Ed Clint too: http://www.skepticblogs.com/incredulous/ - the guy that the FfTB crowd initially mooted as being responsible for freethoughtblahgs.Guest wrote:bluharmony writes for SkB http://www.skepticblogs.com/musingsfrom ... ticalleft/
Nah! That would go over like a lead balloon.LMU wrote:@spectator
If you would like to talk about god belief and similar things, then it might be a good idea to start a thread in the Freethought, Atheism, etc. forum.
I think I was actually spazzed* by some visiting JWs once. Opened the door, and there was the obligatory grinning old lady with the Watchtower pamphlets peeking out from her handbag, and a guy with such a fierce speech impediment, he was only capable of saying 'whaugh, whaugh, whau-whau-whaugh,' at me. Ashen faced, I stammered, 'I-I don't know what he's saying,' and closed the door on them. It was quite literally the only time I've been completely unable to refute the arguments of a doorstep JW.spectator wrote:...The JW's have years of experience at doorstep debates...
Uh-oh, watch out, more DMCAs might come this way!ERV wrote:I bet Amy also got permission from the appropriate parties to do this:
http://img2.etsystatic.com/000/0/518569 ... 496598.jpg
She is an *expert* on copyright infringement.
God tells him.Philip wrote: I'm curious to know who doesn't actually want to help and who genuinely does but gets shot down anyway
franc wrote:http://i.imgur.com/99PUa.jpg
FYYFF. :obscene-birdiedoublegreen: :auto-biker: :obscene-drinkingcheers:DownThunder wrote:You know, before I had any interest in religious politics and social issues, I was part of the MRA - motorcycle riders association.
Can you even imagine them attempting to have a conversation with the women bikers, let alone the men?DownThunder wrote:
You know, before I had any interest in religious politics and social issues, I was part of the MRA - motorcycle riders association. Motorcyclists as a community - male dominated mind you - are the antithesis of the victim politics that are so popular. We get blamed when a car driver kills us, we have even police and government officials blaming us. Yet motorcyclists on the whole are some of the most dedicated personal responsibility conscious people I know. The average victim-fem wouldnt last 5 mins on 2 wheels...
I was always treated very well when surrounded by bikers, plus I was never safer.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Oh yes, I know very well what bikers are like. I hang out with a lot of them. They usualy have a huge heart (figuratively speaking, of course).
Agreed. My initial impression was that she was giving an ironic thumbs up and it's a stretch to call racism. You never know with Hoggle though; I have a sneaking suspicion that he's just stirring with that pic.Yo. I think this is wrong. As in, bad form.
I remember this because it happened in my home town. (Leigh-on-Sea, if anyone wants to front up for a pint). It was around the time she was hanging around with the Little Atoms Marxists. My admittedly flawed human braine remembers Becca tweeting something like " I've been in the most racist shop in the world". Something like that. I don't know exactly and am far too busy banking etc to try to look back and find out. My point is that I think that this is "what they would do", i.e. take things out of context for some sort of gotcha, and I think it lessens your position.
I've said this on twatter to Amet Speaks who is probably one of you. Still don't get why it's acceptable. It's becoming the Fftbs.
If the aim is to highlight their hypocrisy I'd rather point to the nascent Skepticblogs.com abuse policy:
"Invectives which demean individuals on the basis of ethnicity, sex, gender identification, or age, will not be tolerated. "
Miss Rebecca's absurd initial Dawkins attack is a Full House.
What a dickhead. You go with that interpretation and that narrative if that is what turns your crank – remarkably similar to some comments over at Man Boobz, although certainly more literate, but it still looks like prejudice – literally, pre judging – to me.Michael K Gray wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:37 am
Well, he has chosen his persona with accuracy, that is for sure.Scented Nectar wrote:He sees nothing but doom and gloom if we don't heed his words and advice. It's like there's a rain cloud following over him.
