Periodic Table of Swearing

[fascination]

Okay, I just read PZ's crap post. It doesn't even try to critique Ed's article. PZ just refers to Svan's blog post about it. How is Svan an expert on the subject? Actually, what IS Svan's day job? I just realized that I've never known what it is she actually does. Does she have a degree?

[KarlVonMox]

And then contradicting himself straight after in the next sentence. Classic PZ.

And in the comments as well.

There is respectable work published under the banner of evolutionary psychology. It’s just that the respectable stuff seems to be an interesting fusion of genetics, molecular biology, and anthropology that identifies and quantifies measurable genetic traits. I’ve got absolutely no beef with that.

So which is it PZ? A field that ""has not and will not ever contribute much of substance" or one that has "respectable work"? He cant even keep his story straight, the only thing that *has* to be consistent in his crazy narrative is that Rebecca Watson cannot be in the wrong.

[fascination]

I am shaking my head at the utter depth of the rabbit hole these people have fallen into. Apparently, it's bottomless...

Aren't you glad you left that sinking ship, Al?

[Pitchguest]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9528/zvanidiot.jpg

[sacha]

The rational modern interpretation seems to be that gender is neither wholly nurture or nature.

I thought this was widely accepted. I am amazed at just how many debates that have been put to rest until new evidence is found, is dredged back up as a call to arms from the PZ/Watson brigade.


I must steal this, Dilurk: Xmyth

If one says it quickly enough, Christmyth sounds enough like Christmas that I can say it with no one noticing.

[Pitchguest]

They have clearly not spoken to eachother, and they have clearly not decided on what story to go with. It's fucking hilarious.

Oh, and Al?

:animals-chickencatch:

There's your "white cock of authority"!* :lol:

(Pretend it's a cock.)

[ERV]

So Svan disagrees with Watson, and somehow that is supporting Watson and not Ed. And PZ agrees with Watson, and is like, defending Cartesian Dualism or something. Wat? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

[sacha]

I spent the first part of my FreeOK2 talk speaking about pop-virology (viruses movies, video games, the cannibal people in the news at the time). Then I switched to talking about reality. Here is how media/the public sees viruses, and while that is fun, here is what scientists are doing with viruses.

If Watson was only talking about pop-evopsych, did she run out of time? Did she forget to get to the 'Here is what EvoPsych really is' 'here is what we really have learned' part?

I know you do not fly, nor do you have the time, (busy saving the world and all that) but I dream of replacing Watson with you for her speaking engagements, and she is on the sidelines blinking as she wonders how that happened and why no one recognises her.

[KarlVonMox]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9528/zvanidiot.jpg

I bet they would love to go back in time and have Watson edit her talk to fit with the current narrative now, in an Orwellian fashion - since anyone with half a brain that actually views the talk can see that she clearly meant to indict the entire field, and present it as if there is nothing of value in EP as a whole. If she DIDN'T actually mean that then she did a miserable job communicating it.

[sacha]

Linky to the blog Karl quotes from.

Speaking of Karl, I do miss your original avatar...

[bhoytony]

Wait a fucking minute......


http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4757 ... 96bf7d.png

[Outwest]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9528/zvanidiot.jpg

I bet they would love to go back in time and have Watson edit her talk to fit with the current narrative now, in an Orwellian fashion - since anyone with half a brain that actually views the talk can see that she clearly meant to indict the entire field, and present it as if there is nothing of value in EP as a whole. If she DIDN'T actually mean that then she did a miserable job communicating it.

And her degree is in what? Oh yeah....COMMUNICATIONS. Whatever that actually means.

[Pitchguest]

Wait a fucking minute......


http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4757 ... 96bf7d.png

:lol:

I had the same reaction. There's a woman calling a man "scum" and there's a woman with her dyed blue. Yup. Clear-cut case of Watsonistas.

