Bleeding from the Bunghole

[deLurch]

[youtube]mu0mNepevv8[/youtube]

Bar.
Raised.
Mother.
Fuckers.

I call bullshit, the coloration of that board looks suspect, Standing on it to prove it's solid proves nothing (very short span with the feet near the supports) and the sound of the impact is "off". This reeks of a carnival stunt.

Huge nail heads. Low density wood. I see no reason why this is would be impossible.

[bhoytony]

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

[TheMudbrooker]

[youtube]mu0mNepevv8[/youtube]

Bar.
Raised.
Mother.
Fuckers.

I call bullshit, the coloration of that board looks suspect, Standing on it to prove it's solid proves nothing (very short span with the feet near the supports) and the sound of the impact is "off". This reeks of a carnival stunt.

Oh, and if you watch closely when he slaps the nail the rest of the way through, the board flexes quite a bit. A sound, solid board that size and length wouldn't.

[Apples]

anyone have the lowdown on why Damion left the pyt and now seems to be gunning for us? Or is it just the usual accomodationist bollocks?

It's because Franc said if Ophelia was a dog she should be put down and because me and Bhoytony wouldn't stop calling people (people, mind you, not just women) "cunts" instead of Damions suggestion of "dimbulbs".

HAHAHAHAHAHA....what a cunt.

Good to see you around, Jimthepleb. I'm also in the ag business - currently helping look after a small herd of beefalo (cow/bison hybrid). Will be back on the pit 24/7 as soon as winter comes to the eastern US.

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k49 ... bd-285.gif

[Gumby]

What I didn't have time to finish before leaving for work this morning. Danged regretavirus.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... da09b2.jpg

[Zenspace]

[youtube]mu0mNepevv8[/youtube]

Bar.
Raised.
Mother.
Fuckers.

I call bullshit, the coloration of that board looks suspect, Standing on it to prove it's solid proves nothing (very short span with the feet near the supports) and the sound of the impact is "off". This reeks of a carnival stunt.

Oh, and if you watch closely when he slaps the nail the rest of the way through, the board flexes quite a bit. A sound, solid board that size and length wouldn't.

I don't get any of that. I think it's probably legit, but with at least pertinent qualifier. The board is probably a low density softwood, like poplar or similar. Sound seems about right for that, too (slightly hollow ring). I used to be able to drive a 3" awl into a pine floor right up to the hilt in one shot - visit a sail loft, it is a pretty common thing. Granted, the awl has a grippable hande and a narrow shaft compared to those nails, but with mitts like that guy has, I wouldn't bet him that he couldn't actually do that as demonstrated in the video.

[Brive1987]

FWIW, the following is a response to my comment on a guest post on Brute Reason on the topic of arguing in good faith. While it is certainly a reasonable question to ask – trolls to the left of us, jokers to the right – I figure that the poster, along with many others in FftB-land, fall a little short in that department themselves. As I argued on the poster’s own blog – Miri for some reason having decided to ban me, speaking of bad faith – one of the examples he used was Shermer’s “[atheist activism], it’s more of a guy thing” which entailed the rather dogmatic insistence that it qualified as sexist which I think qualifies as some serious bad faith arguing. A subsequent response from him and my rejoinder:

SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 @ 5:15 PM
Saying that skepticism is “a guy thing” is sexist. If you don’t understand why saying that skepticism is “a guy thing” is sexist, then you need to do some reading on how sexism works, because you don’t have a sufficient understanding of the phenomenon to judge it critically at the same level as people who experience it or people who spend a significant amount of time reading about what it is and how it manifests.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 @ 5:56 PM
That’s my whole point: you and many others are quite sure – dogmatically sure – that that qualifies as sexist yet you are not at all prepared to defend or argue or support your case in any way. You just insist – ipse dixit – that it is true, and expect, rather arrogantly if not pigheadedly one might suggest, that everyone else fall into lock-step behind you.

And then you turn around and insist that others are “arguing in bad faith”? ’Tis to laugh. Although it has an edge to it.

As always the problem is the construct of objective truth from ideology. PZ once said that if science couldn't show that slavey was objectively wrong then fuck science. Delete slavery and insert new ideological construct of choice. These people have mentally journeyed far from any stance that we live in a world of moral relativities, that working societies form around different but not diametrically opposed value structures. That values evolve, but not from "bad to better to best". That's why world views informed by (say) radical Islam can't coexist in a mix of (say) democrat, republican, libertarian. Islam, in this case, is demanding absolutism.

Exactly the same with SJW. Their ideology is also a philosophical dictatorship and their "required" morality flows forth. It is probably a waste of time arguing from a premise of skepticism. All you can do in debate is highlight that they have a blinkered perspective that denies plurality of thought, that this makes them analogous to the thought police, and move away from the crazy.

[Guestus Aurelius]

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

:lol:

The poor quality of this shop is the best part!

[JackRayner]

What the actual fuck, Scotland?

Blurred Lines banned by Edinburgh University
Robin Thicke's hit song cannot be played at student events after it was ruled the track violates the university's policy against 'rape culture and lad banter'

Really, the Feminist Purity Police is roaming institutes of higher learning, turning them into safe space for fuckwits, and policing Lad Banter?

What the actual actualfuck is happening to Scotland?

Hmmm... here are the lyrics.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/robinthi ... lines.html

"Blurred Lines"
(feat. T.I. & Pharrell Williams)
<snip>

I don't see rape culture here. I see someone being enticed to cheat on their current significant other, in what is most likely a one night stand. And of course "Lad Banter..." WTF is that. If that doesn't sound over reaching, I don't know what is. I can't imagine Lad Banter can in any way be any worse than lass banter.

Feminist and others have been trying to paint this song as the most vile, misogynistic thing to be created since Islam for many, many weeks now. The moral panic over it is astounding.

A "friend" that bought into the hype posted on Facebook saying she'd buy the album, but only if all of the misogyny was taken out. When I asked her "What misogyny?" she replied that she was just stating her opinion, and that she respected my view but wasn't in the mood to argue. But...I'd stated no view. I asked a question. I also had not said anything regarding the song anywhere on Facebook prior to asking that question, so it wasn't like she was referring to prior statements. It was a very bizarre thing to say, but it made it patently clear that she had no idea what she was talking about. I suspect that this is the case with most of the people crying about the damn song.

