Periodic Table of Swearing

[CommanderTuvok]

It's always amusing to see PZ and Ophelia rattled.

[CommanderTuvok]

Mykeru and Reap, tonnes of lulz out of the podcast, thank you.

Linky?

[decius]

Here you go.

http://www.reapsowradio.com/?p=31236

[Altair]

Re: PZ's latest post on abortion:

I'm genuinely interested, does anyone know what the A+ or FtB position is on post-viability abortion? I would ask in the comments section over there, though I imagine I'd just be shouted down as a misogynist for wanting to take away the rights of women to decide. Personally, I'm unashamed of my position on the issue and at that stage I do see the 'rights' of the viable foetus as entering the equation and in some (even many) cases, overriding the rights of the woman.

That's just another unfortunate result of their ever being tenets of an atheist group. I am quite convinced that God is non-existent, but I don't feel that the "socially just" position which results from that has to be one way or the other.

I don't know if they have an official position, the best I could find was the position of one of the forum members called ImaginationTheory. At least one of the persons there seemed not to agree, so apparently they're allowing some dissent now and then.

Britain - jailed for 4 years (abortion)





They also have an interesting thread on a man's right to abdicate parental responsibility. They also have dissenting opinions, maybe some of the members are getting tired of it being an echo chamber ?

[justinvacula]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... at-you-do/

So if you’re one of the people who are actively involved in the day-to-day operation of our movements–you run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design, and all the other things that keep us functioning–you’re doing work that desperately needs to be done. Moreover, you’re doing work that I can’t do. I don’t have your skills, or I don’t have the time your projects require, or I don’t have the temperament that would allow me to keep at your work over the long haul.

Unless, of course, you are one of these activists and we happen to start a character assassination campaign against you and villify the organization which enlisted you.

[Outwest]

I couldn't believe all the crap Dawkins took for making a very reasonable point. Rebecca, was propositioned (according to her anyway), in an elevator in Dublin. She said no. Nothing happened after that.

All Dawkins did was say that this is nothing compared to what women, Muslim women in particular have to deal with every day of their lives. He's excoriated.

I wonder if he has anything to do with the FfTB'ers anymore? I know at one time PZ made a big deal about he and Dawkins being friends (friendly?). Of course now I know it was just to push up his page views.

[d4m10n]

Dawkins also said it was “zero bad” which isn't nearly the same as saying it pales in comparison to third world problems. Almost everything we deal with pales in comparison to third world problems, so that's not a helpful metric.

[Outwest]

Dawkins also said it was “zero bad” which isn't nearly the same as saying it pales in comparison to third world problems. Almost everything we deal with pales in comparison to third world problems, so that's not a helpful metric.

The point being, he eas vilified online for saying something that everyone there should by default have known: nothing happened here. Move on. Quit making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.

[Guest]

I wonder if he has anything to do with the FfTB'ers anymore? I know at one time PZ made a big deal about he and Dawkins being friends (friendly?). Of course now I know it was just to push up his page views.

After Atheism Plus came about Dawkins tweeted that we should "boycott blog networks that foment drama for page views" - something along those lines. He also retweeted Lucy Wainwright a few times, leading to the accusation he was engaging in "passive aggression" - although I don't see what's "passive" about it. I think it's pretty clear how he feels about FtB these days.

[franc]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=labelist

Labelist

An asshole who continuously labels people, regardless of if they actually are that label or not.

[d4m10n]

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

[Outwest]

I wonder if he has anything to do with the FfTB'ers anymore? I know at one time PZ made a big deal about he and Dawkins being friends (friendly?). Of course now I know it was just to push up his page views.

After Atheism Plus came about Dawkins tweeted that we should "boycott blog networks that foment drama for page views" - something along those lines. He also retweeted Lucy Wainwright a few times, leading to the accusation he was engaging in "passive aggression" - although I don't see what's "passive" about it. I think it's pretty clear how he feels about FtB these days.