[Guessed]

I have this image of Myers frantically hammering away at the keyboard on the FtB back channels in an effort to try and make sure everyone "gets their story straight", haha. The more situations like this one unfold, the more I see Myers as just some insignificant associate professor at an institution that barely registers within the States rather than a respected figure within the atheist community that I used to think he was.

[Mr Danksworth]

It's hard work being an apologist. Zvanity chimes in over at Chris's blog and gets her fat ass handed to her.

Stephanie Zvan says:
December 3, 2012 at 11:47 am
So this whole post is, “Yuh-huh! She was too talking about all of evolutionary psychology despite the title of her talk and all the material she chose for her slides because I can take a few quotes out of context and get all defensive on behalf of an entire field of science even though Rebecca has already commented on that post to agree that she was doing what Stephanie said she was doing.”

Really, Chris, I expect better from you. I’m not sure why I still expect better at this point, but I do.

Reply
Chris Hallquist says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Well, I don’t expect better from you at this point, but let’s try anyway.

I don’t think anything else in the talk particularly changes anything, and I even addressed your main piece of “context” in my post. If Watson really didn’t mean to talk about anything but pop psychology in her talk, she’s still a horribly sloppy communicator at best.

I mean, if the subject of her talk had been any other field, what “context” could even hypothetically justify treating her topic the way she did?

To take the neuroscience example again, if someone got up at the start of a talk on “neuroscience,” and announced they were going to use “neuroscience” to mean “the stuff you hear about neuroscience in the popular press”… well, in a sense you’d have to shrug your shoulders and say “okay, I guess that’s what they mean by ‘neuroscience.’” Nevertheless the audience, especially the neuroscientists in the audience, would be right to feel annoyed and kind of insulted at this weird re-definition of the term.

Really, part of the reason I wrote this post is because it seems like a lot of people who set themselves up as critics of “evolutionary psychology” (whatever they imagine that term to mean) feel entitled to a degree of sloppiness that no one in the skeptic’s movement would ever use with any other established branch of science.

Reply
DR says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Oh noes, Chris, you dared criticize Queen Rebecca. Get ready for the sh*tstorm that will follow… A balanced, reasoned argument seems impossible as soon as Rebecca gets mentioned. Considering her complete lack of credentials, and her lackadaisical attitude towards evidence (it’s not her fault, she’s not a scientist after all, nor has she ever claimed to be), it’s shocking how much venom gets spit everytime her name is mentioned.

Reply
Jeff says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Stephanie, I believe they call this “doubling down”?

[fascination]

It's hard work being an apologist. Zvanity chimes in over at Chris's blog and gets her fat ass handed to her.

Stephanie Zvan says:
December 3, 2012 at 11:47 am
So this whole post is, “Yuh-huh! She was too talking about all of evolutionary psychology despite the title of her talk and all the material she chose for her slides because I can take a few quotes out of context and get all defensive on behalf of an entire field of science even though Rebecca has already commented on that post to agree that she was doing what Stephanie said she was doing.”

Really, Chris, I expect better from you. I’m not sure why I still expect better at this point, but I do.

Reply
Chris Hallquist says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Well, I don’t expect better from you at this point, but let’s try anyway.

I don’t think anything else in the talk particularly changes anything, and I even addressed your main piece of “context” in my post. If Watson really didn’t mean to talk about anything but pop psychology in her talk, she’s still a horribly sloppy communicator at best.

I mean, if the subject of her talk had been any other field, what “context” could even hypothetically justify treating her topic the way she did?

To take the neuroscience example again, if someone got up at the start of a talk on “neuroscience,” and announced they were going to use “neuroscience” to mean “the stuff you hear about neuroscience in the popular press”… well, in a sense you’d have to shrug your shoulders and say “okay, I guess that’s what they mean by ‘neuroscience.’” Nevertheless the audience, especially the neuroscientists in the audience, would be right to feel annoyed and kind of insulted at this weird re-definition of the term.