The comments in the unrated video are hilarious though. You'd think the women were being raped and killed on film. [NSFW, because of bare tits]

[mordacious1]

In "guy with board" video, it looks like there's a 1-2 inch strip of hardwood in the front (possibly back too) that he stands on so the board doesn't break. There's a line running all the way along the board. In the center, it's softwood. Just my skepticism.

[Guestus Aurelius]

In "guy with board" video, it looks like there's a 1-2 inch strip of hardwood in the front (possibly back too) that he stands on so the board doesn't break. There's a line running all the way along the board. In the center, it's softwood. Just my skepticism.

Check your privilege, you hyperskeptical bastard.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Your lizardly/dinosaurian privilege, that is. (What is your avatar anyway? I feel like I should recognize it, but I don't.)

[Al Stefanelli]

[youtube]mu0mNepevv8[/youtube]

Bar.
Raised.
Mother.
Fuckers.

I call bullshit, the coloration of that board looks suspect, Standing on it to prove it's solid proves nothing (very short span with the feet near the supports) and the sound of the impact is "off". This reeks of a carnival stunt.

I don't get any of that. I think it's probably legit, but with at least pertinent qualifier. The board is probably a low density softwood, like poplar or similar. Sound seems about right for that, too (slightly hollow ring). I used to be able to drive a 3" awl into a pine floor right up to the hilt in one shot - visit a sail loft, it is a pretty common thing. Granted, the awl has a grippable hande and a narrow shaft compared to those nails, but with mitts like that guy has, I wouldn't bet him that he couldn't actually do that as demonstrated in the video.

I wouldn't doubt there are people who can actually do this. I imagine they are rare...

With that said, way back when I used to attend church, the powers that be thought it would a cool idea to have a dude come in to perform an act where he bent pots and pans. I thought it was pretty cool at the time, and duly fell for it. The guy looked like he was in good shape.

Then, I one day my wife and I needed restock our pots and pans, as the T-Fal set we got for our wedding became largely worthless.

After getting over the shock of how much a decent set of pots and pans cost with relative respect to what he had available to spend, we ended up getting an entire set at WalMart for about twenty bucks.

It was then I realized that your average ninth-grader could repeat the performance...

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

What the actual actualfuck is happening to Scotland?

<snip>[/quote]

I don't see rape culture here. I see someone being enticed to cheat on their current significant other, in what is most likely a one night stand. And of course "Lad Banter..." WTF is that. If that doesn't sound over reaching, I don't know what is. I can't imagine Lad Banter can in any way be any worse than lass banter.[/quote]
Feminist and others have been trying to paint this song as the most vile, misogynistic thing to be created since Islam for many, many weeks now. The moral panic over it is astounding.

A "friend" that bought into the hype posted on Facebook saying she'd buy the album, but only if all of the misogyny was taken out. When I asked her "What misogyny?" she replied that she was just stating her opinion, and that she respected my view but wasn't in the mood to argue. But...I'd stated no view. I asked a question. I also had not said anything regarding the song anywhere on Facebook prior to asking that question, so it wasn't like she was referring to prior statements. It was a very bizarre thing to say, but it made it patently clear that she had no idea what she was talking about. I suspect that this is the case with most of the people crying about the damn song.

The comments in the unrated video are hilarious though. You'd think the women were being raped and killed on film. [NSFW, because of bare tits][/quote]
I get that too, especially on Facebook...asking a question becomes a statement to them. That is, doubt or questions about their opinion automatically translate to opposition to their position. We aren't supposed to question these undeniable truths, as they see them, and then it is implied that we are simply too stupid or rapey to ever see their point. Also, they probably know on some level that their point is undiluted bullshit, and they can't defend it outside of how they feel about it. No objective truth indeed. That is the beauty of them embracing their version of PoMo.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Wow, messed up the quotes pretty seriously, sorry. Should not post after pain meds...

[TheMudbrooker]

I call bullshit, the coloration of that board looks suspect, Standing on it to prove it's solid proves nothing (very short span with the feet near the supports) and the sound of the impact is "off". This reeks of a carnival stunt.

Oh, and if you watch closely when he slaps the nail the rest of the way through, the board flexes quite a bit. A sound, solid board that size and length wouldn't.

I don't get any of that. I think it's probably legit, but with at least pertinent qualifier. The board is probably a low density softwood, like poplar or similar. Sound seems about right for that, too (slightly hollow ring). I used to be able to drive a 3" awl into a pine floor right up to the hilt in one shot - visit a sail loft, it is a pretty common thing. Granted, the awl has a grippable hande and a narrow shaft compared to those nails, but with mitts like that guy has, I wouldn't bet him that he couldn't actually do that as demonstrated in the video.

He's really driving the nail through the board, but the board isn't nearly as tough as it's made out to be. Knocking on the board, standing on it and having several stout looking pieces of wood leaning against the wall in the background is all stagecraft. Mordacious points out that it looks like the board is framed with a hardwood strip around a soft center and I would agree.

[Aneris]

I wonder if some of the people talking about postmodernism aren't really talking about deconstructionism. Which is not exactly the same thing....
I think when people talk about postmodernism, they may be really talking about deconstructionism (both use big words, come from similar schools of thought and do the rounds in college), and this is problematic....

I think PZ's critics are on solid ground conflating po-mo & deconstruction-- without misrepresenting PZ's position-- considering the definition PZ offered in his post:

But you know what post-modernism is, right? It’s a skeptical approach to literature, art, even science, that attempts to deconstruct the premises and presuppositions and cultural influences on a work.

Right. The very first place I heard of it was in English Literature. My feeling about it (PoMo) then, and now, is PoMo was just so much academic masturbation engaged by pretentious wankers because they had nothing new or insightful to offer beyond out-of-context and superficial analysis of stories and poems that have been analyzed for, sometimes, centuries. Stupidly I said something like that to my English Literature Professor very early in the course. Fortunately, he agreed with me. So there were no consequences to my grade. But if he'd have been one of the wankers, I'd have had to drop the course.