I havent been on twitter until very recently so I missed that info. I looked at his site to determine if he had written anything about all of this and was unable, at first glance, to find anything.

[decius]

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

[Outwest]

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Precisely none. The "drama" was coming from FftB/Skepchick about poor Becky having to endure 8 seconds in an elevator at 4 a.m.

[decius]

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Precisely none. The "drama" was coming from FftB/Skepchick about poor Becky having to endure 8 seconds in an elevator at 4 a.m.

That's my view as well. I would like him to justify his statement, in case I missed something.

[Guest]

Re: PZ's latest post on abortion:

I'm genuinely interested, does anyone know what the A+ or FtB position is on post-viability abortion? I would ask in the comments section over there, though I imagine I'd just be shouted down as a misogynist for wanting to take away the rights of women to decide. Personally, I'm unashamed of my position on the issue and at that stage I do see the 'rights' of the viable foetus as entering the equation and in some (even many) cases, overriding the rights of the woman.

That's just another unfortunate result of their ever being tenets of an atheist group. I am quite convinced that God is non-existent, but I don't feel that the "socially just" position which results from that has to be one way or the other.

I don't know if they have an official position, the best I could find was the position of one of the forum members called ImaginationTheory. At least one of the persons there seemed not to agree, so apparently they're allowing some dissent now and then.

Britain - jailed for 4 years (abortion)





They also have an interesting thread on a man's right to abdicate parental responsibility. They also have dissenting opinions, maybe some of the members are getting tired of it being an echo chamber ?

Just read that thread you linked. Have to say, what some of these people are advocating is just horrific. There's at least one guy there saying abortion should be allowed up to full term as the woman's bodily autonomy outweighs the rights of the child. That's FULL TERM - right up to due date. Can they actually imagine what that would entail? Dashing a full term baby's brains out? I'd like to see any of them face up to something like that in real life. I'm no religious moralist but I have no problem calling this murder. If they're trying to give the anti abortion crowd ammunition they're going the right way about it.

[Al Stefanelli]

So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

[real horrorshow]

I don't know if they have an official position, the best I could find was the position of one of the forum members called ImaginationTheory. At least one of the persons there seemed not to agree, so apparently they're allowing some dissent now and then.

Britain - jailed for 4 years (abortion)

They also have an interesting thread on a man's right to abdicate parental responsibility. They also have dissenting opinions, maybe some of the members are getting tired of it being an echo chamber ?

The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.

Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.

The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

And you did well to do so. WTF happened to the US since I last was there?!? (1996)

[CommanderTuvok]

There was also Dawkins defence of Paula Kirby. Dawkins is obviously too busy and too important to care about FfTB, and sees them as a minor irritation. He recognises that the Baboons are not representative of the Atheism/Skeptic movement, and not even representatitive of humanism or feminism, either. Because of that, he can merrilly ignore and occasionally pwn them in a subtle tweet.

I remember Stefunny suggesting "the pushback was getting him down", gleefully referring to the Baboon's constant badgering of Dawkins, but I reckon Dawkins could not care less, and judging by the amount of whaling and gnashing of teeth over at FfTB and Skepchick, it is they who are "getting down from the pushback".

The difference is, pushback towards the Baboons is considered "misogyny", "hatred of women", "cyberstalking", etc. Pushback towards Dawkins is considered fair game.

[AndrewV69]

LeftSidePositive in usual form:

[img

"a forum that is frothing with rape and death threats"

"Posting someone's HOME ADDRESS [...] a misogynist action"

More lies about AVFM being a hate site...

tweeting = misogynist action

Thats pretty good actually. Must be pretty disapointing for people who actually check themselves though.

[Outwest]

I believe that Dawkins, in general, is too busy to worry about these gnats that buzz about to the annoyance of everyone. And that's all they really are, gnats.

None of the people we've been discussing has done a thing, from what I can tell, to advance secularism or atheism. All they do is sit behind their screens (hmmmm... ), and criticize those, like Justin Vacula, that are actually involved in activism.