Really, part of the reason I wrote this post is because it seems like a lot of people who set themselves up as critics of “evolutionary psychology” (whatever they imagine that term to mean) feel entitled to a degree of sloppiness that no one in the skeptic’s movement would ever use with any other established branch of science.

Reply
DR says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Oh noes, Chris, you dared criticize Queen Rebecca. Get ready for the sh*tstorm that will follow… A balanced, reasoned argument seems impossible as soon as Rebecca gets mentioned. Considering her complete lack of credentials, and her lackadaisical attitude towards evidence (it’s not her fault, she’s not a scientist after all, nor has she ever claimed to be), it’s shocking how much venom gets spit everytime her name is mentioned.

Reply
Jeff says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Stephanie, I believe they call this “doubling down”?

Do you have a link, please?

[Scented Nectar]

I am hearing about this "women running to the bathroom in tears because they were called females" for the first time. I am in utter disbelief...did this really happen? Was this the reason they cried? Are you sure they didn't trip and break their legs or something? Because I just can't believe this. I am not the most strong willed woman on earth but, just...DAMN.

They did indeed freak out over 'female'. They make us all look bad, perpetuating the stereotypes of women going hysterical over nothing and being overly sensitive (paranoid even) to imagined slights. It was in Feb, 2011, just a few months before Egate, which was July, 2011. A promise, or threat, of what was yet to come.

[Pitchguest]

Fascination: Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012 ... sychology/

[Scented Nectar]

Melody receives a fair rebuttal to her YT flagging request and responds in facepalm style.

She really needs to take a break. Her posts are wandering into the Land of Too Much Information.

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

Well thats fucking creepy. What the fuck??

A case of protesting TOO much? Like, maybe she's actually horrified over her own interest in animal peckers? [ I'm getting old. Who calls them peckers any more? ]

AAHAHA! Remember when Nanny Benson got all bent out of shape over that billboard with puppies on it? Ranting about the 'flirtatious/coy/slutty' girl puppy and the 'naked' boy puppies??

AAAAAAHAHAHA FREAKS!

"A + We're Dog Fuckers (literally!)"

Fits right in with the others. I mean, they have a cannibal and a pedophile. All they were missing were people who have a thing for animal dongs. [ does anyone call them dongs any more? I AM getting old! ]

[Scented Nectar]

I've given up on that 'femtheist' word I coined. A crazy youtuber, one who is a separatist calling for mass castration and culling of males (for real), stole the word, added an "i", and started calling herself Femitheist. Totally ruined my word by looking almost identical, but with her own deranged meaning. Check out this incredibly insane type of feminism (Solanas style separatism), beyond even the insanity of the baboons, at her pages:
Blog: http://femitheistreborn.blogspot.com/
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/FemitheistR ... eos?view=0

Holy crap, that is a Poe, surely. The image doesn't gel with the words either. But that's a sexist assumption on my part. It's that southern lilt.

I have a special dislike for separatists (who want to eliminate/greatly reduce males on earth). Krista has tried to trick me into making videos and articles about her, even under other names pretending to be a friend of hers betraying her. She faked her death months ago, then admitted it to me in a pm to try and get popular. She feels that bad publicity is just as good as good publicity. She tried reverse psychology (please don't make any videos about me), straightforward (you can even make a video about it or an article if you want), to insulting me in hopes that I'll make an angry article or video. Instead of making more videos about her or an article, I ignored her attempts, but I let her know that a bunch of us knew who she really is, etc. It freaked her out so much that she even asked an MRA, to ask me, to leave her alone (even though I was initially responding to her contacting me, not the other way around)!

I'm not sure if she is a poe, or if she really does feel that way despite that she hangs around with, and gets preggers by, a real life boyfriend. She's not living as a separatist, but if you look at her blog, she's got plans to castrate/kill/enslave-for-breeding men right now, and all future baby boys. She even goes so far as to say that women who like men too much should be killed too. She's causing harm by spreading the harmful ideology, even if she is a poe herself.

