Well... .she was nearly propositioned in an elevator once. Maybe.Lsuoma wrote:Are you really surprised? I'm not.real horrorshow wrote:Well that didn't last:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8012/7700 ... aa00_z.jpg
Not in the least. There are no credible rape threats or he'd have been round to the cozzers, pronto...
A stern finger-shaking at the very least ....justinvacula wrote:Apparently, asking why threats weren't reported to the police is 'victim blaming.' Apparently, women who are recipients of "literal threats of rape and murder" should just be passive and not report threats to authorities? Asking why "literal threats of rape and murder" are not reported to police is a damn good question. Wouldn't we expect this if these "literal threats of rape and murder" were so prevalent and such a problem that men from the skeptical/atheist communities are being asked to take a stand against it? Apparently, the police just shouldn't get involved and we should just write strongly-worded letters expressive disapproval...because that's the way to change things.real horrorshow wrote:Well that didn't last:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8012/7700 ... aa00_z.jpg
Hey Marbus,xjustos wrote:do us a favor and search for "martin wagner" on ytube
we fixed about 100 atheists like this
Welp, we all know PZ tends to go overboard.xjustos wrote:you know that little lying PZ Myers said I was stalking him for 20 years!
I did it for about 3
Oh, you fucking intellectual. Yes Richard Unspellable is quite the fine mind. There is a condensed version of the essay in the Harper's archives -Lsuoma wrote:The general philosophy these idiots seem to espousing, or at lest moving towards, is very much the paranoid (non-clinical, as is made clear if you read the books) mindset described by Richard Hofstadter in The Paranoid Style in American Politics, in which he describes the Goldwater movement of the early '60s.
The anti-elitism is beginning to burgeon.
FIFYsacha wrote: Cheers, Lsuoma. I can deal with the emoticons as long as they don't move or flash. I actually like the one with the big eyes that basically stands for WTF (named "shocked"). I don't completely want to remove .gifs, but for me, I suppose it is better than the alternative. http://ct4.pbase.com/o6/61/114161/1/864 ... adoggy.gif
Aye. Serious though, no point on commenting on his blog. Most of his wankers flounced over some disagreement which I have yet to exactly determine.xjustos wrote:you know they are really BIG DICKS
Did not know that, thanks.Lsuoma wrote:Also, hitting Esc will freeze all animated GIFs on a page (until it's reloaded).Bob of QF wrote:Try Nuke Anything, an add-on for FireFoxsacha wrote:I have AdBlock Plus, smilies are disabled and won't show as an image, but I still have the fucking flashing images!
Also, look at NoScript, another add-on.
Get some bubble wrap for your irony meter -CommanderTuvok wrote:That "everything is already documented" argument frequently used by the Baboons and Skepchicks is very much a copy of the trick religious people use when they say "well, until you've read the Bible from front to cover, you atheist has no argument".
:laughing-rollingred: :laughing-rollingyellow: :obscene-moneypiss:The problem with men, as a group, as a type of organism, as a subset of humans, is that at various points along the way on their journey from the female template on which all humans are built biologically, they have been altered in ways that make them dangerous assholes. Even when we try to reduce the male-female difference as a society, men who do not willingly participate in that often end up being fairly nasty, dangerous beasts; they may be rapists, they may be batterers, they may be some other thing. They break our efforts to have an egalitarian peaceful world. In a way, they are broken. They are damaged, if you will. Some of that damage is facilitated by what you may know of as testosterone (a word that stands in for androgens).
:violin: :violence-stickwhack:I made the remark that men were women damaged by testosterone. That statement was picked up on a video and broadcast across the Internet and people’s reaction to it have caused a Minor Sorting. Most of the negative reaction to it was from the usual suspects, people who already hated me because I am an openly feministic male. Or because someone in their clique told them to hate me. Or whatever.
People were moving towards it much earlier - in the vernacular idiom, people like Mark Twain had the measure of this combination of pseudo-folksy conservatism, "American Exceptionalism," and anti-intellectualism back in the 19th century, and it follows a continuous thread right up to Hofstadter, who was, AFAIK, the first person to explicitly call it out in public and describe its roots.franc wrote:Oh, you fucking intellectual. Yes Richard Unspellable is quite the fine mind. There is a condensed version of the essay in the Harper's archives -Lsuoma wrote:The general philosophy these idiots seem to espousing, or at lest moving towards, is very much the paranoid (non-clinical, as is made clear if you read the books) mindset described by Richard Hofstadter in The Paranoid Style in American Politics, in which he describes the Goldwater movement of the early '60s.