[AndrewV69]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

[Jonathan]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

[Tony Parsehole]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

Although I'd like to see the back story on this it doesn't matter if there have been 600 rapes on Campus and the guy fits the description of the prime suspect. It doesn't matter because the woman in the report IS NOT A VICTIM. Asking somebody "do I know you?" IS NOT ASSAULT.

I don't care if the guy is seven feet tall with a scarred face, tattoos on his forehead and a voice like a cave troll. I don't care if the woman in question literally shit herself in terror at the man's appearance, asking a question is not assault and the woman is not a victim of assault simply because "she felt threatened".

Where did you find that BTW?

[Dick Strawkins]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

Guys. Don't do that!

On a serious note, it sounds a bit creepy to me, especially the fact that there seems to be more than one incident.
I wouldn't describe it as assault but it is certainly bordering on harrassment or threatening behavior and is likely to make people wary of being alone in those places.

[acathode]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Steers, oh my Steers:

I haven't heard from you about my answer to your query WRT "nigger" vs "cunt". viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=23965&hilit=nigger#p23965

This isn't baiting or anything, I'd just like to have your opinion on my train of thought. Checking myself, sort of...

[Scented Nectar]

Just another anagram, folks. Nothing to see here. I was bored this morning. Move along. But if you do watch it, it's nicer at full screen and high resolution.

[Jonathan]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

[Tony Parsehole]

Just another anagram, folks. Nothing to see here. I was bored this morning. Move along. But if you do watch it, it's nicer at full screen and high resolution.

I bet you kick arse in Scrabble!

[AnimalAndy]

Anything missing?

[Tony Parsehole]

You missed "posted something at the SlymePit" but it's hilarious all the same! Well done! Now we can have our own argumentum ad bingo fallacies!

[Jonathan]

Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

[Jonathan]

Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult.

[Tony Parsehole]

Here's mine:

[Tony Parsehole]

Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult.

I've said it many times. How the fuck can a sceptic dislike people asking questions????

[papillon]

Anything missing?

I like it!
I was going to suggest 'splaining and other variants, but there's just so many, you'd need a separate card.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Can someone explain what the JAQ in "JAQing off" refers to?

"Just Asking Questions"

HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult.

Yup. To be fair, there might be a pattern in certain internet trolls "just asking questions". But I have to wonder what is the best response:

-Telling them they're "JAQing off", thus feeding the troll.

-Answering the bloody questions, thus maybe feeding the troll, but also most probably informing the onlookers as to what one's view is.

Guess what they prefer...

[Lsuoma]

So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

Via Coyne:

[AnimalAndy]

Here's mine:

So close!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Here's mine:

So close!

It's gonna be a few days before we can have a bingo. "Soft Trolling" is pretty new and needs to get its stride.

[mikelf unplugged]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

Battery requires contact. Assault can best be described as an attempt to commit battery.

[Outwest]

I will just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/I3aQs.png

Problem?

That's an interesting one. On the one hand the claim of third degree assault seems spurious at best, but on the other there is reference to a "first victim." It could be that something happened in that incident that was more serious. Do you have any detail about that?

This might be the previous incident? This seem to be the original, considering they are from the same date and seem to describe the same person. It seems the incidents lead to an arrest:
Clery report + Columbia Tribune article

Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

Battery requires contact. Assault can best be described as an attempt to commit battery.

Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

[Lsuoma]

Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Like the sort of threats that Grag Laden makes?

[Scented Nectar]

Just another anagram, folks. Nothing to see here. I was bored this morning. Move along. But if you do watch it, it's nicer at full screen and high resolution.

I bet you kick arse in Scrabble!

I use an anagram program to find these, but with Scrabble, I once read a book with some tips in it, and that made me win by miles, but then no one wanted to play it with me anymore.

[acathode]

Hmm. The circumstances of the first incident get me suspicious, possible that he was trying to repeat it somehow the second time. Still baffled as to how the second time constituted third degree assault when there was no contact.