A gnarled sea-dog, embittered by the viccisitudes of foul weather, and an excess of rum to ward off the agues.
An old Man of the Sea.
A Captin Ahab, with his single-minded mono-maniacal persuit that is seen as folly by all around, yet who cannot rest until his Moby Dick is harpooned.
Very, very appropriate.
So, no “gnarled sea-dog, embittered by the vicissitudes of foul weatherâ€, no messiah complex; just someone who thinks, along with more than a few others, that that “philosophy†or perspective is the neatest thing since sliced-bread ....Wikipedia wrote:The term cybernetics stems from the Greek κυβεÏνήτης (kybernÄ“tÄ“s, steersman, governor, pilot, or rudder — the same root as government). Cybernetics is a broad field of study, but the essential goal of cybernetics is to understand and define the functions and processes of systems that have goals and that participate in circular, causal chains that move from action to sensing to comparison with desired goal, and again to action.
I see it as a case of doing to them exactly what they do to others. In their eyes, especially to Watson and the upper level cronies, there is no acceptable humor for some topics - sexism mainly, but I've seen race and others mentioned. So for her to do a "joke" is, in their own words, insensitive and rude, and probably racist as well. Those who want to take a different road can ignore such things, those who want to poke them with sticks can treat that little clubhouse exactly like they treat everybody else. Different methods, different goals, different people. Whatever.John Greg wrote:I have absolutely no respect for Rebecca Watson whatsoever. However, all the folks who are pointing to the picture of Watson thumbs-upping the black face dolls as being representative of some kind of morals/ethics slip on Watson's behalf are being ridiculous and completely missing the quite obvious point that she is being ironical/sarcastic by highlighting the ridiculousness of the dolls.
C'mon, she's an easy target to pick for all her other flaws, but there is no reason to play FfTB Baboolie and miss reality for the sake of trying to score points.
The Cliff's Notes of the Reader's Digest version of the FTB cult. Nicely said.Za-zen wrote:Its one of their tactics, they've been using it for a while, they will do anything to silence opposition, they ban dissent on their blogs, they attempt to contact employers, they contact con organisers to try and blacklist people, they blackmail con organisers by declaring they wont appear if other people are on panels, they file false dmca, and twitter complaints. They threaten physical violence, They lie, decieve and destroy, but they have god on their side so it's all righteous.
But thunderfoot plays superspy on them, and they go into outraged moral indignation mode. They are a fucking church which surpasses the vatican in epic hypocracy.
To put it a slightly different way, I've seen the baboons point out, numerous times, that "you think it's funny because it's a woman in the joke. Try putting in black person instead and see if it's funny.It isn't - you're screaming racism. Well, it's the same thing" (admittedly a paraphrase of the argument, but I'd wager we've all seen variations of it). So, if racist jokes are bad, a picture of the Queen Bee herself, smiling like an idjit and giving the thumbs up to little racist dolls - how are we to know she's being ironic, or joking? If we saw someone else doing that, and posted in on Stromfront, what do you think we'd hear? A lot of "she doesn't mean it" or "fuck yeah!"?
Tut, tut. You ovelook potential experience, knowledge, and/or cultural differences and insights.... since we're having to spell everything out for the kiddies.
Ok, shall do. :)Dick Strawkins wrote:You can call me Dick!Scented Nectar wrote:Dick Strawkins, I retract what I said about the cover now. So, it's got a title and cover graphic. All thats missing now is the book itself.
Sure, and it's obvious in here. On twitter it looks like it looks like. If that's what you're after, fine. But unless I'm less drunk than usual (unlikely) it looks like hypocrisy. [what do you think MKG? Btw, I read "Why a Duck" as a much younger man]Za-zen wrote:Apologies for interrupting the party, but i for one, was not seriously suggesting that dollgate was in fact evidence of latent racism, i was as usual taking the piss.
And just to be crystal clear, the warning from the Irishmens rights activists, was not serious either, since we're having to spell everything out for the kiddies. Did someone get the acronym?