[Delurkatron]

Fascination;


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012 ... /#comments

[Al Stefanelli]

(Pretend it's a cock.)

I would hope I never have to say that to my wife...

[Dave]

If Watsons goal was education, she failed.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Watson's goal was education?

She's an entertainer!

hmmmm . . . I think I have heard that before:[youtube]4V5YjNbKaN4[/youtube]

[Al Stefanelli]

Watsonistas.

Did you just coin that word?

[mordacious1]

Whoops! Frank Boyd just got banned for making PZ look like an asshat. Who saw that coming?

Can't hold up your end of a discussion? Use the Banhammer, it's easier than having to defend your stupid position.

[fascination]

Fascination: Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012 ... sychology/

Thanks!

[Mykeru]

So Svan disagrees with Watson, and somehow that is supporting Watson and not Ed. And PZ agrees with Watson, and is like, defending Cartesian Dualism or something. Wat? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

What kills me is not that certain dogmatists have ignored the bulk of EP, which has little to do with sex and gender, but that when they do critique that one small part of EP, they promulgate as an article of faith that sexual dimorphism magically ends at the blood-brain barrier in our species. Why? Because the alternative would be offensive.

Well, that's it, isn't it? In order for them to completely dismiss EP they have to reject epiphenomenalism and deny that the mind is what the brain does.

"The mind" exists not as an emergent property of matter, something that is the body and evolved along with everything else, but some sort of incorporeal entity divested from the brain.

The comparison to Cartesian Dualism is apt. How long before they claim that the reason the mind and body is in sync is because god wound them up at the same time?

Of course, for them to pretend The Mind is entirely culturally determined, they will have to make some Existential "existence precedes essence" argument and their path to wine-drinking and beret wearing will be complete.

Nature or nurture? Why not both?

[Pitchguest]

Watsonistas.

Did you just coin that word?

I think Franc did.

http://greylining.com/2011/10/18/the-wa ... test-hits/

[Tony Parsehole]

PZ Myers
3 December 2012 at 12:51 pm
Oops. Frankboyd was a familiar name: he was a ranter previously confined to the Thunderdome.

Now banned for violation of parole.

Read: I scrabbled around for a while trying to find a reason to ban somebody hammering my arse with reason and facts in the comment section of my own, pathetic blog. All i can find is this tenuous excuse. It will have to do.



Violation of parole? Seriously? How much of a bellend is this man?

[Michael J]

I always wonder if these guys have had kids or even watch kids grow up. Before mine were born I always imagined that my children would be a blank slate onto which we parents would paint their personalities. Instead it is a battle where you try and minimise the bad parts of their personalities and encourage the good parts.
Now we are modern liberal parents and we didn't put a football in my sons hands and a doll in my daughters hands but it wasn't long before my son was using any stick as a gun or sword and my daughter started playing house. It could have been outside pressure but it must have happened pretty quickly).

They are teenagers now and I can compare my daughter to one of my nieces. One of my nieces is very sporty and is in various state teams. She hates dresses and shopping and only wear tracksuits and expensive runners. My daughter is also very sporty but loves shopping and dressing up and her dream is to get sponsored by rip-curl so she can get all of the cool clothes. Similar friends and upbringing, if there isn't a genetic component shouldn't they be the same?

Another thing I have noticed when working for corporates was the number of female accountants and the fact that they were very good at their jobs. How does the patriarchy fit in with this?

[justinvacula]

Haha, Greg Laden is now, out of nowhere, tweeting me in what seems to be defense of Rebecca Watson. See my sig for my Twitter - I am limitied in fuctionality now on mobile.

[justinvacula]

Here it is (on laptop now)

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

[welch]

Being banned from there is a good thing, so I'm doing him a favor. I didn't give any quotes because he has posted several comments, all of which are good. He's not being an ass to PZ, just speaking calmly with facts. PZ jumped on him right away with condensation, which is his usual MO. I'm surprised Chas Peterson is taking Clint's side in this.