Well, it's not like he's actually convicted, or even charged of third degree assault for either of the incidents yet? At this stage it seems it's just the police who've slapped some labels on the cases, I'm guessing it's then up to persecutor to make a judgment on what to actually charge him for? Very likely, the second case will not be deemed as any sort of assault, since he didn't even make any sort of threat, and thus be dropped, but what happened will still be used as evidence in the first case. Or at least that's what would happen in a sane world...
Not an expert on USA police-work and legal system, but I'd imagine the process would be something like that.

HA! Sceptics who turn the idea of asking questions into an insult.

That's why they are "skeptics" (or septics (tanks) if you want), and not skeptics.

It's kinda sad to watch, so much of the shit they pull is the very anti-thesis of skepticism and free though, and yet there's so many gullible fools in this so-called skeptic movement who gratefully gobble up the bullshit FTB/SC is peddling, and then, when PZ is done taking a dump in their mouths, they lick it up and waddle over to Ophelia or Steffuny and asks for seconds. I guess it's to much to ask for, that people running around on skeptics conferences and otherwise involved with the A/S community would actually be capable of skepticism... but I guess they were just there for the booze and getting fake fellatio by the Skeptichicks?

[Outwest]

Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Like the sort of threats that Grag Laden makes?

Absolutely! Usually, though, the threat has to be made in person. Some states/countries may have the law written to include online threats as well. It seems to me, anecdotally, that I read/hear about those changes due to the internet age.

[acathode]

Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Yes, but he didn't threat the women, just asked her if they knew each other, so I'd say it's extremely unlikely that incident will be considered assault. Granted, it's not like the legal system hasn't provided me with plenty of WTF-moments, so I could be proven wrong...

[Altair]

The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.

Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.

The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.

I agree, it's a hard line to draw, even though I consider myself pro-choice I would'nt think putting the desires of the mother above the fetus' at all times is the right way to go.

I would personally draw the line at the ability to survive outside of the womb, even if the pregnancy could continue after that (I think 6 months tends to be the viability limit?). At that point, I would find an abortion only defensible in cases of grave malformations or risk to the mother.

Imagination Theory's point seems to me to stem more from a desire to keep women from being "controlled" or held responsible rather than a serious consideration of the topic of abortion, though.

[Outwest]

Atually "simple assault" can just be a threat, as in "I'm gonna beat you to a pulp".

Yes, but he didn't threat the women, just asked her if they knew each other, so I'd say it's extremely unlikely that incident will be considered assault. Granted, it's not like the legal system hasn't provided me with plenty of WTF-moments, so I could be proven wrong...

It was an "Assualt 3" complaint. Correct? Depends on how the the statute is written. Sometimes, they are written to encompass a lot of things.

[ReneeHendricks]

The Guardian article is a typical load of Grauniad bollocks, in that it sets out to defend the indefensible. Yes, there's a problem with our (UK) legal system sending people to jail in circumstances which offers only harm to the criminal and no benefit to society. Sarah Catt however, makes a lousy example. She is a stupid selfish person who got into a mess that could have been resolved in several ways at various stages, but who chose to commit an especially vile and stupid act instead. If prison is going to be used at all, Catt strikes me as a legitimate candidate for it.

Imagination Theory, over on A+ is also making a potentially valid point - women should have control over their bodies - but again, Catt makes a lousy example. If bodily autonomy is going to be taken so far that her case is acceptable, then there can be no restrictions on abortion at all.

The line is horribly hard to draw, as we all know. There are the Fundies arguing that 'once spermatozoon meets ovum, that's a person' at one extreme and Catt's (probable) infanticide at the other. I think most people would argue that the line is somewhere between these extremities. I certainly don't find either one to be reasonable.

I agree, it's a hard line to draw, even though I consider myself pro-choice I would'nt think putting the desires of the mother above the fetus' at all times is the right way to go.