I agree. I posted a link to the wikipedia article on the dolls. Turns out the original doll was made with dark cloth, nothing to do with racism at all. I was shocked anyone would think 'chinese whispers', was racist let's not be hypocrites. Can we all just move on? *ahem*John Greg wrote:I have absolutely no respect for Rebecca Watson whatsoever. However, all the folks who are pointing to the picture of Watson thumbs-upping the black face dolls as being representative of some kind of morals/ethics slip on Watson's behalf are being ridiculous and completely missing the quite obvious point that she is being ironical/sarcastic by highlighting the ridiculousness of the dolls.
C'mon, she's an easy target to pick for all her other flaws, but there is no reason to play FfTB Baboolie and miss reality for the sake of trying to score points.
It is what I would expect from the fftb types. They take umbrage at 'Chinese whispers' they'd have pounced on a slimepitter with these dolls as racist. I can see this photo as mocking the fftbers with that in mind.. The problem is, the fftber's will use it against us.Za-zen wrote:Apologies for interrupting the party, but i for one, was not seriously suggesting that dollgate was in fact evidence of latent racism, i was as usual taking the piss.
No, the Irish Rights activists was crystal clear humour to me. Ya 'spelling everything out for the kiddies'. Let's try, did someone not get the acronym?And just to be crystal clear, the warning from the Irishmens rights activists, was not serious either, since we're having to spell everything out for the kiddies. Did someone get the acronym?
Thanks for missing the point, cunt.cunt wrote:@munkhouse
One guy posted the pic with no comment on it. Nobodies taken it seriously as "Rebecca Watson is a racist" so far. So yeah, just go get some coffee.
You're welcome.Munkhaus wrote:Thanks for missing the point, cunt.cunt wrote:@munkhouse
One guy posted the pic with no comment on it. Nobodies taken it seriously as "Rebecca Watson is a racist" so far. So yeah, just go get some coffee.
Likewise about being wrong – sometimes I marvel that I haven’t wound up – yet – as a “Darwin Awards†statistic. But sometimes you have to roll the dice, call them as you see them, let the chips fall where they may, etc. Trick is not to double down on a bad hand afterwards – not always easy to do, of course, as we tend to wind up investing too much of ourselves in an idea or position and fail to see when it is no longer tenable – debacle at Stalingrad sort of thing.Dilurk wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:36 pm
I have been known to be wrong on occasion. I still believe the video would have been better had it been done when emotions about the DMCA nonsense were not so high. SN can make up her own mind.Steersman wrote:Well, I’m glad you concede that much – you might point that out to Scented Nectar.Dilurk wrote:BTW. You are right about your assessment of the last YT video Cris did, up to a point.
Interesting article and good points, although it seems her credibility here is suffering somewhat – ah, the vicissitudes of fashion .... But I know what you mean about the “better writer†thing; frustrating at times that fashioning a post can be so tedious and time consuming. Practice and perfection and all that ....I think reading an article by Jean Kazez would help you see where I come from. She is a much better writer than I will ever be.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, despite how angry your words appear to me.
Really a rather deplorable state of affairs that so many seem to be so ready to go off the deep end in defence of their dogma, so ready to use the end to justify the means. Maybe some justification at some point – whistle-blowing for a possible example – but when the means are frequently the antithesis of the ends the prognosis tends not to be particularly favourable. Reminds me of some “political action†against E.O. Wilson and something similar that may have been discussed here ....However, considering that Laden has threatened people's livelihood and I have been personally harassed and real life stalked by people from the Internet, I'd rather not here in public. I'd rather not have Laden or one of the crazier denizens of the FTB harass me.