Sort of. Chas is occasionally not the twonk he wants people to see him as.

[welch]

I am shaking my head at the utter depth of the rabbit hole these people have fallen into. Apparently, it's bottomless...

I'm just trying to find some fucking 2x4s and an engine block to seal it up after them!

[Mr Danksworth]

Here it is (on laptop now)

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

He wasn't too keen on me popping and saying 'hi'. What a goof.

[Gumby]

Rebecca Watson's greatest nightmare: Google's servers going down the night before her keynote presentation.

[Outwest]

Rebecca Watson's greatest nightmare: Google's servers going down the night before her keynote presentation.

The whole debacle is caused by someone who's degree is from Google University.

[CommanderTuvok]

I just love it when the Baboons self-implode.

I reckon the folks at JREF much be laughing their fucking socks off at Rebecca, PZ and Black Svan. This coming after the aforementioned three threw as much shit at JREF as they could muster.

[Cunning Punt]

They have clearly not spoken to eachother, and they have clearly not decided on what story to go with. It's fucking hilarious.

Oh, and Al?

:animals-chickencatch:

There's your "white cock of authority"!* :lol:

(Pretend it's a cock.)

To be fair to them (which I really have no desire to do but still), they do always say that they don't have a "story" that they are trying to get straight:they are all individual bloggers etc.

A bit like that scene in Life of Brian.

I have to say what little interest I had in what they had to say is now at an all time low. It really is pathetic.

[ERV]

Rebecca Watson's greatest nightmare: Google's servers going down the night before her keynote presentation.

The whole debacle is caused by someone who's degree is from Google University.

And is arrogant enough to think it wouldnt catch up with her.

[Mr Danksworth]

^
Ain't blowback a bitch?

[welch]

Rebecca Watson's greatest nightmare: Google's servers going down the night before her keynote presentation.

The whole debacle is caused by someone who's degree is from Google University.

And is arrogant enough to think it wouldnt catch up with her.

Even Oolon can't come up with a really good defense.

As I commented on Hallq's post:

Steph,

If someone’s *entire talk* is being taken to mean something other than what they meant, (I am of course assuming you have directly communicated with Rebecca about this, and aren’t just basing your conclusions upon your own interpretation of the talk), then at the very least, that’s a sign that the talk, as set up, failed. If it was meant to be *solely* a criticism of how the media plays out EP, then it failed, because it doesn’t come across that way . In fact, the entire “EP GOT PUNKED WHEN THEY FELL FOR “GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES” section does not come across as a criticism of the credulity of the media for not knowing the difference between a proper science journal and a hack job.

It comes across as someone bagging on EP, even though the field as a whole doesn’t consider the journal referenced in the video as serious. It would be *very* difficult for someone not in on the joke to realize what Rebecca was talking about. For someone doing their first talk, I can understand trying to be a bit too clever in terms of point, but Rebecca is neither new nor untrained in this field. She has a degree in Communications and makes her living via..well…*communications*. It is almost unbelievable to think that she looked at this talk in any serious way and thought it was clear that she was critiquing the media and not EP as a field.

So we’re left with two rather bad conclusions:

1) Ed Clint was right, and Rebecca’s talk was a simply dreadful attempt at a hatchet job on EP.
2) You’re right, and Rebecca’s talk was poorly thought-out, planned and delivered.

Neither option is A Good Thing for her.

There's almost no upside on this. She either was bagging on EP and got called out by someone who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about or, she really did a shit job on the talk, and wasted the time of everyone in attendance.

[Outwest]

^
Ain't blowback a bitch?

Personality only takes you so far in life.

[acathode]

This stuff is just all out pathetic for FTB and Skepchick.