The anti-elitism is beginning to burgeon.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706
If it is Mabus, the dude needs more professional help and is probably breaking the law and eligible for prison or institutionalizing, so I have some problem with that. However, if it is not, and this is just a Poe, he's easy enough to ignore or poke with a stick. Not sure of how to determine that except notifying the authorities and letting them investigate. :confusion-shrug:AndrewV69 wrote:Aye. Serious though, no point on commenting on his blog. Most of his wankers flounced over some disagreement which I have yet to exactly determine.xjustos wrote:you know they are really BIG DICKS
Speaking for myself, I have no problem with you posting here.
HAHAHAH!AndrewV69 wrote:Welp, we all know PZ tends to go overboard.xjustos wrote:you know that little lying PZ Myers said I was stalking him for 20 years!
I did it for about 3
I'm assuming you mean the stuffed Rehnquist?Badger3k wrote:I almost forgot to add - I think we need to start a kickstarter campaign. We can try to get Laden the surgery he so desperately wants. The highest donor gets to keep it.
:sad-roulette:
I'm overdosing on irony at the moment. Almost nobody knows what the original was as the movie was based on the American, not the UK version. Which, in a bizarre act of reverse-censorship, had the nice bits edited out.real horrorshow wrote: I wonder how he knew I was being unironic? Maybe because what happens to Alex is so enviable that anyone would want to follow in his footsteps? Or is it that his dash round the interwebs looking for stuff on a book he knows fuck-all about didn't include a plot summary?
Actually, what we ought to be thinking about is a cuntkickstarter campaign!Badger3k wrote:I almost forgot to add - I think we need to start a kickstarter campaign. We can try to get Laden the surgery he so desperately wants. The highest donor gets to keep it.
:sad-roulette:
More like a gummi worm. :angelic-red:Lsuoma wrote:I'm assuming you mean the stuffed Rehnquist?Badger3k wrote:I almost forgot to add - I think we need to start a kickstarter campaign. We can try to get Laden the surgery he so desperately wants. The highest donor gets to keep it.
:sad-roulette:
:happy-cheerleadersmileygirl: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-jumpeveryone: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-cheerleadersmileygirl:Lsuoma wrote:Actually, what we ought to be thinking about is a cuntkickstarter campaign!Badger3k wrote:I almost forgot to add - I think we need to start a kickstarter campaign. We can try to get Laden the surgery he so desperately wants. The highest donor gets to keep it.
:sad-roulette:
Well, if it really is him you know PZ is going to freak, and gibber to any and all authoritys he can get hold of.Badger3k wrote: If it is Mabus, the dude needs more professional help and is probably breaking the law and eligible for prison or institutionalizing, so I have some problem with that. However, if it is not, and this is just a Poe, he's easy enough to ignore or poke with a stick. Not sure of how to determine that except notifying the authorities and letting them investigate. :confusion-shrug:
Sorry to hear about your pony.Lsuoma wrote:+Graham's Number on this.BarnOwl wrote: It's always hard to lose pets, but it would be even harder to live without them completely. Don't know whether I'll always be able to have horses (I have two at the moment), but I think I can manage to have dogs throughout most of my life.
No. I just object to vandalism, inanity, inability to preview posts to check edits so they're not broken and not reading "how to" guides. You can label it how you wish. The occasional smiley is irrelevant - when smilies are used as a crutch to support a mind that is too incoherent and/or lazy to express itself clearly, that gets annoying too.CommanderTuvok wrote:I love how Franc gets upset over HTML issues.