Again, the problematic nature of anger in general. But “deprecated†was probably a poor choice of words – maybe even a “blond momentâ€; mea culpa and all that. What I meant was that, as indicated previously, your support for the argument tended, in effect, to discount or discredit to some extent the counter-arguments.I took the time to watch Cris' YT video. I would argue that any other time it would have been a reasonable video to have been made. I am seeing anger from both sides instead of logic.
I have not deprecated either Scented Nectar or CommanderTuvok's arguments at all. We are not joined at the hip.
Dollgate? hmmmmmm..........Dilurk wrote:I agree. I posted a link to the wikipedia article on the dolls. Turns out the original doll was made with dark cloth, nothing to do with racism at all. I was shocked anyone would think 'chinese whispers', was racist let's not be hypocrites. Can we all just move on? *ahem*John Greg wrote:I have absolutely no respect for Rebecca Watson whatsoever. However, all the folks who are pointing to the picture of Watson thumbs-upping the black face dolls as being representative of some kind of morals/ethics slip on Watson's behalf are being ridiculous and completely missing the quite obvious point that she is being ironical/sarcastic by highlighting the ridiculousness of the dolls.
C'mon, she's an easy target to pick for all her other flaws, but there is no reason to play FfTB Baboolie and miss reality for the sake of trying to score points.
Ah, but mocking them by turning the same criticisms they have made of SlymePitters – and fellow travellers – back against them? Seems to be a case of highlighting their hypocrisy, a case of “hoist by your own petard†....Munkhaus wrote:Sure, and it's obvious in here. On twitter it looks like it looks like. If that's what you're after, fine. But unless I'm less drunk than usual (unlikely) it looks like hypocrisy. [what do you think MKG? Btw, I read "Why a Duck" as a much younger man]Za-zen wrote:Apologies for interrupting the party, but i for one, was not seriously suggesting that dollgate was in fact evidence of latent racism, i was as usual taking the piss.
And just to be crystal clear, the warning from the Irishmens rights activists, was not serious either, since we're having to spell everything out for the kiddies. Did someone get the acronym?
Badger3k says: "I see it as a case of doing to them exactly what they do to others"
That's exactly what is wrong with it. Using their methods. As I say, in locations where it is obviously satirical it works, but in public it just looks like you're doing what "they" do i.e. deliberately bullshitting.
Maybe I'm over-reacting, but if that was my reaction as a card-carrying shit-slimer, then perhaps a fence-sitter might be turned off. Shit, sounds like I'm an accommodationist!
tl:dr - being a cunt because they're being cunts... is that wise?
I see where you're coming from. I tend to take things posted here as more humorous, like a private joke. If it was posted elsewhere, I'd be more concerned.John Greg wrote:Badger said:
To put it a slightly different way, I've seen the baboons point out, numerous times, that "you think it's funny because it's a woman in the joke. Try putting in black person instead and see if it's funny.It isn't - you're screaming racism. Well, it's the same thing" (admittedly a paraphrase of the argument, but I'd wager we've all seen variations of it). So, if racist jokes are bad, a picture of the Queen Bee herself, smiling like an idjit and giving the thumbs up to little racist dolls - how are we to know she's being ironic, or joking? If we saw someone else doing that, and posted in on Stromfront, what do you think we'd hear? A lot of "she doesn't mean it" or "fuck yeah!"?
Yes, I see your point, but I feel that some folks may be stepping over the line and rather than just pointing out the hypocrisy of FfTB's ludicrous and ever-chaning stance about humour, have decided to adopt the FfTB tactic. And that's just all sorts of fail.
Mind you, I could be wrong about Slyme People's reactions to the pic and their reasons for pointing it out.
Yep, agreed. Sometimes it gets serious, but mostly I think (and correct me if I'm wrong), we are all here for the Lulz. RW's pic was most probably her being sarcastic, but try imagining what the reaction would have been from FTBers if it was one of us in this pic.Badger3k wrote:
I see where you're coming from. I tend to take things posted here as more humorous, like a private joke. If it was posted elsewhere, I'd be more concerned.