I would personally draw the line at the ability to survive outside of the womb, even if the pregnancy could continue after that (I think 6 months tends to be the viability limit?). At that point, I would find an abortion only defensible in cases of grave malformations or risk to the mother.

Imagination Theory's point seems to me to stem more from a desire to keep women from being "controlled" or held responsible rather than a serious consideration of the topic of abortion, though.

I'm pro-choice because I firmly believe that a woman should have that choice, whatever limits she does or does not put upon herself. Me? It's a personal line that has moved over the years.

[d4m10n]

Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

[Dick Strawkins]

Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

Dawkins has always been supportive of outspoken atheism, something that Crackergate could, I guess be described as. He is still supportive of outspoken atheism.
Elevatorgate and the whole Rebecca Watson drama have nothing to do with this so I think it is a mistake to say his stance has changed.

[decius]

Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

I can actually see his rationale for wanting to preserve a united front against the intrusiveness of religion. We're few and scattered and schisms do not help our common cause.
There's no doubt that, over the years, Dawkins has improvidently endorsed a number of people who turned out to be more of a liability than an asset. I'm still puzzled at his handing over a prize for scientific distinction to a purveyor of quackery such as Maher, for instance. But we cannot ultimately hold him responsible for the actions of others.

[decius]

Dawkins has always been supportive of outspoken atheism, something that Crackergate could, I guess be described as. He is still supportive of outspoken atheism.
Elevatorgate and the whole Rebecca Watson drama have nothing to do with this so I think it is a mistake to say his stance has changed.

If I remember correctly, he remained eloquently silent, so to speak, over that one.

[Outwest]

Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

None that I can recall offhand, but he was perfectly fine with blogs fomenting drama so long as it was not atheists against other atheists. For example: Crackergate, a manufactroversy of the first order, starring a certain attention seeking blogger.

It was only after blog drama tore the community apart that it became an issue for the big D.

I can actually see his rationale for wanting to preserve a united front against the intrusiveness of religion. We're few and scattered and schisms do not help our common cause.
There's no doubt that, over the years, Dawkins has improvidently endorsed a number of people who turned out to be more of a liability than an asset. I'm still puzzled at his handing over a prize for scientific distinction to a purveyor of quackery such as Maher, for instance. But we cannot ultimately hold him responsible for the actions of others.

I don't think it was Dawkins himself that decided the award would go to Maher. Wasn't it the foundation that voted that?

[Reap]

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Here- http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/on-richard-dawkins-and-boycotting-controversial-si
You can see where there is some debate over blog hits and drama. Dawkins concedes the point but it is based on flawed/misleading data from a link provided by Greta.
I discussed it with Maria Maltseva on The Angry Atheist #101 w/ Maria Maltsevahttp://angryatheist.info/?p=904

[Reap]

So, I put an appropriate warning on my latest blog post:

And you did well to do so. WTF happened to the US since I last was there?!? (1996)

George Bush

[decius]

I don't think it was Dawkins himself that decided the award would go to Maher. Wasn't it the foundation that voted that?

Yeah, but it bore its name and he handed it over in person. It's fair to expect that he has some influence over the process. My impression was that he didn't research the subject with due diligence and then it was too late to step back without causing a political commotion.

[decius]

Sorry, I meant "it bore his name".

[Reap]

Here's mine:

Shouldn't 'schrodinger's rapist' be in the center and already marked?

[Altair]

Here's mine:

Shouldn't 'schrodinger's rapist' be in the center and already marked?

Only for men. We'd need a different one for women with "Chill Girl" in the center, already marked. Or "sister punisher".

[justinvacula]

Lol.