:angry-chillpill:
My comment was a bit of a reminder and a warning. If it is him, he can be in a lot of trouble, and if he is ill, that may be good or bad. I don't know. The first post looked just like him, but the conversation afterwards is new to me - normally he'd post the same thing then get banned, so I have nothing to go on to figure it out. Just have to wait and see.AndrewV69 wrote:Well, if it really is him you know PZ is going to freak, and gibber to any and all authoritys he can get hold of.Badger3k wrote: If it is Mabus, the dude needs more professional help and is probably breaking the law and eligible for prison or institutionalizing, so I have some problem with that. However, if it is not, and this is just a Poe, he's easy enough to ignore or poke with a stick. Not sure of how to determine that except notifying the authorities and letting them investigate. :confusion-shrug:
I was just trying to help him keep him out of trouble. Presumably he already knows this, but a reminder can not hurt?
I genuinely LOLed.sacha wrote:HAHAHAH!AndrewV69 wrote:Welp, we all know PZ tends to go overboard.xjustos wrote:you know that little lying PZ Myers said I was stalking him for 20 years!
I did it for about 3
Going to get serious on your arse here: not your fault, but I need to correct this.EveryMan wrote:Sorry to hear about your pony.Lsuoma wrote:+Graham's Number on this.BarnOwl wrote: It's always hard to lose pets, but it would be even harder to live without them completely. Don't know whether I'll always be able to have horses (I have two at the moment), but I think I can manage to have dogs throughout most of my life.
Did not know about the original ending, as I've only read the US version of the book, and seen the Kubrick film. But the reverse censorship might indicate something very bleak about the prevailing attitude of the juvenile justice system in the US at the time (and perhaps now), i.e. young offenders can't be redeemed or rehabilitated, and will always revert to their violent ways.EveryMan wrote:I'm overdosing on irony at the moment. Almost nobody knows what the original was as the movie was based on the American, not the UK version. Which, in a bizarre act of reverse-censorship, had the nice bits edited out.real horrorshow wrote: I wonder how he knew I was being unironic? Maybe because what happens to Alex is so enviable that anyone would want to follow in his footsteps? Or is it that his dash round the interwebs looking for stuff on a book he knows fuck-all about didn't include a plot summary?
The original ending of "A Clockwork Orange", as well as the FUCKING TITLE, is a commentary on the inevitability of adolescence and the process of maturation. More specifically, that trying to hammer mechanical behavior into an organic organism doesn't really make any sense. The fruit eventually ripens on its own.
So, if you didn't read it, basically Alex eventually "grows up" on his own and naturally abandons his previous lifestyle.
The beautiful irony that they don't get is that their tormenting trolls are really no more than the online equivalent of Alex and his droogs. Just a bunch of malicious, teenage boys. Most of whom eventually grow up (Laden, etal. being notable exceptions).
The other irony is that a dude that actually does make threats is posting here now. May we live in interesting times.
A Merkin who knows that Pink Floyd without Syd Barrett is not Pink Floyd at all. Wow. Nice, Barn Owl!BarnOwl wrote:I had the nationalistic fervor that is NBC's primetime coverage of the Olympics on TV this evening, and in the midst of paying not too much attention to the narrow focus on US athletes in popular sports (gymnastics and swimming), I heard Pink Floyd's Shine On You Crazy Diamond in the background. One of the gymnasts (Romanian I think) was using it as music for her floor exercises routine. Not that NBC was going to show it, but at least someone has excellent taste in music, anyway.
[youtube]BLKiMbC6s2k[/youtube]
I walked the footpath to Grantchester last time I was in Cambridge, visiting friends. RIP Richard Wright and Syd Barrett - your music made some of the more heinous times in grad school bearable. :music-listening:
cheersBob of QF wrote:
Another lovely tool to add to FireFix is Nuke Anything Enhanced.
A simple right-click on anything in your browser's window, and blammo--it's gone. A nice way to get rid of individual items, but you'd rather not block the entire server/domain for.
Also take a look at NoScript ...
Mabus, slow down. Give us time to look at your links. A few comments per day would be best. Too much information and no one will bother to look.xjustos wrote:now I am showing you the workings of PROPAGANDA...
Yeah, a few things feel...off.EveryMan wrote:re: The DefCon card things... here is the follow-up: http://singlevoice.net/2012/07/14/defcon-cards-redux/
Is this where FTB's "chill girl" came from? Are all women who might disagree other women about what counts as sexual harassment doing so just because she "wants to stay friends" with some males? It seems very dismissive. Maybe that's what she did...doesn't mean it's true of other women.GSFS 3: Cool chicks don’t worry about sexism.
