated, comments about conceding the existence of the problem – or is that not “intellectually honest” enough for you?

But if you had that intellectual honesty, you would not be Steersman

That’s a rather “brave” statement. You have some evidence to back it up?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

:angry-tappingfoot: Right'o people.
My previous lurking account imploded when i changed some settings :violin: , shortly before i spat at the monitor and punched the neighbour's cat just for laughs.
So here i am. New and improved.

I've read all 788 pages so i'm up to speed. Thanks for asking.

So, consider this my first post to the pit and a big hello.
A good chunk of you nutbags i know on twitter, so to those people i will politely give the middle finger and say "g'day".

Okay. nuff said.

Now, that's how you introduce yourself!

Welcome to the Pit, Steve!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Renée: all the best for your guy. Fingers crossed and all...

[masakari2012]

Welcome, Steve. You read all 788 pages? WTF? Are you a masochist? lol

I shall extend ERV's usual greeting. You should already know what it is, since you read the whole Slyme Pit....

"Would you like a Mountain Dew or Crab Juice?"

[Dan]

I found this going through my photos

http://i.imgur.com/dyYxul.jpg
Check the girl standing next to Paul. Photoshop fun?

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

[franc]

http://i.imgur.com/cRwEA.png

Adam Lee is a stupid cunt

Another capital "i" lowercase "l" switcheroo for daylightathelsm

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I found this going through my photos

http://i.imgur.com/dyYxul.jpg
Check the girl standing next to Paul. Photoshop fun?

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

Looks a lot like... Sally Strange, was it? The one with the meth face?

[UnbelieveSteve]

Welcome, Steve. You read all 788 pages? WTF? Are you a masochist? lol

I shall extend ERV's usual greeting. You should already know what it is, since you read the whole Slyme Pit....

"Would you like a Mountain Dew or Crab Juice?"

Took me about 17 hours straight.
Diet Coke thanks.

[Mr Danksworth]

I haven't finished reading everything (I'm back at page 786), but what's with (most) everyone getting on Eucliwood's ass? She wasn't doing so bad as a first poster on a forum with no edit function.

I really wouldn't like to witness a Pit pile-up for no reason.

200+ post of inanity in 3 days, demanding replies/attention from people, harassing PM's, and walking in here and trying to change the furniture. Sounds like a recipe for a 'dogpile' if there ever was one.

[UnbelieveSteve]

I haven't finished reading everything (I'm back at page 786), but what's with (most) everyone getting on Eucliwood's ass? She wasn't doing so bad as a first poster on a forum with no edit function.

I really wouldn't like to witness a Pit pile-up for no reason.

200+ post of inanity in 3 days, demanding replies/attention from people, harassing PM's, and walking in here and trying to change the furniture. Sounds like a recipe for a 'dogpile' if there ever was one.

I really would like to see more furniture here. A banana lounge would be tops.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

How do you punish a blind kid?


Move the furniture.

[Darren]

Took me about 17 hours straight.

Holy shit... that's dedication.

Diet Coke thanks.

Mountain Dew it is.

[Rystefn]

How do you punish a blind kid?


Move the furniture.

I thought you left the plunger in the toilet... maybe I'm just meaner than you.

[Darren]

200+ post of inanity in 3 days, demanding replies/attention from people, harassing PM's, and walking in here and trying to change the furniture. Sounds like a recipe for a 'dogpile' if there ever was one.

All this talk of dogpiling compelled me to find this:

[youtube]rKgDt-mz1Wc[/youtube]

[Pitchguest]

On Joe 'Hipster' McKen's blog, Reap Paden:

The lousy canuck includes so many lies in his blogs he should be sponsored by Pinocchio.

:lol:

Totally sigging that.

[DownThunder]

Looks a lot like... Sally Strange, was it? The one with the meth face?

Now phil, we can't jump on any woman that's been in the presence of PZ myers. That's victim blaming.

[Dan]

I found this going through my photos

http://i.imgur.com/dyYxul.jpg
Check the girl standing next to Paul. Photoshop fun?

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

Looks a lot like... Sally Strange, was it? The one with the meth face?

This was taken in Melbourne Australia. Is she from Australia?