Steersman wrote:Ah, but mocking them by turning the same criticisms they have made of SlymePitters – and fellow travellers – back against them? Seems to be a case of highlighting their hypocrisy, a case of “hoist by your own petard†....Munkhaus wrote:Sure, and it's obvious in here. On twitter it looks like it looks like. If that's what you're after, fine. But unless I'm less drunk than usual (unlikely) it looks like hypocrisy. [what do you think MKG? Btw, I read "Why a Duck" as a much younger man]Za-zen wrote:Apologies for interrupting the party, but i for one, was not seriously suggesting that dollgate was in fact evidence of latent racism, i was as usual taking the piss.
And just to be crystal clear, the warning from the Irishmens rights activists, was not serious either, since we're having to spell everything out for the kiddies. Did someone get the acronym?
Badger3k says: "I see it as a case of doing to them exactly what they do to others"
That's exactly what is wrong with it. Using their methods. As I say, in locations where it is obviously satirical it works, but in public it just looks like you're doing what "they" do i.e. deliberately bullshitting.
Maybe I'm over-reacting, but if that was my reaction as a card-carrying shit-slimer, then perhaps a fence-sitter might be turned off. Shit, sounds like I'm an accommodationist!
tl:dr - being a cunt because they're being cunts... is that wise?
Thing is, we are not being serious. They seem to be, though...Munkhaus wrote:
Bah. "They did so I did..." Where do you draw the line with that justification?
Hoist by your own Picard. (Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra)
I try to look at all sides, if credible. I once made the mistake of picking up "I don't believe in atheists" by Chris Hedges in a bookstore once. I thought perhaps I should read the enemy so to speak. I could not manage more than a few pages and as I did not want to have to pay for the book because I had thrown it across the room, I put it back down. Gently.Steersman wrote:Likewise about being wrong – sometimes I marvel that I haven’t wound up – yet – as a “Darwin Awards†statistic. But sometimes you have to roll the dice, call them as you see them, let the chips fall where they may, etc. Trick is not to double down on a bad hand afterwards – not always easy to do, of course, as we tend to wind up investing too much of ourselves in an idea or position and fail to see when it is no longer tenable – debacle at Stalingrad sort of thing.Dilurk wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:36 pm
I have been known to be wrong on occasion. I still believe the video would have been better had it been done when emotions about the DMCA nonsense were not so high. SN can make up her own mind.Steersman wrote:Well, I’m glad you concede that much – you might point that out to Scented Nectar.Dilurk wrote:BTW. You are right about your assessment of the last YT video Cris did, up to a point.
As for the SN reference that was more a to-whom-it-may-concern message [much like your “embroider†reference, I might add ... ;-) ], rather than a request that you actually do anything about it yourself. A way of pointing out that if a regular here, someone with some “street-credsâ€, can see some justification in the argument then maybe it is worth a second look.
Learn to sit on ones hands. A lot. That's my problem with twitter. It is way too easy to dash off a note when angry.Interesting article and good points, although it seems her credibility here is suffering somewhat – ah, the vicissitudes of fashion .... But I know what you mean about the “better writer†thing; frustrating at times that fashioning a post can be so tedious and time consuming. Practice and perfection and all that ....I think reading an article by Jean Kazez would help you see where I come from. She is a much better writer than I will ever be.
Note I goofed by not making it clear I was talking about the general case. I always ignore and elide angry sounding phrases. They speak to my pineal gland not my mind.I will give you the benefit of the doubt, despite how angry your words appear to me.
Sorry if they came across that way, particularly as Sacha seemed to see some of them the same way, so maybe I was letting my anger,
I would suggest that when you get really incensed write it up give your article full bore both barrels then save it as a draft. Come back to it in 24 hours and edit it. You'll be surprised. After a while, you can do it without the 24 hour wait.exasperation at least, get the better of me. But I think that is a good point, one I’ve tried to emphasize in other posts even if MKG is less than impressed by my formulation, about the problematic nature of anger – as someone said a while back, rage seems to be all the rage these days.