[Ape+lust]

[Dick Strawkins]

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Here- http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/on-richard-dawkins-and-boycotting-controversial-si
You can see where there is some debate over blog hits and drama. Dawkins concedes the point but it is based on flawed/misleading data from a link provided by Greta.
I discussed it with Maria Maltseva on The Angry Atheist #101 w/ Maria Maltsevahttp://angryatheist.info/?p=904

I thought he did the smart thing by using that link as an excuse to remove himself from the brewing storm.
I agree that the study was flawed, at least in relationship to the dynamics of FTB.
As I recall, the study indicated that having a blog drama does not lead to sustained increases in numbers of blog readers. The numbers spike for a week or so and then drop.
The argument was, therefore, that a manufactured drama would not be useful for generating money through increased ad revenue based on the increased traffic.
The rather obvious flaw with this argument is that it is based on a single drama.
If a single drama spikes the hit numbers for only a week then there is an easy solution.
Have a new drama every week!
Which, incidently, is exactly the pattern we see at FTB with their witch of the week campaigns.

[Outwest]

I don't think it was Dawkins himself that decided the award would go to Maher. Wasn't it the foundation that voted that?

Yeah, but it bore its name and he handed it over in person. It's fair to expect that he has some influence over the process. My impression was that he didn't research the subject with due diligence and then it was too late to step back without causing a political commotion.

You're proabably right, but I've seen others say that Dawkins doesn't have a lot to do with the foundation on a day-to-day basis.

[Notung]

LeftSidePositive is perhaps the most amusing commenter I've come across. LOTS OF CAPS and absolute certainty about the truth of her own opinions. Almost every comment has a 'mother scolding a naughty child' feel to it.

[lost control]

The only way that could possibly be the case if you were the pinnacle of womanhood, that which all women aspire to be.

I know, I'm pages behind (and a lurker, best ignored), but blergh.
Please, don't put such images in my head. (I don't want any trigger warnings, but that is so beyond even the most tasteless jokes.)
Yeah, black humour any day, but, please, not this.
Actually, if that were the case, I'd force myself to be gay (a hypothetical scenario I could never achieve, cause penises - sorry, male bodies - simply don't arouse me, but still... so, I guess I'd slump back into an involuntary asexual existence.). I'd swear off anything female (sorry womynly).
I'd blow any cock that approaches me, if o.b. would be the pinnacle of womanhood.
Seriously... fuck, that's a disturbing thought. (even though I managed to fuck women not in my 'hunting scheme')
But, in such a scenario, I'd be delighted if I'd get at least a pity fuck out of gay guys, if o.b. would be seen as the pinnacle of womanhood. *shudder*

(
And a note to A+ers everywhere, I don't think being gay is in anyway bad. Fuck, by now I envy my elemtary school colleague, he's in Harvard doing science, and I'm only doing shit to earn money to survive. And one of the best actors I met IRL, happened to be gay, featuring all those stereotypical mannerisms of 'gays', but I had to be told that he actually is to even notice, cause I didn't even notice. *go figure*
I'm so hunting down gays. *yeah, right*
And it probably doesn't matter that I petitioned according to my consitutional rights for gay rights, etc... who cares what people are annoyed about, and what they actually do, right?
)

I know, they get their panties in a bunch if anyone says so, but I don't care about skin <del>color</del> <ins>pigmentation</ins>, but seriously I don't give a shit about the following stuff, if we're co-workers:
* your gender
* skin pigmentation
* the language you're speaking, as long as we manage to communicate in English to be able to do our fucking work
* your dialect / accent - it might even crack me up
* your weight (well, if we're fucking, I pronounce some limits, but only in a certain range)
* as I avoid fucking co-workers, the above point is basically meaningless for plain co-workers
* your age (see above regarding weight, yep, there's such a thing as too young / too old, at least for me..., but that's just for me)
(as long as you know how to do your fucking job. And I've met idiots of all persuasions / combinations who simply shouldn't even having a chance at getting the job, but for some idiotic reason, they got it. And as they were the person dealing with "stuff" I helped them doing exactly that "stuff", but after the third round of explaining the most basic things, I stopped, recognizing their lack of intellect (not even needed - just listen), doing it myself, not educating them again is simpler, cause they're fucking dumb. it happens.)
Whatever, this is a drunk post, so be it. I miss fucking around (i.e. working together) with folks all over the world simply trying to keep the business running. *sigh*
I could digress on, and due to A+ maybe I even should but I'm getting bored. As I expect you to be fucking bored by now.
In addition, oh whatever.
I'd rather force myself to suck cock, which just doesn't turn me on, than having to even date any o.b. - just so slightly - clone. (And no, not even her age, just her mindset is so disturbingly off-putting, it makes me think about vomiting.)