Notice the lack of security for Paul seeing that he got "threats". Him and his wife sat next to me out in the main foyer. As if you'd do that if you had genuine threats. If I had of known about Franc at the time I could have snuck a note in his pocket.

[Steersman]

How do you punish a blind kid?


Move the furniture.

I thought you left the plunger in the toilet... maybe I'm just meaner than you.

Now that is mean .... inventive and amusing in a twisted sense, but definitely mean ....

[Darren]

This was taken in Melbourne Australia. Is she from Australia?

I believe she is UK based... but who really cares?

[Rystefn]

How do you punish a blind kid?


Move the furniture.

I thought you left the plunger in the toilet... maybe I'm just meaner than you.

Now that is mean .... inventive and amusing in a twisted sense, but definitely mean ....

Maybe the people who were calling me a sociopath were onto something.

[Skep tickle]

Thought I'd post in the famous "undead thread".

My latest with Ophelia Benson: my comment pointing out that people who don't feed trolls get trolled a hell of a lot less than people who do doesn't get through, yet a comment saying that "don't feed the trolls" is no different to blaming rape on dressing provocatively.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... /#comments

Is that how this thread works?

Appropriate that the post quoted here was amidst a discussion about the dancing turd (I keep forgetting its name), as oolon's in the comments there. Looks like he's being roundly ignored by all.

Also: I see that this is not the only forum you've joined recently. "Welcome aboard, Richard!" :D

[mordacious1]

Is it asleep? [tiptoes silently and positions pillow] I'm sorry, but I can't take anymore!

[Badger3k]

Whole lotta activity. Wow. Should I ask for an edit button (ducks head and kisses ass goodbye) - kidding! eleventy one!

Just browsed the ftb feed. Ophie actually comments on something - ah, something about gender rolls and women being devalued, or something. It's her usual habit of posting quotes and adding a line or two, so I didn't waste time with it.

Also just noticed that Comrade Physioidiot is even worse in spelling - either he's a complete loon or his affectation is really bizarre. He even doubles the d in "comrade" - just noticed it's "comradde". Sorry, but for some reason, that is just fascinating, seeing how many words he can misspell for reasons known only to him.

Crommunist said that there has been a new round of admissions for ftb (poor people, hope they know the cesspool they are joining), and he mentions that he has had a hand in the process. Maybe Halffish is going to be joining them full time? Just think of the fun we'll have!

[Steersman]

How do you punish a blind kid?


Move the furniture.

I thought you left the plunger in the toilet... maybe I'm just meaner than you.

Now that is mean .... inventive and amusing in a twisted sense, but definitely mean ....

Maybe the people who were calling me a sociopath were onto something.

While I’m fond of the aphorism “the thought is party to the deed” – Alexander Pope I think, although I can’t confirm that – one doesn’t necessarily have to lead to the other. If we were all charged with what we’ve thought of doing I doubt there would be enough people left over to act as jailers.

[Steersman]

Men’s Rights Redditor warns men: “Be careful with your sperm. Your very freedom is at stake.”

You read it with Futrelle's framing, and yeah, because you're an asshole you accept this man must be a misogynist jerk, Futrelle says so! But it's identical to the message we give everyday to every person that engages in sex. Use caution. Kids are expensive. You don't want an unplanned child.

You might want to go back and re-read my original post – if you actually read it the first time – as I think you’re reading into it far more than I put. But specifically I said:

I will readily agree with you that Futrelle’s “logic” is frequently very questionable, – to say the least – and I will also readily agree that many of the cases Futrelle describes at least seem to entail some credible logic that is contrary to Futrelle’s interpretations. However, it seems rather more difficult to argue that more than just a few of the “Boobz” – MRAs & MGTOWs & the like – aren’t totally off the wall and seriously out-to-lunch. But some highly questionable examples of the latter ….

Not quite sure how you would have got from that to “reading it with Futrelle’s framing” and to "accepting that that man is a misogynist jerk”.

Instead of using bullshit, fallacious, blaming name calling tactics, why don't you address the real issue and respond what is wrong with the information this guy was giving, and what is wrong with men discussing it?

Why is it anathema to you for men to discuss the financial implications of their reproductive choices?