I posted that article on here myself as I had already read it. I know the slimepit is being read by the skeptic blogs folk, but I think in this case I had read it from DC first. Not that it matters. I have been following ERVs blog for a long time, I followed the anger and disgust from the early days. I can understand the anger and the frustration. Myself? I despise bullies but I was a coward. Though I have written privately to support people bullied.Although one might argue that many of the people here express some serious anger, with not a little justification, at the antics of some of the FTB crowd. Anger has its uses, but it tends to be a bit of the proverbial two-edged sword. You might be interested in this recent post over at Skeptic Blogs referring to a Scientific American article on “Why Is Everyone on the Internet So Angry?â€
Really a rather deplorable state of affairs that so many seem to be so ready to go off the deep end in defence of their dogma, so ready to use the end to justify the means. Maybe some justification at some point – whistle-blowing for a possible example – but when the means are frequently the antithesis of the ends the prognosis tends not to be particularly favourable. Reminds me of some “political action†against E.O. Wilson and something similar that may have been discussed here ....However, considering that Laden has threatened people's livelihood and I have been personally harassed and real life stalked by people from the Internet, I'd rather not here in public. I'd rather not have Laden or one of the crazier denizens of the FTB harass me.
Again, the problematic nature of anger in general. But “deprecated†was probably a poor choice of words – maybe even a “blond momentâ€; mea culpa and all that. What I meant was that, as indicated previously, your support for the argument tended, in effect, to discount or discredit to some extent the counter-arguments.[/quote]I took the time to watch Cris' YT video. I would argue that any other time it would have been a reasonable video to have been made. I am seeing anger from both sides instead of logic.
I have not deprecated either Scented Nectar or CommanderTuvok's arguments at all. We are not joined at the hip.
Well, you do have to point out that you’re only turning their own arguments back at them, that you aren’t seriously asserting it. Otherwise you only look as discreditable as they are ....Munkhaus wrote:Steersman wrote:Ah, but mocking them by turning the same criticisms they have made of SlymePitters – and fellow travellers – back against them? Seems to be a case of highlighting their hypocrisy, a case of “hoist by your own petard†....Munkhaus wrote:Sure, and it's obvious in here. On twitter it looks like it looks like. If that's what you're after, fine. But unless I'm less drunk than usual (unlikely) it looks like hypocrisy. [what do you think MKG? Btw, I read "Why a Duck" as a much younger man]Za-zen wrote:Apologies for interrupting the party, but i for one, was not seriously suggesting that dollgate was in fact evidence of latent racism, i was as usual taking the piss.
And just to be crystal clear, the warning from the Irishmens rights activists, was not serious either, since we're having to spell everything out for the kiddies. Did someone get the acronym?
Badger3k says: "I see it as a case of doing to them exactly what they do to others"
That's exactly what is wrong with it. Using their methods. As I say, in locations where it is obviously satirical it works, but in public it just looks like you're doing what "they" do i.e. deliberately bullshitting.
Maybe I'm over-reacting, but if that was my reaction as a card-carrying shit-slimer, then perhaps a fence-sitter might be turned off. Shit, sounds like I'm an accommodationist!
tl:dr - being a cunt because they're being cunts... is that wise?
Bah. "They did so I did..." Where do you draw the line with that justification?
Hoist by your own Picard. (Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra)
I think they're aware RW is being ironic in that picture, but they're also ironically suggesting that she's a racist for doing it anyway, because they're following the FTB and Skepchick "logic" that intent is magic. So if anything been done, said or shown can be interpreted as being prejudice or threatening then it automatically is.John Greg wrote:I have absolutely no respect for Rebecca Watson whatsoever. However, all the folks who are pointing to the picture of Watson thumbs-upping the black face dolls as being representative of some kind of morals/ethics slip on Watson's behalf are being ridiculous and completely missing the quite obvious point that she is being ironical/sarcastic by highlighting the ridiculousness of the dolls.