This isn’t exactly a sex thing but God does it plague some geek circles. I know because I’ve been the cool chick. I’ve played the “don’t worry, I’m not like those other girls, I’m not into gossip and drama†card; I’ve played the “well, you have my permission to objectify me, because I take it as a compliment†card; I’ve even played the “that mean lady was such an uptight no-funster for having boundaries†card.
Those cards are the fuck out of my deck now. And I’ve paid the social price for that. There’s definitely some people in my circles who’ve put me in their “uptight no-funster†mental box since then, or who deliberately bait me about “watch out, Holly, I’m going to patriarchally oppress you!†because ahahaha she’s an angry little lady isn’t that cute.
I don’t blame a woman who sees this go on, decides she wants friends more than she wants to start fights about some abstract problem that doesn’t seem to affect her personally, and starts telling her male friends not to worry, they can be sexist around her, she’s cool. The problem isn’t her. The problem is all the people who made it so much easier and more pleasant for her to be a “cool chick†than a woman who gives a damn how people think of her gender.
When did you report your assaults to the DEFCON security staff? I witnessed/heard reports where people were tossed out who were being truly assaulting to females/younger females. Hell, I had one instance where a guy called the females with me ‘white whores’. He was dealt with by security staff.
Maybe if you were to have reported this to proper channels, you wouldn’t have been in the situation.
Wow, is that really a “If you’d worked harder, you could’ve prevented a stranger’s inappropriate behavior toward you�
Huh.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for an answer. While you clearly mean well and care a lot about DEFCON, your questions don’t show much respect for her judgment or experiences, so I can see why she’d choose not to engage.
Wait. I never said if she worked harder she could have prevented it. I am curious as to why she never reported the assaults, and instead brought it to the interwebz vs. those who could have immediately assisted her. Her experience is something any girl at any club may have complained to a bouncer about. There is something more going on here that I don’t understand.
If you were physically assaulted – you need to immediately notify security staff. If you are uncomfortable with a male, they have female staff. If you are uncomfortable with females or males, they have transgender security staff. Why this is a blog, and not a security incident response befuddles me.
Seriously.
I don’t think I have any real obligation to defend myself or engage with you, but because I woke up feeling especially charitable I will.
I didn’t report the guy trying to lick my tattoo because that happened slightly outside the bounds of the conference, in the taxi line at the Rio (both men who were part of that group were wearing Defcon badges). I didn’t report the creepy guy asking if I wanted to join a pillowfight to a goon because I had just had an interaction with a goon where I was made fun of for even maybe being slightly offended over the “boobs†item on the punchcards they were handing out. You know what doesn’t inspire confidence that my complaint will be taken seriously? Being told that I’m just being overly sensitive about male entitlement.
Oh, and the guy who grabbed my hips while waiting at the bar? He disappeared into the crowd right after that and honestly, I was too angry and shaken to do anything else but try to get through the rest of my night. It didn’t even occur to me that I could have reported it until the next day. That’s the funny thing about having your boundaries and personal safety so blatantly violated- it’s kind of really fucking difficult to function like a rational human being after that.
I tend to agree. For instance I skipped the big list of links but I did watch this one:sacha wrote:Mabus, slow down. Give us time to look at your links. A few comments per day would be best. Too much information and no one will bother to look.xjustos wrote:now I am showing you the workings of PROPAGANDA...
thank you.
Which i thought was pretty good. But who has the time to watch 20+ hours of videos?you know they are really BIG DICKS
This is just so as there is no need to ban Dave Mabus, if it is him. Let him stay. I am rather fond of him from elsewhere.franc wrote:Another trick for controlling overwhelming posting habits. You don't need to block or ban anyone. Personal settings allow you to collapse posts, but still have them viewable with a single click -
tachikoma wrote:
snip
I wouldn’t hold my breath for an answer. While you clearly mean well and care a lot about DEFCON, your questions don’t show much respect for her judgment or experiences, so I can see why she’d choose not to engage.
Wait. I never said if she worked harder she could have prevented it. I am curious as to why she never reported the assaults, and instead brought it to the interwebz vs. those who could have immediately assisted her. Her experience is something any girl at any club may have complained to a bouncer about. There is something more going on here that I don’t understand.