Stefunny trying to twist Watson's speech into being about pop psych is just... wow? Get fucking real?!

Just imagine if it had been a creationist there instead of Watson, who in his speech talked about specific shitty biology quaks, and shitty biology pop science and journalism, and then mixed this with broad generalisations on how evolution as a whole was shit.

If someone then completely made mincemeat out of this dishonest speech just the same way Ed shredded Watson, and Christian apologetics tried Stefunnys tactic going "Oh he was just talking about shitty evolution pop science, he didn't actually mean evolution as a science!", the whole skeptic community would have laughed their asses off, and then told the apologetics to stop acting like butthurt children.

But ignore that for a moment, and let's assume we buy Stefunny's defense. That would mean that
1. Watson spent 1 hour informing the audience that pop science and science journalism is often really bad. That's some shocking news for everyone! Gee, imagine that, journalists and media being shitty, that's completely unheard of in the skeptic community!
2. Watson apparently completely failed to actually explain that this was what she was doing, since apparently the audience didn't catch on, for example the guy asking if there were any good evo psych science apparently didn't understand that Watson wasn't really talking about EP the science, just the pop EP...
That's pretty amazingly shitty communication skills for someone who makes a living by giving speeches.

Then Myers adds his brilliant argument, which basically consists of "Evo psych is shit (but I cba to show why atm). But also, Ed is an Enemy, he doesn't like Watson, and there's slimepitter in his comment section, therefore he is wrong! Also, I'm a psychic and can read his mind, so I know he has an hidden agenda!"

Just... wtf? Since when did debates and arguments require the participants to like each other?! I can't even imagine creationist trying that tactic, just imagine something like: "Evolution is shit (but we cba to show why just right now), but we also have to point out that Myers has an hidden agenda and for a long time disliked Eric Hovind! He's been grinding his axe for a year now, and is only pretending to be civil and polite!!! Therefore, Myers is wrong!!!".
Yeah that's going to work...

If you want to be charitable towards Myers, the best that can be said is that he's actually objecting to Cint being polite and going out of his way to not portray his post as a personal attack against Watson, even though he personally dislikes her! Shame on him for doing that, obviously he should've filled his post with the hate he actually feels...
Just wtf goes through Myers head as he writes this shit?

Then, as if they hadn't made themselves look stupid enough already, Stefunny decides to go full retard on Hallquist's blog. Her argument there consists of:
1. You're so childish for disagreeing with me.
2. You're quote-mining by citing relevant parts of Watsons speech that show I'm full of crap.
3. Watson even agreed with my retcon!
4. Look at me being condescending

Fuck sake, this is getting so stupid I actually feel like getting up and banging my head against the wall!

[soldierwhy]

Fucking patriarchy

School teaching assistant Emma Webb jailed for pupil sex offences

[Jan Steen]

The sannyasins at PZ’s and Zvan’s blogs are indistinguishable from the commenters on creationist sites like AnswersInGenesis. They think they are so clever for not falling for EP (or ‘Darwinism’ respectively), and torture their little brains trying to come up with the most witty put-down, while in reality they only put their own ignorance on display. But while PZ and Zvan are now frantically clawing back from the position that all of EP is garbage, this memo hasn’t sunk in yet with their dim-witted commentariat. It’s a treat to watch this flailing crowd of pseudo-sceptics.

So the spin is that Watson wasn’t dissing the whole of EP, just ‘the’ pop version of it. That’s a plain lie, as several people who managed to listen to Watson’s entire talk, have demonstrated. She did in fact diss the whole of EP. And now she has taken her crap for recycling to Australia and New Zealand, as if the poor isolated folks in these countries have no access to YouTube. As if there are not thousands and thousands of young real scientists out there who actually know what they are talking about and who would love to be flown across the globe to give a presentation and to get paid their body weight in beer or whatever they pay that giggling charlatan.

But no, actual science is boring. Innit?