And what information was it that that guy was giving? I didn’t read the Reddit article but I assume that there wasn’t any of the detail that you’ve provided. If there was then you would have a good case against Futrelle for some confirmation bias – if that is the correct term. Otherwise …? And do show me where I have “anathematized” that discussion. All I doing is putting on my skeptic hat and questioning the scope of the problem and the conclusions that are being drawn.

But thanks for the statistics and additional links. However a red flag pops up relative to the statement that “nearly a third of the women have said that if they wanted a baby and their partner did not, they would lie about using contraception”: you do realize, I hope, that that “third” applies to a demographic of an unknown size – those couples with different opinions about conception – which is unlikely to be the entire population of couples. In addition, that those women said that hardly means that all of them would follow through with their claims if they were in that position, although the anecdote from AchronTimeless indicates that it certainly happens.

Why do you take David Futrelle's framing at face value? How come you are not skeptical about that?

Again please show me how saying “Futrelle’s logic is frequently very questionable” and asserting that “many cases [he describes] entail some credible logic” qualifies as taking “Futrelle’s framing at face value”.

But Steersman, you, David Futrelle, and PZ Myers insist that for a man to discuss this is misogyny.

And, speaking of "intellectual honesty", do show me where I said – “insisted”, no less – that a man discussing that question qualifies as misogyny.

[TheMan]

I clicked on Darren's Edit Button.... I feel sick and the dog sitting on my lap wagged it's tail.

[mordacious1]

That reminds me of a story I haven't told in years. When I was stationed in Monterey, I had a blind friend from college who lived in SF, so I'd go up to visit him a lot. I asked him once why he always ran his cane around the rim of the toilet before using it. He explained that if you sit down and the lid's closed, you crush your balls and besides, you never know what could be sticking out. He always peed sitting down because his aim was poor (for obvious reasons). Anyway, he invited me to this party one time at a nice place on Nob Hill and we got separated (because I was misogynistically hitting on some lady). He had to pee and asked someone else to guide him to the loo. So they took him upstairs and opened the door and shut it behind him. Of all the times not to use his cane, he drops trou and sits down, right into the lap of a woman already sitting there (why she didn't say anything always puzzled me, shocked I guess). She freaked and he re-assembled and got downstairs quickly. A while later we're chatting and this guy came up and said my friend "bothered" his wife in the bathroom. My friend said, "Don't worry, I didn't see anything". The guy replied, "Yeah maybe, but she sure as hell did". I laughed, the husband laughed...and my poor friend just stood there embarrassed. We laughed about it for years after. My current slate of friends are all boring and nothing fun like that happens anymore, too bad really.

[AchronTimeless]

Finally. I thought I was going to have to take up religion and start praying, but I got my issue with cinnamon not running fixed. Was a damn corrupted theme the whole time, which would cause it to hang when it tried to load.

Seem's that the punching bag of the evening has exceeded her bedtime while I was poking at it too.

Can this night get any better?

[Tony Parsehole]

Really, A+ will go down as the biggest failure of Jen McCreight's life. So far.

Well, we still don't know for sure whether the homeless guy actually managed t crack a fat for her, do we?

I think the funniest line I ever heard here on the Pit was from someone who said that the guy wasn't wanking, he was just rooting for a sugar cube.

*takes a bow* I'll claim the credit for that!

[DownThunder]

Somehow followed the links from TFoot's latest vid and got here....

[youtube]iARHCxAMAO0[/youtube]

Sad state of affairs.

"Feminism deals with issues like male suicide, you can come to us"

YOU ARE FUCKING SCUM. YOU ARE FUCKING SCUM. YOU ARE FUCKING RAPE APOLOGIST SCUM.

I feel better now!

[Skep tickle]

Caught up, I think.

Since Eucliwood has referred several times to her experiences at the Atheism+ forum, including that she said there that she can't lurk without posting, and that she said her name there was medicinal, it sounded like she wouldn't consider it stalking if someone went poking around to see what her trail there was like. Or, at least, I figured it wasn't.

I started by searching "can't lurk", decided that Eucliwood's A+ nym is "Robitussin". The style & tone are very similar to Eucliwood's here, as was the reaction of the natives to her posts. Here are the times "Robitussin" is used within posts: http://atheismplus.com/forums/search.ph ... Robitussin (I can't search for posts by member name, having been banned an' all).