If you were physically assaulted – you need to immediately notify security staff. If you are uncomfortable with a male, they have female staff. If you are uncomfortable with females or males, they have transgender security staff. Why this is a blog, and not a security incident response befuddles me.
Seriously.
[/quote]I don’t think I have any real obligation to defend myself or engage with you, but because I woke up feeling especially charitable I will.
I didn’t report the guy trying to lick my tattoo because that happened slightly outside the bounds of the conference, in the taxi line at the Rio (both men who were part of that group were wearing Defcon badges). I didn’t report the creepy guy asking if I wanted to join a pillowfight to a goon because I had just had an interaction with a goon where I was made fun of for even maybe being slightly offended over the “boobs†item on the punchcards they were handing out. You know what doesn’t inspire confidence that my complaint will be taken seriously? Being told that I’m just being overly sensitive about male entitlement.
Oh, and the guy who grabbed my hips while waiting at the bar? He disappeared into the crowd right after that and honestly, I was too angry and shaken to do anything else but try to get through the rest of my night. It didn’t even occur to me that I could have reported it until the next day. That’s the funny thing about having your boundaries and personal safety so blatantly violated- it’s kind of really fucking difficult to function like a rational human being after that.
Well he might stay out of trouble if he stays here and http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/. I doubt he would get banned from freethoughtblahgs either.franc wrote:This is just so as there is no need to ban Dave Mabus, if it is him. Let him stay. I am rather fond of him from elsewhere.franc wrote:Another trick for controlling overwhelming posting habits. You don't need to block or ban anyone. Personal settings allow you to collapse posts, but still have them viewable with a single click -
Wait what. Ophelia deleted your post just because of different literary preferences?Tigzy wrote:Ah, it's gone already. Why am I not suprised...Tigzy wrote:http://i.imgur.com/aw4Vw.png
That video is actually funnyAndrewV69 wrote:
I tend to agree. For instance I skipped the big list of links but I did watch this one:Which i thought was pretty good. But who has the time to watch 20+ hours of videos?you know they are really BIG DICKS
Just select a good one that is no more than 10 mins and post one of those per day and you are gold. Finally, a little bit more of a description would be good too. I nearly did not look at the one above, which would have been a pity.
Well, no matter how sick people are of hearing it, it still bears repetition -surreptitious57 wrote:I understand and sympathise where the Skepchicks are coming from. But they must not censor absolute free speech just to feel safe.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_FranklinThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was written by Franklin, within quotation marks but is generally accepted as his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
No bannination. I have decided that unless someone completely swamps real content - in which case they get their own thread/forum - I will do nothing to restrict their input.franc wrote:This is just so as there is no need to ban Dave Mabus, if it is him. Let him stay. I am rather fond of him from elsewhere.franc wrote:Another trick for controlling overwhelming posting habits. You don't need to block or ban anyone. Personal settings allow you to collapse posts, but still have them viewable with a single click -
*runs away screaming!*KiwiInOz wrote:
I wonder if this is a case of "I want you to listen and validate me and my feelings, rather than try and solve my problems"?
:think:
Well, duh, yeah. You just said diplomatically what gets me called a smilie hating html nazi. Restraint is everything. Multimedia is a tool - it is salt and pepper for the main meal, not a meal in itself. Sadly, some people still find it a toy to be misused for personal gratification.Lsuoma wrote:No bannination. I have decided that unless someone completely swamps real content - in which case they get their own thread/forum - I will do nothing to restrict their input.franc wrote:This is just so as there is no need to ban Dave Mabus, if it is him. Let him stay. I am rather fond of him from elsewhere.franc wrote:Another trick for controlling overwhelming posting habits. You don't need to block or ban anyone. Personal settings allow you to collapse posts, but still have them viewable with a single click -
One thing I will possibly restrict though, is frantic embedding of TouTube vids. Some browsers, like Firefox on Mac, will make a call to get the first frame of every embedded vid before returning page control, and this can be unpleasant. It's easily fixed by (temporarily) removing the YouTube embedding feature, which is self-limiting...
It was linked on my FB page.tachikoma wrote:Justin: Nice image. Did you make it?
Franc, thanks for the tip.
Franc,franc wrote:You just said diplomatically what gets me called a smilie hating html nazi. Restraint is everything...