[JAB]

Rebecca Watson's greatest nightmare: Google's servers going down the night before her keynote presentation.

The whole debacle is caused by someone who's degree is from Google University.

Hmmm... I think she's figured out that she can't keep giving the "people are mean to me on the internet" speech over and over again but this one wasn't much better from google u... although i bet she got it from pz since he has said he thinks ep is bull before, and he never revisits stuff once he has made a proclamation. If she does a new one last minute she could do it on the plane on airplane magazines like she did for that article recently... a new topic could be her wondering why clouds look different from the top or something.

I wonder if she's going to give the horrible ep talk all over nz in the next few day or if she's busy right now replacing "ep"with "pop ep" on all her slides.

[ReneeHendricks]

Some days it's just fun to watch them spin their wheels and jack up those panties :D

[Michael J]

The big problem now is that RW will attract a lot of people to her talks just to watch a trainwreck. This will make her look like a popular speaker.
I mean if I was at a conference, I would probably go and stretch my legs during a talk by Myers but it would hard to resist going to a RW session just to see how bad it is.

[Notung]

Fucking patriarchy

School teaching assistant Emma Webb jailed for pupil sex offences

I know a woman jailed for a consensual lesbian relationship with her pupil. She got 15 months I think. Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail even did a hit job on her...

[CommanderTuvok]

^
Ain't blowback a bitch?

Indeed. Or "pushback" as Stephanie Black Svan would call it.

They sure don't like it when the pushback pushes the other way.

[Dick Strawkins]

Rebecca Watson on evolutionary psychology:

"it’s so boring.. because you can only make it interesting if you make up everything."

Richard Dawkins with the perfect response.

[youtube]JIM-pcUSK0Q[/youtube]

[JAB]

BTW, I hope someone saved the youtube of RW's talk. If it's currently up on the tube in the account of someone who is one of her fans, it could dissappear. Once the backchannel of fftbs gets the story straight, those fftb posts may be changed too. Silly Zvan unfortunately made comments on other peoples blogs that she won't be able to edit, so that may bite. Rewriting history can be hard when everyone won't cooperate.

[CommanderTuvok]

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[soldierwhy]

BTW, I hope someone saved the youtube of RW's talk.

This one?

[youtube]r9SvQ29-gk8[/youtube]

(Not my YouTube account BTW)

[KarlVonMox]

These FTB clowns really do provide endless entertainment, its just sad that they are attempting to trash the secular movement in the process.

[cunt]

This really is one of those times where the international skeptical community might actually be of some use. If just to say that we are going to be watching what the press come up with in terms of actual guidelines for science reporting. You can bet your life that powerful media interests and politicians are, right now, going through the guidelines of Leveson and finding weasel words to put in. Watering down whats there.

I realise that this might be off some peoples radar right now, it being a Brit thing, but for these people that constantly rage against bad science there really is no excuse for a near total radio silence on this issue. Not when you're going to illustrate your talks about how bad evo-psych is with articles from The Sun and The Daily Mail. Don't bitch about climate-denialism and illustrate your presentations with Daily Express articles if you're ultimately disinterested in making sure they slap big old "bullshit" labels all over that type of yellow journalism when the opportunity arises to make them.

Instead of that, there's just another petty bitch fight between Myers and some guy over something Myer's friend said. Big hurty pants. Lunchroom cafeteria stuff as fucking usual.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... e-coverage

[CommanderTuvok]

Some funny Marcotte-style nonsense here to have a laugh at.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... f-comments

[Dilurk]

Since we were posting musical shit, I thought I'd share this with you all:

youtube IGsY-z7RkIA /youtube

Four to a bar. My dad liked to play boogie woogie as well.

[mordacious1]

It's funny how all of a sudden Stefunny is having a "problem with spam" and has announced that she has to moderate first time posters on her blog (only so she doesn't have to deal with deleting spam...not people criticizing her previous blog post on this situation with RW/Ed). What a chump.