However, PoMo, like a metastasized tumor, it didn't stay there. It spread its rejection of facts, objectivity and reality to other disciplines. Disciplines that do not need it or welcome it. In fact, it went all through science and by the 1990s had caused no small amount of drama: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars . Myers is trying to sanitize PoMo (like he sanitizes the A+ movement) and revisit something that was rejected by the betters in his (former) field decades ago.

I also don't really get what PoMo is supposed to add. There is semiotics, linguistics, cognitive science and potentially more fields that all already go a step beyond “things are the way they are”. It is a trivial idea by now that we can't escape cognition or culture, and that it operates with symbols that are constructed in some way. And that they are not real in the same sense as “stuff out there” is real. For example, we have to agree on where a mountain begins, what counts as foothill and what counts as not-mountain, which at first goes against the old nonsense idea of Essentialism (the view that there is an “apple-nature”, “mountain-nature” of things). The world out there is a contininuum, and only our cognitive processes chops up what we see, hear, smell etc. into pieces and slaps labels on it.

The question then arises which parts are negiotiated culturally and which parts are hardwired, i.e. “nature” (evolutionary adaptions, and shared inter-subjectively). This too, is trivial in principle. Even that the concepts themselves are subject to the issue (this dichotomy may not the be the best way of chopping up things). Or other issues, like thinking in sequences and thinking of causes and effects, which are, like the mountain above also more fuzzy. I.e. there are no discting causes, and distinct effects, but sorta-causes and sorta-effects. But it is good enough that there is nothing in there that is reality-shattering.

We know from optical illusions to the study of cognitive conditions or disorders (e.g. Prosopagnosia joke a few pages prior) in princple how it works. We know that e.g. many different color systems existed through history and there are different harmonic systems, too, yet nothing in there is surprising or strange. Different cultures agree on different ways of chopping up things (e.g. sound pitches, color spectums etc.) though they don't literally live in a different world. If you showed some sub-saharan person snow from different days, in different states, were (allegedly) Inuits have different names, the African sure will see the differences, too, even though they live in a place where such fine disctions are not important and were one word (if at all) is simply enough to convey the idea of snow. It is also trivial that pink cowboy underwear doesn't mean that cowboys were girlish etc. that is, that our cultural ideas cannot be simply translated to mean the same thing in a different time. It is ALSO trivial that an author surrounded by other symbol systems might have alluded to different things than what we read into the text today. We know that lines in Shakespeare's work are sexual jokes we do not understand anymore today, but the audience at the time did. But once we learn them, we do get them in much the same way. It is also trivial that an author who e.g. survived holocaust might have a different perspective when she writes about a Robinson Crusoe story. It might mean different things, there might be some other connotations in wild animals, being trapped etc.I find nothing of it surprising or earth-shattering.

The bulk of things we recognize seems to be hardwired, which leads to the effect where the “world out there” sort of like “suggests” to name things in a particular kind of way. Two humans from different cultures and different places could come out of a jungle together and both minds will trace a mental line around the mountain-object that rises out of the jungle before them and prompts them to point at it, and name it in some way. And they can then agree on some label. Even if denotations and connotations shake things up a little, there seems no earth-reality shattering truth in there.

Even if you go all Quine and Wittgenstein (e.g. Gavagai, or beetle in the box etc), there is nothing that is reality-shattering strange (on facts etc). you may not know what another person exactly describes, but the intermediator is nature itself and provided enough opportunity will remove misunderstandings. It is not important how someone's stencil (mental representation) looks like, once it's held against nature it must be congruent to be “true”. If it doesn, it's wrong, which again is along a continuum. Also, trivial. It seems to be startling to some that a “fact” like the lenght of a coastline is wonkier than it seems at first. Since it's more a fractal, and if you measure every notch and the circumference of every corn of sand, you get a vastly different result as when you measure from pole to pole stuck in 5 meter distance along the beach. Yes, things are more fuzzy than many people commonly believe, but not in such a way that going crazy and all relativist is justified.

For some people the relative shakiness that is introduced through “sorta” operators and defintions (and continuums) seems to be enough to freak them out. It's like they felt secure in thinking that everything was crystal clear and once they hear about these things, they like to throw out the baby with the bathwater. So my take is that the foothill of the mountains might be fuzzy (using that as a representation of the ideas), you still have the huge mountain everyone sees in pretty much the same way, from Tasmania to Alaska, in biblical times or today.

//oops for the wall of text. :)

[Kareem]

http://i.imgur.com/V50YpIr.png

yep...

Hugo Schwyzer must be jealous.

[Aneris]

I call bullshit, the coloration of that board looks suspect, Standing on it to prove it's solid proves nothing (very short span with the feet near the supports) and the sound of the impact is "off". This reeks of a carnival stunt. [...] Oh, and if you watch closely when he slaps the nail the rest of the way through, the board flexes quite a bit. A sound, solid board that size and length wouldn't.

I don't get any of that. I think it's probably legit, but with at least pertinent qualifier. The board is probably a low density softwood, like poplar or similar. Sound seems about right for that, too (slightly hollow ring). I used to be able to drive a 3" awl into a pine floor right up to the hilt in one shot - visit a sail loft, it is a pretty common thing. Granted, the awl has a grippable hande and a narrow shaft compared to those nails, but with mitts like that guy has, I wouldn't bet him that he couldn't actually do that as demonstrated in the video.

He's really driving the nail through the board, but the board isn't nearly as tough as it's made out to be. Knocking on the board, standing on it and having several stout looking pieces of wood leaning against the wall in the background is all stagecraft. Mordacious points out that it looks like the board is framed with a hardwood strip around a soft center and I would agree.

I think that the forces at play, or required for this feat can be easily under- or over-estimated, since this trick is nothing everyone has experience with, that is, it might be less spectacular than it seems like. He may also holding a small metal plate in his hand, so that the force is distributed more evenly.

[mordacious1]

Your lizardly/dinosaurian privilege, that is. (What is your avatar anyway? I feel like I should recognize it, but I don't.)

It's the Gorn from the original Star Trek. The Pyt went through a Star Trek themed avatar thing for a while about a year ago...I'm just to lazy to change it. Also, I like Gorns.