C'mon, she's an easy target to pick for all her other flaws, but there is no reason to play FfTB Baboolie and miss reality for the sake of trying to score points.
Ah, so that’s what you think I’m doing? Not a credible argument if at the same time you say “You are right about your assessment of the last YT video Cris did, up to a point.†Pointing to specifics and providing explicit counter arguments is one thing, tarring the whole lot with the same “throwing simian feces†brush is something else again - maybe even, one might argue, a case of doing that exact same thing ....Dilurk wrote:
.... Demonstrate you think by coming up with cogent arguments and stop throwing simian feces about then you will earn respect.
Pinch of salt, Steersman, pinch of salt...Steersman wrote:Ah, so that’s what you think I’m doing? Not a credible argument if at the same time you say “You are right about your assessment of the last YT video Cris did, up to a point.†Pointing to specifics and providing explicit counter arguments is one thing, tarring the whole lot with the same “throwing simian feces†brush is something else again - maybe even, one might argue, a case of doing that exact same thing ....Dilurk wrote:
.... Demonstrate you think by coming up with cogent arguments and stop throwing simian feces about then you will earn respect.
Surprising the degree to which everyone – well, a lot of people – say things like, “oh, that is a well-known Xâ€. That might well be true, but frequently it seems equivalent to little more than known “inside a small circle of friendsâ€. Which your example would seem to illustrate – you, and others here, might be surprised to learn that not everyone lives and breathes the Internet ....Dilurk wrote:No I had not missed that, I just thought it was obviously stupid. Sorry I did not make myself clear. Sally has no clue about the Internet, how it works, what denizens inhabit it and even about memes. goatse being a well known meme.franc wrote:No, you're missing the point - that is the address she offered as "proof" of innocence in the twitter item above.Dilurk wrote:As I said, these people are clueless about the Internet.
Come on! Google, use it!Steersman wrote:Surprising the degree to which everyone – well, a lot of people – say things like, “oh, that is a well-known Xâ€. That might well be true, but frequently it seems equivalent to little more than known “inside a small circle of friendsâ€. Which your example would seem to illustrate – you, and others here, might be surprised to learn that not everyone lives and breathes the Internet ....Dilurk wrote:No I had not missed that, I just thought it was obviously stupid. Sorry I did not make myself clear. Sally has no clue about the Internet, how it works, what denizens inhabit it and even about memes. goatse being a well known meme.franc wrote:No, you're missing the point - that is the address she offered as "proof" of innocence in the twitter item above.Dilurk wrote:As I said, these people are clueless about the Internet.
But it seems that a more civilized approach is at least make some sort of oblique reference to links or definitions when there is the least possibility that a term might be misinterpreted ....
People are actually watching female sports. There's nothing for Ophelia to complain about? Well, of course the next phase would be that men are perverts for admiring female athletes.ERV wrote:While we are being ironic (isnt that always?)-- I just found out some awesome stats about the Olympics--
This year, for the first time ever--
-- Women outnumbered men on the US Olympic team
-- Every competing country had at least one female
-- There were the most women competing ever
Douchebag Ophelia Benson-- Complains there arent enough women in an activity. Get enough women? Your activity is stupid anyway.
SteveW68 wrote:Floozie Canuck has a new post up:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... avis-roth/
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!“The Other Atheist†is one of Franc Hoggle / Victor Ivanoff‘s pseudonyms, by the way.
SteveW68 wrote:Floozie Canuck has a new post up:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... avis-roth/
Damn you. Now my irony meter is broken.StarStuff, a soulless cunt says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:40 pm ADT
I’ve wanted one of her necklaces for about a year, but I don’t usually have the money. But I will absolutely buy one once my financial aid is disbursed. I’ve had my eye on a few in particular :)