Fuck, shouldn't post drunk, but due to life, drunk it is. So, this might be full of catastrophic orthographic errors, not to mention grammatical ones. Hey, I'm looking forward to a long weekend, I might not even be tempted to open any webpage *yeah*
*whatever*
Looking forward to more LULz, and catching up.

[Outwest]

AFIACT Dawkins didn't have a problem with fomenting drama until it became fratricidal.

What drama was he fomenting?

Here- http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/on-richard-dawkins-and-boycotting-controversial-si
You can see where there is some debate over blog hits and drama. Dawkins concedes the point but it is based on flawed/misleading data from a link provided by Greta.
I discussed it with Maria Maltseva on The Angry Atheist #101 w/ Maria Maltsevahttp://angryatheist.info/?p=904

I thought he did the smart thing by using that link as an excuse to remove himself from the brewing storm.
I agree that the study was flawed, at least in relationship to the dynamics of FTB.
As I recall, the study indicated that having a blog drama does not lead to sustained increases in numbers of blog readers. The numbers spike for a week or so and then drop.
The argument was, therefore, that a manufactured drama would not be useful for generating money through increased ad revenue based on the increased traffic.
The rather obvious flaw with this argument is that it is based on a single drama.
If a single drama spikes the hit numbers for only a week then there is an easy solution.
Have a new drama every week!
Which, incidently, is exactly the pattern we see at FTB with their witch of the week campaigns.

Well said! It is something new every week.

[lost control]

Slimy Turd post detailing why Oolon wasn't trying to find out Mykeru's personal details AT ALL and how we have all got the wrong end of the stick in 5....4....3...2...

.. Blast-off!

Don't want to worry Mykeru and Sacha... It started as a discussion as who 'franc' is and who here is a sockpuppet of his. I contended sacha is an independent entity from 'franc' but I got the distinct impression Aratina did not. I also noted on here there had been some discussion about sacha and 'franc' being one and the same --- but I thought that was just jocularly posed. I then got the impression that Ophelia thought Mykeru was also a sock! However as you showed she reckons she knows who he is, and actually 5 secs on his website makes it pretty obvious he has been around far too long to be a 'franc' sock... Unless he is as he says, Kaiser Soze.

Anyway comes down to some sad gossiping about the pitters and conspiracy theories - I'm also mortified that 'franc' will find this hilarious and get off on it increasing his status as the Pit Pimpernel. I'll defend myself as coming at it from the angle that these are not and were not 'franc' socks and they were giving him way too much credit! Although I notice a post by Towelie was bumped as being a 'franc' sock as well so pretty soon the whole pit will be written off as orchestrated by one lone Hoggler.

Fuck, what kind of dementia are you suffering from?
franc isn't "Victor Ivanoff".
sasha is no sockpuppet of franc.
IIRC, we've got that established over a year ago.
Fuck me - no, not you, ever, please don't ever come near to me - sasha could, but I think she'd be disappointed with me. So, sorry sasha, even though I'd like to be available, but that wouldn't work, sadly. Intellecutally it could be fun, but you'd be so fucking bored sexually.
"Victor Ivanoff" is a dead Russion who does not live anymore.
Fuck, when will you idiots get the above sentence?
And now, oo*something*, you're finally going to end up in my foes list, cause you're simply too fucking boring. (yeah, you're banned, but not really - fucking idiot - ever wondered about the killfile script over at FfTB's Pharyngula? You should admonish them for using killfiles, while you're annyoing us.)
(Yeah, I know, one shouldn't address dipshits, but maybe he'll figure out why... *still hoping*)


You're just a fucking idiot, best not read, why am I still not ignoring you?