(I was going to say it's Watson before make-up, but like I said, I like Gorns)

[mordacious1]

Too lazy, too lazy to put two zeroes on "to".

[JackRayner]

Since PoMo seems to be a popular topic around here lately...

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 0057db.png

Sauce

[Guest]

Since PoMo seems to be a popular topic around here lately...

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 0057db.png

Sauce

What if another woman disagrees with her?

[JAB]

What I didn't have time to finish before leaving for work this morning. Danged regretavirus.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... da09b2.jpg

Wow, from the back Laden looks like he has far more hair. At first I thought it was funny how low a score his sidekick gave him, but I guess she's still pretending.

[Kareem]

Since PoMo seems to be a popular topic around here lately...

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 0057db.png

Sauce

Skepticism!

[JackRayner]

Since PoMo seems to be a popular topic around here lately...

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 0057db.png

Sauce

What if another woman disagrees with her?

The Universe implodes, of course. :?

[Tribble]

Right. The very first place I heard of it was in English Literature. My feeling about it (PoMo) then, and now, is PoMo was just so much academic masturbation engaged by pretentious wankers because they had nothing new or insightful to offer beyond out-of-context and superficial analysis of stories and poems that have been analyzed for, sometimes, centuries. Stupidly I said something like that to my English Literature Professor very early in the course. Fortunately, he agreed with me. So there were no consequences to my grade. But if he'd have been one of the wankers, I'd have had to drop the course.

However, PoMo, like a metastasized tumor, it didn't stay there. It spread its rejection of facts, objectivity and reality to other disciplines. Disciplines that do not need it or welcome it. In fact, it went all through science and by the 1990s had caused no small amount of drama: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars . Myers is trying to sanitize PoMo (like he sanitizes the A+ movement) and revisit something that was rejected by the betters in his (former) field decades ago.

I also don't really get what PoMo is supposed to add. There is semiotics, linguistics, cognitive science and potentially more fields that all already go a step beyond “things are the way they are”. It is a trivial idea by now that we can't escape cognition or culture, and that it operates with symbols that are constructed in some way. And that they are not real in the same sense as “stuff out there” is real. For example, we have to agree on where a mountain begins, what counts as foothill and what counts as not-mountain, which at first goes against the old nonsense idea of Essentialism (the view that there is an “apple-nature”, “mountain-nature” of things). The world out there is a contininuum, and only our cognitive processes chops up what we see, hear, smell etc. into pieces and slaps labels on it.

My cynical self says 'employment.' Imagine, if you will, you've spent the first ten years of your adult life in college getting your PhD in English Literature and are specializing in 18th Century poetry. Barring a lucky find in some dusty library or attic that sheds new light on some work, like Salisbury Plain by Wordsworth, what are you going to add? People have been analyzing Wordsworth's romantic poetry for hundreds of years. New discoveries and, therefore articles, books and tenure, won't be easy to come by.

But, if you go PoMo. Then you can just make stuff up. And it doesn't really matter how outlandish (see the Sokal Hoax) it is, as long as it has the right buzzwords (Sokal Hoax again) the PoMos can't tell the real thing from a PoMo hoax.

The question then arises which parts are negiotiated culturally and which parts are hardwired, i.e. “nature” (evolutionary adaptions, and shared inter-subjectively). This too, is trivial in principle. Even that the concepts themselves are subject to the issue (this dichotomy may not the be the best way of chopping up things). Or other issues, like thinking in sequences and thinking of causes and effects, which are, like the mountain above also more fuzzy. I.e. there are no discting causes, and distinct effects, but sorta-causes and sorta-effects. But it is good enough that there is nothing in there that is reality-shattering.

We know from optical illusions to the study of cognitive conditions or disorders (e.g. Prosopagnosia joke a few pages prior) in princple how it works. We know that e.g. many different color systems existed through history and there are different harmonic systems, too, yet nothing in there is surprising or strange. Different cultures agree on different ways of chopping up things (e.g. sound pitches, color spectums etc.) though they don't literally live in a different world. If you showed some sub-saharan person snow from different days, in different states, were (allegedly) Inuits have different names, the African sure will see the differences, too, even though they live in a place where such fine disctions are not important and were one word (if at all) is simply enough to convey the idea of snow. It is also trivial that pink cowboy underwear doesn't mean that cowboys were girlish etc. that is, that our cultural ideas cannot be simply translated to mean the same thing in a different time. It is ALSO trivial that an author surrounded by other symbol systems might have alluded to different things than what we read into the text today. We know that lines in Shakespeare's work are sexual jokes we do not understand anymore today, but the audience at the time did. But once we learn them, we do get them in much the same way. It is also trivial that an author who e.g. survived holocaust might have a different perspective when she writes about a Robinson Crusoe story. It might mean different things, there might be some other connotations in wild animals, being trapped etc.I find nothing of it surprising or earth-shattering.

The bulk of things we recognize seems to be hardwired, which leads to the effect where the “world out there” sort of like “suggests” to name things in a particular kind of way. Two humans from different cultures and different places could come out of a jungle together and both minds will trace a mental line around the mountain-object that rises out of the jungle before them and prompts them to point at it, and name it in some way. And they can then agree on some label. Even if denotations and connotations shake things up a little, there seems no earth-reality shattering truth in there.

Even if you go all Quine and Wittgenstein (e.g. Gavagai, or beetle in the box etc), there is nothing that is reality-shattering strange (on facts etc). you may not know what another person exactly describes, but the intermediator is nature itself and provided enough opportunity will remove misunderstandings. It is not important how someone's stencil (mental representation) looks like, once it's held against nature it must be congruent to be “true”. If it doesn, it's wrong, which again is along a continuum. Also, trivial. It seems to be startling to some that a “fact” like the lenght of a coastline is wonkier than it seems at first. Since it's more a fractal, and if you measure every notch and the circumference of every corn of sand, you get a vastly different result as when you measure from pole to pole stuck in 5 meter distance along the beach. Yes, things are more fuzzy than many people commonly believe, but not in such a way that going crazy and all relativist is justified.