Robitussin joined Atheism+ Forum on December 10th. From the "Is this joke sexist" thread on that day:

... As for lurking... I suck at reading posts, and not responding to them. What's the point in reading posts if I can't respond? It's like being muffled. As for the board-culture, this sounds like a fancy of saying "lurk more so that you can know what people say and do *here* and do what's popular here so you can be like everyone else." The only thing I should, as an individual, refrain from doing is things against the rules. ...

Her first 7-day suspension came on December 10th, by ceepolk, here: Arguments to Avoid- comments (in which one feature was a plan by Robitussin to go back & delete at least some of her posts, which ceepolk nixed, and also in which I find myself uncharacteristically sympathetic to SubMor, re skeptical analysis of claims presented)

Robitussin was put on her 2nd 7 day suspension on December 18 by ceepolk, "pending approval of permanence". That was for wading into this into thread Hi from the little guy, in which she asked about the person's genitals, then dug the hole deeper - I suppose one could even say "doubled down" though I have never previously been tempted to use that phrase - when told that was rude.

Another interesting bit is this thread she started there, Anyone into Psi? The thread garnered 18 posts before it was locked by ceepolk; 10 of the posts are by Robitussin. Bolding below is as in the original. The thread opens with this from Robitussin:

I'm just wondering if anyone here is into psi. I think many people here are skeptical of that sort of thing, and that's alright, just don't be too rude in the replies. For those that are replying to say they are, can you put some bold green in your post so I know that's what your reply is for? Also, tell me, if any, what psi practices you are into? I'm interested in.. (I'm going to sound like a dork to skeptics >.>) projection, psychokinesis, small mind reading, shielding and the opposite of, psi-donor (I'm just someone that likes to be used), psychometry (the "paranormal" ability), and anything else I am into that I've forgotten to mention.

First reply, 3 minutes later, is also by Robitussin:

Oh, also, I recently watched some of Kelli Coffee's videos...did anyone else check out the comet elanin? She checked it out and claims to have seen some certain things. Did anyone else see the same thing? If you don't know who that is, go to youtube and look up kellintheraw. I was watching for tips and techniques. She seems to think some abilities are easy though >.> failing to realize that maybe if you're good at some you'd catch onto others quicker. (Also, don't post rude or skeptic comments on her videos...to borrow a term from here, it's a 'safe space' for those into psi).

10th reply, 47 minutes after the thread was posted, is also by Robitussin:

:!: Alright, I can't find any way to delete this, so can a moderator please close this? There are too many negative replies, and it's getting my adrenaline up, etc. Just forget it. If anyone saw this and is actually into it, you can try PMing me. If I can't be PMed (I can't PM yet. I'm too new.), just email me. camomilelox@gmail.com.

The last reference I find to the name "Robitussin" is from December 18, though I can't tell whether that's the last day she posted there. "Robitussin" has a post count of 62 at Atheism+, pretty prolific when you consider that she joined on December 10, was suspended for 7 days on December 10, posted again on December 18, and was suspended again for 7 days (and maybe banned) on December 18.

[Tony Parsehole]

http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa3 ... 83a86d.jpg

:happy-partydance: :laughing-rolling:

How can so much wrong be crammed into such a tiny sentence?

[Skep tickle]

I'd like to just take a moment to say that Pitchguest and Skep tickle are two of my favorite new-ish members. I get a lot of entertainment from the treks that y'all take into baboon territory, so I just wanted to let y'all know I appreciate it. :D

Glad to offer entertainment value, JackRayner! I was going to slip you a $20 under the table for the compliment, but - hey - if we're providing then entertainment, shouldn't you be paying us? :think: :D

I keep feeling tempted to pester D. Pitman for tips on how to get around security at FtB, seeing as how my usual logons & emails are blocked, but it's probably just as well I can't post at FtB, Skepchick, or Atheism+. I'm trying to keep welch's excellent advice about NMD's in mind, and only post here & a couple other sites that still value rationalism. But still...taking a poke at the hot air balloons over there would be fun once in a while.