BTW, Al, I stil remember your UAF stuff from Facebook. Sadly, I had to unsubscribe / unlike, cause I was looking for a new job.
But, seriously, how did you end up at FfTB in the first place? I mean, why? What have you hoped to get from your presence there?
anyway, I liked your ass. It's butt-fucking-ugly, can you repost it.

Oh, oo*something*, I'm franc's sock. franc, why are you so ignorant of your socks, I need some funds to repair myself. *mwahha*

[Tigzy]

The only way that could possibly be the case if you were the pinnacle of womanhood, that which all women aspire to be.

I know, I'm pages behind (and a lurker, best ignored), but blergh.
Please, don't put such images in my head. (I don't want any trigger warnings, but that is so beyond even the most tasteless jokes.)
Yeah, black humour any day, but, please, not this.
Actually, if that were the case, I'd force myself to be gay (a hypothetical scenario I could never achieve, cause penises - sorry, male bodies - simply don't arouse me, but still... so, I guess I'd slump back into an involuntary asexual existence.). I'd swear off anything female (sorry womynly).
I'd blow any cock that approaches me, if o.b. would be the pinnacle of womanhood.
Seriously... fuck, that's a disturbing thought...

[Outwest]

This is too good to pass up: From Stefunny: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... at-you-do/

She's discussing prople becoming involved in the "movements" (bowel?)

So if you’re one of the people who are actively involved in the day-to-day operation of our movements–you run activities or groups, lobby, speak, investigate, research, write, edit, design, and all the other things that keep us functioning–you’re doing work that desperately needs to be done. Moreover, you’re doing work that I can’t do. I don’t have your skills, or I don’t have the time your projects require, or I don’t have the temperament that would allow me to keep at your work over the long haul.

I’m envious. You’re making contributions I can’t. I’m also feeling a little guilty, because what I’ve been doing recently has been showy. It gets attention that the nuts-and-bolts work doesn’t. That’s very much not fair. Sometimes necessary for the changes that have to be made, but not fair.

So, she's "showy".

[lost control]

Given how far you have your head up Ophelia's ass, you're like the best touch-typist ever. I mean, it's a shame you've no fucking thoughts worth typing, but the skills are impressive nonetheless.

Cheers John, glad to see you can appreciate my talents. Also glad to see we are of one mind on each others worth, we must have more in common that we thought!

You tried, idiot, but that's the most unfitting comment I ever had the pleasure to read. And type. And by now, you're so boring, I even forgot why, otherwise, I'd put it into appropriate code.
How... *nope, got nothing*

@Lsuoama, just restrict that idiot to it's own thread, like that Markuze fellow (or clone - we're charitable, right?).
Don't ever ban this shining light of intellect, no, just force him to post in a thread of it's own, and we won't notice shits even here, cause noone will even want to read shit. I mean shit is so entertaining on it's own, but we should not restrict shit simply because of his online identity. Sure, oolon's shit, but to his mind it's shit, so we should be lovely and give shit their own thred.
Make it shit's (I mean oolon's) thread, na, stick to 'shit's' thread, noone will notice any difference.

Oh fuck, did I say anything with any resemblance of coherence?
I don't know.
But Shit's simply boring me. And boring is one thing, I can live with boring, but shit's not just boring, but stupid. I don't to obvious stupid.

Yeah, oolon, I'm actually posting this, even though I can't think clear, cause I had about 6 European Beers (*more to come*), those are starting to - you know - not make you think clearly - but you're still a fucking idiot. If you won't actually try to be not a fucking idiot, I might, nah, you're not even capable of thinking clearly.

Fuck, I miss the feature of another forum software, which displays everything to unwanted idiots, but they don't notice it, they can still post in all threads, but simply aren't seen by anyone but themself... *chuckle* (yeah I'm somewhat mean)