For some people the relative shakiness that is introduced through “sorta” operators and defintions (and continuums) seems to be enough to freak them out. It's like they felt secure in thinking that everything was crystal clear and once they hear about these things, they like to throw out the baby with the bathwater. So my take is that the foothill of the mountains might be fuzzy (using that as a representation of the ideas), you still have the huge mountain everyone sees in pretty much the same way, from Tasmania to Alaska, in biblical times or today.

//oops for the wall of text. :)

Well written and taken in for further reflection.

I especially liked the 'pitches' reference, btw. I had no idea until Music 351 that octave was a construction not a fact since it had been presented, to me, as a 'fact' that has been handed down from the times of Ancient Greece from early grade-school through early-college.

OTOH, once we got out of grade-school science we learned an electron is seriously complicated and the Bohr model had been superseded for (at the time) 60, maybe 70, years. But electrons are real. An octave isn't. And while you can PoMo music all you want, you're an idiot if you think you should be bringing it into science and act as if 'other ways of knowing' an electron are valid beyond scientific measurement and analysis.

[Gumby]

Your lizardly/dinosaurian privilege, that is. (What is your avatar anyway? I feel like I should recognize it, but I don't.)

It's the Gorn from the original Star Trek. The Pyt went through a Star Trek themed avatar thing for a while about a year ago...I'm just to lazy to change it. Also, I like Gorns.

(I was going to say it's Watson before make-up, but like I said, I like Gorns)

I really can see the resemblance.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 9751fb.jpg

[Gumby]

What I didn't have time to finish before leaving for work this morning. Danged regretavirus.

[.url=http://s225.photobucket.com/user/gumbyt ... 2.jpg.html][.img]http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... da09b2.jpg[/img][/url]

Wow, from the back Laden looks like he has far more hair. At first I thought it was funny how low a score his sidekick gave him, but I guess she's still pretending.

C'mon, man, get with it! Look at that huge ass. That's Ed Brayton! :lol:

[KenD]

What the actual fuck, Scotland?

Blurred Lines banned by Edinburgh University
Robin Thicke's hit song cannot be played at student events after it was ruled the track violates the university's policy against 'rape culture and lad banter'

Really, the Feminist Purity Police is roaming institutes of higher learning, turning them into safe space for fuckwits, and policing Lad Banter?

What the actual actualfuck is happening to Scotland?

This kind of bullshit is unfortunately common these days. I've seen quite a few student union killjoys try to shut down fun events that offend their sensibilities, or get things like lads' mags and pin-ups banned from student accommodation. Sexual harassment policy and scaremongering about rape culture, backed up by campus FemSocs, gives a small number of miserable cunts and arseholes the authority to force their puritan nonsense on the rest of the students.

I've seen the banning of all kinds of things presented as "rape prevention", and anyone who questions that is obviously a misogynist who doesn't care about the safety of women on campus. Why that doesn't conflict with the SJW idea that preventative measures against rape constitute rape apology I'm not entirely sure...

[DownThunder]

I especially liked the 'pitches' reference, btw. I had no idea until Music 351 that octave was a construction not a fact since it had been presented, to me, as a 'fact' that has been handed down from the times of Ancient Greece from early grade-school through early-college.

Well, this is an area of interest to me. Keep in mind these are my own observations as a musician and Im sure others have reached the same conclusion:

An octave is the simplest harmonic interval (halved or doubled) when two frequencies are not the same (ie, not two frequencies in a 1:1 unison)

The axiom derived from this relationship is that two notes are the same pitch name if they have this relationship. All new pitch names will fit in the frequencies between these octave boundaries.

I have not found a tuning system which does not correspond to this octave rule.

For example if you take a modern 12 tone equal tempered scale which is constructed using the formula:

Freq = Fundamental X 2^(steps / 12) you will always have a note corresponding to each doubling or halving of a note.

You could have a series of notes spread over 2 octaves if the number of notes is odd, where there is no note corresponding to 2x the fundamental frequency eg:

Freq = Fundamental X 4^(steps / 23) in this equation your "octave" would be a 4th harmonic base.

Keep in mind all the frequencies plus an extra note in between each could be made by dividing a regular octave by 23, essentially doubling the resolution of notes.


While there may be these mathematical exercises in use by people like me, I have not found any traditional low-order-harmonic based tuning systems that do base their note series around the octave rule. Humans from all culture independently developed simple harmonic relationships in their music, particularly 3rd and 5th harmonics beyond the 2nd harmonic.

This leads me to think that there are psychoacoustics at work here. When you look at the relationships of these sine waves, it it easy to see how the brain could seek aural comfort through harmonic simplicity.

[Dornier Pfeil]

BTW, Sally Strange showed up to respond to one of my analogies. Did you know that having your ass grabbed and being brutally raped are pretty much equivalent for the two victims? I learn something new every day.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundatio ... erstanding

If there's no hierarchy of trauma, are male and female circumcision equivalent? :popcorn:

There hasn't ever been a justice system on earth which measured harm solely by the victim's subjectively experienced distress. Which planet are these feminists from?

Feministra?

[Dornier Pfeil]

In the oppression olympics everybody is a winner.

In the oppression olympics everybody is a winner and a whiner at the same time. :dance:

[Dornier Pfeil]

I should go to bed soon, I'm spelling cable, c-a-b-a-l. Sheesh.

The funny thing is, it works both ways.

Now, this one is a headscratcher:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcry7 ... o1_500.png

Actually this one makes sense from the radfem's perspective. Since they claim the patriarchy isn't just bad for women, it is also bad for non-dominant men too, when radfems rule the world then supposedly liberal arts dweebs can like poetry without being persecuted by the dominant patriarchal class.



PS apologies for the multi-posting.

[mordacious1]

GUMBY

I hope you don't mind....

[Guest]

Weird. I just listened to today's SGU podcast, and Rebecca Watson pretty much just gushed about how great DragonCon was. Not a word, not even an innuendo that there was anything sour about the experience. Hmmm.

then she must also be ignoring this in the comments? http://skepchick.org/2013/09/this-vs-that-vs-ladies/

Rebecca Watson September 11, 2013, 8:08 pm
Here’s my guess: Once a woman gets to a position of high regard (no matter the field) — then, once she becomes an active media personality — she is suddenly no longer judged by the quality of her intellect, rather, she is judged on her looks, her sex appeal,
How does it feel to contribute directly to that problem by marketing a product using women as sexual objects? On Twitter I saw you responded to someone who suggested “the guy in the middle” should be the one to explode. You said you’d prefer not because you’re the guy. You were literally using women as props in a way that you explicitly do not want to be used. You are part of the problem, and it’s not cherry picking to point it out. Cherry picking is what would be needed to show any kind of diversity in your marketing, since I saw one presumably expert, fully dressed woman in all the clips I saw.

thisvsthatshow September 11, 2013, 10:07 pm
Rebecca –

The minute you watch any of the shows… the minute you go to: youtube.com/thisvsthatshow and watch the totality of the material we have released for promotional purposes, I will be HAPPY to continue this conversation. I can’t if you’re only willing to look at a single frame of video, and not the entire movie. Best Regards, Jon. PS. You know I’m the guy you kicked off the panel Friday night at DragonCon, right? The guy who was invited to the panel, right? The guy who planned his day around appearing on the 10pm panel, right? The guy who flew out – on his own dime — who appeared for free. You remember, right?

You had Derrick tell me there was no room at the last minute — even after you introduced yourself to me. I admired that you lacked the conviction to tell me yourself. Very classy.

Oh, and on Saturday night I was eating alone at the bar in the Hilton Hotel, you and two friends sat down at my table…actually — you sat, your friends stood — and you proceeded to wine to them for about 40 minutes about how you were mistreated by the staff of DragonCon as it related to your SkepChick’s table… I sat their quietly eating my dinner — expecting that at some point soon you would apologize for being so rude — however, you babbled on and on about how you were mistreated. Singled out. Spoken to harshly. Needless to say, my quite dinner at the end of a long day was ruined. Thanks.

Rebecca Watson September 12, 2013, 11:27 am
Derek spoke to you about there not being room on the panel because he’s the one who added you to it. Though it wasn’t my doing, I still felt bad about it until this week when I realized you’re responsible for the horrifically sexist show using booth babes.

As for the Hilton bar, I assume you must mean Sunday night, not Saturday. Sorry I ruined your dinner by talking to my friends.

Also, please don’t pretend that you flew out for free to appear on my quiz show. You did it to promote your TV show, FFS.

thisvsthatshow September 12, 2013, 11:58 am
Rebecca

You clearly didn’t get that I was using the complaints YOU made as it pertains to your Dragoncon appearance. You remember what you wrote on your own blog, right? You referred to it as “Tablegate.” It’s also what you said while you whined to your friends while rudely interrupting my dinner, right? You clearly don’t go to DragonCon to appear on a panel, but rather to keep this venture of yours profitable. And nothing wrong with that, btw. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, is unflattering.

Also, you’re a smart person, you know I didn’t mean that I came just for that panel… I was referring to the event. And as for the machinations of your 10pm program, I’m not privy to that. All I know was that I was invited. And was pleased to be there. I have no idea who organizes what.

What I do know now, however, is that you ran that event, and had Derrick tell me to go away… which I thought was classy. And, that you didn’t ruin my dinner, as you say, by “talking to your friends.” What you did was sit at my table — three feet from my shrimp and grits… talk very loudly for 40 minutes… there was some tears… and lots of whining… and you lacked any courtesy to say anything like “Hello. ” Or, “I hope we’re not disturbing you.” Or, “Hey, do you mind if I take this chair?” We have met one time, it was for about 15 seconds on that Friday night. Until then, I had never heard of you. No big deal, there’s lots of people I don’t know.

HOWEVER — in the interim, I’ve read a bit about you — since you decided to write your post about me and my show — and it seems that what you like to do is create drama. There’s “Tablegate,” “Elevatorgate” and many others. I know what your game is — to stir the pot — keep people writing on the blog, keep the ad money rolling in — keep the appearance fees rolling in — And I fell into your trap. Bravo. Seriously, for that you are owed props. However, these petty feuds you stir, these “incidents” you raise indignation about aren’t doing a lick of good to promote what ever your thoughtful cause may be.

Why? You are polarizing. You are manipulative. And you are unable to see, at least in this instance, how your actions are construed by the people you bump into during the tsunami you create. When I bump into someone, I say “Im sorry.” When I step on someone’s foot, I check to see if they are hurt. I was sitting quietly having dinner, and then I was thrust into becoming a front row spectator at your Show. You were sitting not more than 3 feet from me. It was not how civilized people of thoughtful discourse conduct themselves in public.

When you drop your guard, when you sit quietly and reflect, you will see that you behaved badly by tossing me from the panel without an apology or even the courtesy to tell me yourself — it was your event, as you say…. And you behaved badly at that dinner table. You know that. I am owed a sincere apology absent of subtext.

This will be my final posting on your blog…. I have unsubscribed from your site’s email. If you want to discuss any of this further, or offer up your apologies, you can do it in private.
Here is my email: Jon@JonHotchkiss.com. Best regards, Jon

[ianfc]

Whoops. Forgot to add the link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... xe-really/

In other news, WOO! Go Abbie! (Seriously, who is this Nobel laureate though?)

Regarding Nobel laureates, I had a look at the list for Physiology and Medicine laureates maybe 2008.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... laureates/

[free thoughtpolice]

[/quote]

Oh, and if you watch closely when he slaps the nail the rest of the way through, the board flexes quite a bit. A sound, solid board that size and length wouldn't.[/quote]

I don't get any of that. I think it's probably legit, but with at least pertinent qualifier. The board is probably a low density softwood, like poplar or similar. Sound seems about right for that, too (slightly hollow ring). I used to be able to drive a 3" awl into a pine floor right up to the hilt in one shot - visit a sail loft, it is a pretty common thing. Granted, the awl has a grippable hande and a narrow shaft compared to those nails, but with mitts like that guy has, I wouldn't bet him that he couldn't actually do that as demonstrated in the video.[/quote]

And he has drilled pilot holes. You can see him targeting points.

[bovarchist]

[youtube]mu0mNepevv8[/youtube]

Bar.
Raised.
Mother.
Fuckers.

I call bullshit, the coloration of that board looks suspect, Standing on it to prove it's solid proves nothing (very short span with the feet near the supports) and the sound of the impact is "off". This reeks of a carnival stunt.

I disagree. The nails seem to have unusually large heads, which would spread the impact on the hands out quite a bit. I think it's more of a sciencey trick that takes advantage of physics, like fire-walking.

[Linus]

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 7a163f.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 2350e2.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... f74e2f.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 6bdcf7.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... c1dc01.jpg

[guesting]

Derek Colanduno responded to accusations too.

the skepchicks knew they were breaking the rules for many years, they just bully Derek because they can and because Swoopy won't stand up to them? He (allegedly) still has issues resulting from his stroke and his memory isn't too good anymore

http://www.anonmgur.com/up/90c5812e02e3 ... a92e22.png

[Some Lurker]

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 7a163f.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 2350e2.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... f74e2f.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 6bdcf7.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... c1dc01.jpg

[youtube]nMHsEtImvJ4[/youtube]

[welch]

I don't get any of that. I think it's probably legit, but with at least pertinent qualifier. The board is probably a low density softwood, like poplar or similar. Sound seems about right for that, too (slightly hollow ring). I used to be able to drive a 3" awl into a pine floor right up to the hilt in one shot - visit a sail loft, it is a pretty common thing. Granted, the awl has a grippable hande and a narrow shaft compared to those nails, but with mitts like that guy has, I wouldn't bet him that he couldn't actually do that as demonstrated in the video.

He's really driving the nail through the board, but the board isn't nearly as tough as it's made out to be. Knocking on the board, standing on it and having several stout looking pieces of wood leaning against the wall in the background is all stagecraft. Mordacious points out that it looks like the board is framed with a hardwood strip around a soft center and I would agree.

I think that the forces at play, or required for this feat can be easily under- or over-estimated, since this trick is nothing everyone has experience with, that is, it might be less spectacular than it seems like. He may also holding a small metal plate in his hand, so that the force is distributed more evenly.

There's a lot of variance here. Given the entire vid, I doubt he's holding a plate.

The wood could be soft, and I don't think that takes anything away from anything. The fact that martial arts demos involve dry-ass pine boards, not green oak don't take anything away from them. As someone who's broken such things, along with bottles with my hands, even a demo that looks "easy", isn't. If he gets the nail tilted, it won't work real well, and even "soft" wood isn't that soft.

The real trick here is the velocity. It's like cutting a small branch with a ruler. If it's moving fast enough, it's definitely doable.

I think arguing about the wood type misses the point. Even doing it through half-inch balsa isn't as easy as he makes it look.

[welch]

Since PoMo seems to be a popular topic around here lately...

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 0057db.png

Sauce

I completely support that theory. Because the next time a guy calls something misandrist and a woman gives him any guff, he can point at that tweet and say "SHUT UP AND LISTEN! Being a man and all, yeah, *I* get to decide misandry"

[free thoughtpolice]

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 7a163f.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 2350e2.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... f74e2f.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... 6bdcf7.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i34 ... c1dc01.jpg

[youtube]nMHsEtImvJ4[/youtube]

It was only a matter of time before quantum feminism would raise it's ugly head!

[decius]

[
To the best of my knowledge this kind of thing is all over the place. I would say it is a rare Uni that does not have a SJWs infestation of some sort. There have been articles and at least one book on the subject.



YMMV

Thanks Andrew, very interesting stuff.

[guesting]

She's edited her post and of course she just places the blame on Derek for giving her the wrong name, no apology whatsoever for slagging him off, which naturally included dredging up something from years ago as some sort of corroboration. Getting very fed up of this character. What I find most sickening is the talk earlier in this thread of how she's been "near to making Skepchick a charity" for like 6-7 years now?!? Honestly, if you keep claiming that you're on the cusp of being a charity, without actually taking proper steps to become one, that is, at best, extremely dubious behavior.
.

skepchick did say they were a charity once?

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=351&start=6375

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-65488.html

http://www.anonmgur.com/up/cb1c7bae3ace ... fd84e6.png

not listed at iRS
http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/pub78Search ... ame=Search

Rebecca Watson:
"I asked many of them to write me an essay on how they benefited from the scholarship they got, and I don’t recall ever actually getting one. There were so many better ways to spend that much money and benefit women, but I didn’t have the time to run a large nonprofit scholarship program that actually had solid goals, accountability, and reports on how the money was actually helping anything."


She has fundraised to go to DragonCon before
http://faevoterra.blogspot.com.au/2010/ ... ow-on.html

this looks like Kitty Mervine comment
http://www.anonmgur.com/up/7c58a21fc4d0 ... 078e8b.png

[lurk]

this looks like Kitty Mervine comment
http://www.anonmgur.com/up/7c58a21fc4d0 ... 078e8b.png

source http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com.au/201 ... 8205884965

[Tapir]

http://i.imgur.com/R54WHPO.jpg

Phwoar!

[TheMudbrooker]

I don't get any of that. I think it's probably legit, but with at least pertinent qualifier. The board is probably a low density softwood, like poplar or similar. Sound seems about right for that, too (slightly hollow ring). I used to be able to drive a 3" awl into a pine floor right up to the hilt in one shot - visit a sail loft, it is a pretty common thing. Granted, the awl has a grippable hande and a narrow shaft compared to those nails, but with mitts like that guy has, I wouldn't bet him that he couldn't actually do that as demonstrated in the video.

He's really driving the nail through the board, but the board isn't nearly as tough as it's made out to be. Knocking on the board, standing on it and having several stout looking pieces of wood leaning against the wall in the background is all stagecraft. Mordacious points out that it looks like the board is framed with a hardwood strip around a soft center and I would agree.

There's a lot of variance here. Given the entire vid, I doubt he's holding a plate.

The wood could be soft, and I don't think that takes anything away from anything. The fact that martial arts demos involve dry-ass pine boards, not green oak don't take anything away from them. As someone who's broken such things, along with bottles with my hands, even a demo that looks "easy", isn't. If he gets the nail tilted, it won't work real well, and even "soft" wood isn't that soft.

The real trick here is the velocity. It's like cutting a small branch with a ruler. If it's moving fast enough, it's definitely doable.

I think arguing about the wood type misses the point. Even doing it through half-inch balsa isn't as easy as he makes it look.

So now the IT guy is going to instruct a construction worker on the nature of wood? As someone who has broken things as a career, not merely as a demo, I'm saying it is that easy. What you're seeing in that video is a carnie trick. Nothing more. End of. Period. Within four weeks, I'm ass deep in canning and winterizing right now, I will produce a video replicating that trick.

[Linus]

It was only a matter of time before quantum feminism would raise it's ugly head!

Time Cube is the only logical next step after embracing post-modernism.

[Service Dog]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/9d700bf6925e ... o1_500.jpg

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

[Bill the Cat]

<snip>
:D Awesome – congrats.
>snip<
Hey! I’ll have you know that I have a favorite tie with multiple imprints of that same MK-VIIa Framis on it! Awesome piece of hardware – developed by Hedley Lamarr, the basis for modern spread-spectrum communications technologies! ;-)


:lol: Working on an epistle at the moment, even as we speak ... ;-)

[youtube]SoM-ZC7uNnc[/youtube]

Shocked no one else got the joke.

[Verklagekasper]

http://www.verklagekasper.de/stuff/feminism2.jpg

[welch]

He's really driving the nail through the board, but the board isn't nearly as tough as it's made out to be. Knocking on the board, standing on it and having several stout looking pieces of wood leaning against the wall in the background is all stagecraft. Mordacious points out that it looks like the board is framed with a hardwood strip around a soft center and I would agree.

There's a lot of variance here. Given the entire vid, I doubt he's holding a plate.

The wood could be soft, and I don't think that takes anything away from anything. The fact that martial arts demos involve dry-ass pine boards, not green oak don't take anything away from them. As someone who's broken such things, along with bottles with my hands, even a demo that looks "easy", isn't. If he gets the nail tilted, it won't work real well, and even "soft" wood isn't that soft.

The real trick here is the velocity. It's like cutting a small branch with a ruler. If it's moving fast enough, it's definitely doable.

I think arguing about the wood type misses the point. Even doing it through half-inch balsa isn't as easy as he makes it look.

So now the IT guy is going to instruct a construction worker on the nature of wood? As someone who has broken things as a career, not merely as a demo, I'm saying it is that easy. What you're seeing in that video is a carnie trick. Nothing more. End of. Period. Within four weeks, I'm ass deep in canning and winterizing right now, I will produce a video replicating that trick.

As someone who has himself done similar, only bare-handed (and bare-footed), and taught others how to, if you think it's that easy that any fool can do it, by all means, make the vid.

It's not impossible by any means, just trickier than one might think.

[TheMudbrooker]

There's a lot of variance here. Given the entire vid, I doubt he's holding a plate.

The wood could be soft, and I don't think that takes anything away from anything. The fact that martial arts demos involve dry-ass pine boards, not green oak don't take anything away from them. As someone who's broken such things, along with bottles with my hands, even a demo that looks "easy", isn't. If he gets the nail tilted, it won't work real well, and even "soft" wood isn't that soft.

The real trick here is the velocity. It's like cutting a small branch with a ruler. If it's moving fast enough, it's definitely doable.

I think arguing about the wood type misses the point. Even doing it through half-inch balsa isn't as easy as he makes it look.

So now the IT guy is going to instruct a construction worker on the nature of wood? As someone who has broken things as a career, not merely as a demo, I'm saying it is that easy. What you're seeing in that video is a carnie trick. Nothing more. End of. Period. Within four weeks, I'm ass deep in canning and winterizing right now, I will produce a video replicating that trick.

As someone who has himself done similar, only bare-handed (and bare-footed), and taught others how to, if you think it's that easy that any fool can do it, by all means, make the vid.

It's not impossible by any means, just trickier than one might think.

You really don't grasp the concept of a carnie trick, do you? This has as much to do with martial arts as a magician sawing his assistant in half has to do with surgery.

[Steersman]

<snip>
:D Awesome – congrats.
>snip<
Hey! I’ll have you know that I have a favorite tie with multiple imprints of that same MK-VIIa Framis on it! Awesome piece of hardware – developed by Hedley Lamarr, the basis for modern spread-spectrum communications technologies! ;-)


:lol: Working on an epistle at the moment, even as we speak ... ;-)

[.youtube]SoM-ZC7uNnc[/youtube]

Shocked no one else got the joke.

:lol: I thought it was a fairly well-known movie that everyone would have remembered - but maybe not.

Glad someone did though. :-)

[Early Cuyler]

I have a suspicion that if the Pit closed down then the FTB would die shortly afterwards. ...

...They need us to survive but they hate us for it.

Actually the 180 deg opposite is true.

Staring into the abyss for too long??

[James Caruthers]

I do wonder if the Skepchicks are paying all their taxes. It's just, I know people with entitlement victim complexes, and those sorts of individuals usually feel exceptions should be made for them. If they're not paying their taxes, they run the risk of pulling a Kent Hovind.

http://nonprofit.about.com/od/qathebasi ... xexemp.htm
http://nonprofit.about.com/od/faqstheba ... iation.htm

Members of an unincorporated nonprofit association may be exposed to personal liability for the obligations of the association if state laws do not explicitly provide for limited liability (e.g., California provides for limited liability with respect to members of an unincorporated nonprofit association).

Regardless, the law is still less certain regarding personal liability as compared to corporations. Therefore, an unincorporated association may not be ideal if the group's activities create heightened concerns about contract or tort liability (two common areas where liability issues arise), or if potential members, board members, and supporters would be deterred by such concerns.

Generally, an unincorporated association can operate as a tax-exempt nonprofit as long as the purpose of its activity is of public benefit, and annual revenues are less than $5,000. It can even provide contributors with a tax deduction for their donations.

I don't know why in hell they're so lazy about this, just fucking apply. I'm damn sure they clear $5,000 annually, if multiple women are making a living off of Skepchick. So again, they better be paying those taxes. Supporting RW's binge drinking habit is not "of public benefit."

[JackRayner]

[.img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/9d700bf6925e ... o1_500.jpg[/img]

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

Finally registered, huh? That's a pretty cool avatar. :)

Now FUCK OFF!