Came to lurk for LOLz after some of the bickering spilled onto twitter, but logged in just so that I could see what the hell that attachment was. I'm mostly content. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... hand10.gifZenspace wrote:On a lighter note, from the Onion:
Ed Helms did it better on The Daily Show in 2003. Skippercise.KiwiInOz wrote:What the Fuh?TheMan wrote:I think this will catch-on.
o-50GjySwew
Camel Toe comes free of charge....now I've done it.
Amazing but true. The Prancercize (LLC) Trot - it's really hot!TheMan wrote:I think this will catch on.
Look, I hate Physiofuckee as much as anyone else, but the poor bastard didn't do anything this time. Did he? If he did, then it's time to go all out in an war of anihilation.Percentage wrote:I'm generally of the opinion that doxxing is 100% off-limits, so it's not something I'd participate myself. But I have to admit that I'd take a front row seat is Physiopricke ever got outed.
KiwiInOz wrote:What the Fuh?TheMan wrote:I think this will catch-on.
[youtube]o-50GjySwew[/youtube]
Camel Toe comes free of charge....now I've done it.
I heard you guys like doing 'the hand thing'. I've been doing this for 24/7.KiwiInOz wrote:What the Fuh?TheMan wrote:I think this will catch-on.
[youtube]o-50GjySwew[/youtube]
Camel Toe comes free of charge....now I've done it.
MYKERUUUUUU! Are you calling Grea Christina fat? Shame on you!Mykeru wrote:I would like to take this opportunity to thank Stephanie Svan. Keep the lulz coming, fat girl.
Oh, now I've done it.
Well, he did write a post on cooking something, and even there he had to put in his pretentious/irrational writing quirks, making him seem like he needs professional help of some kind. Personally, as long as he stays where he is, he is living proof to the lie that Thunderf00t was a bad writer and that's why he got the boot (as if more evidence was needed). It is a bit of pseudo-hypocrisy, since no one really believed that was the real reason anyway.Southern wrote:Look, I hate Physiofuckee as much as anyone else, but the poor bastard didn't do anything this time. Did he? If he did, then it's time to go all out in an war of anihilation.Percentage wrote:I'm generally of the opinion that doxxing is 100% off-limits, so it's not something I'd participate myself. But I have to admit that I'd take a front row seat is Physiopricke ever got outed.
Clarence wrote: But here's the thing: this is the last thing you'd WANT CFI to see if you had hopes of influencing them. So I'm left with a few possibilities.
A. They've already (despite the latest email) basically given up on CFI bowing to their whims so they don't care.
B. They have enough institutional power with the CFI board (for whatever reason) to know this won't matter. This is kind of a scary thought, but then I think if they had THAT kind of power Lindsay would be gone already.
C. They are crazy batshit idiots who can't think how this will look outside their closed treehouse blogs.
Another victory for the 'Pit's Jackie Chan of Google-Fu.Dick Strawkins wrote:Did anyone notice the other day that PeeZus has begun to switch his criticism of sexist bearded white men in atheism/skepticism towards the criticism of, well, bearded white guys in science fiction?
The question in my mind is where is the next obvious target?
Well, how about the subject of sexist bearded white guys in commercial photography?
Perhaps Stephanie can find a reason to join this new campaign too. ;)
http://i.imgur.com/Zka8YbJ.jpg
Busy in meatspace, mostly...some of the time. Had to abstain from the 'pit to focus on my final push in school. Graduated, but with my irregular work cycle I've mostly stuck to drifting between youtube and twitter for my drama fixes. I lurk every now and then, usually when Mykeru or Vacula tweet a link. Wouldn't say I'm quite "back", but I'll probably post every now and then now that I've broken the seal again.sacha wrote:welcome back, Mykeru.
where have you been Jack Rayner?!
Shoe-shaming!Southern wrote:MYKERUUUUUU! Are you calling Grea Christina fat? Shame on you!Mykeru wrote:I would like to take this opportunity to thank Stephanie Svan. Keep the lulz coming, fat girl.
Oh, now I've done it.
*Just to keep the new tradition of redirecting what you say to the Fluevog Postergirl
...means that Nerd of Redhead is going to get a tube shoved up his cock? For the love of God, Mary and sweetest baby Jesus, please let one urologist in America hear and recognize a shout echoing down the corridor next week:My eagle-eyed internist saw a slight problem in some blood work, and had me have an ultrasound, a CAT scan, and referred me to an urologist in quick order. One kidney is working but not draining into the bladder. The urologist will put in a stent for drainage next week. No cutting involved, and in/out in the same day.
KiwiInOz wrote:Shame on you.welch wrote:TROLOLOLOLOLMykeru wrote:You mean under the expansive and self-serving freethought blogs definition that anyone who disagrees is a troll?Jack wrote:Guys your being trolled.
During the Cold War the United States became more and more authoritarian in the fight against communism. During the Vietnam War under the program of pacification people argued you had to destroy villages to save them. Or you could go back to the cartoon character Fearless Fosdick who shot people rather than let them eat tainted beans.
So as freethought blogs unravels it's interesting to watch people in the Pit- subconsciously or otherwise - model themselves after them.
Please do go on with willful mischaractetization, whine about offense, construct ad hoc speech codes, use bullshit shaming terms, White Knight to your hearts content and let the dogpile begin.
But first y'all divest yourself of the notion that I'm your buddy or I'm on your side or whatever imagine relationship that exists only in your own head gives you license to shit talk, accuse me of things I did not say or do, or some how you get a pass.
Questions?
Mykeru wrote:Shoe-shaming!Southern wrote:MYKERUUUUUU! Are you calling Grea Christina fat? Shame on you!Mykeru wrote:I would like to take this opportunity to thank Stephanie Svan. Keep the lulz coming, fat girl.
Oh, now I've done it.
*Just to keep the new tradition of redirecting what you say to the Fluevog Postergirl
You know, reading Svan's most excellent bullshit, I started thinking of where they are going with this. I mean, the whole Vacula-non Emergency at WIS and Ron Lindsay's little talk being butchered in broad daylight, leading to all this bridge-burning and now this. THIS!
Then I realized that I was doing it again, trying to make rational sense out of deeply irrational people.
Look, they've been shut out of TAM, having completely fucked with the wrong person in the form of D.J. Groethe, now they've made themselves persona non grata at CFI. There's no strategy here. This is the flailing of one-trick assholes whose dirty tricks are no longer working.
That's why we have Svan, again, writing a White Paper on the virtue of doxing. Like every other bankrupt ideology, the only thing they have left is resorting to force, or at lest the sort of force a bunch of cowards can muster.
Lies, manipulation, threats.
It's actually quite fascinating to watch them burn right at the mooring mast. Someone pass out the marshmallows. Oh, yeah, and the gasoline. Can't be too careful, you know.
[youtube]KaqC5FnvAEc[/youtube]welch wrote:
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL
It would be an odd lie to tell. That said there were 23 speakers. 10 didn't sign. It isn't as if contacting all 23 of them would be difficult to see if they would add their names to that letter. It is a majority. But it is not the landslide of a consensus that one might expect.Outwest wrote:Then again, were there really 13 or is that another fabrication?
Whooping 56% of support for their ridiculous letter. And a chunk of them are the incestuous FTB crowd that would sign anything proposed by Zwugzwang.deLurch wrote:It would be an odd lie to tell. That said there were 23 speakers. 10 didn't sign. It isn't as if contacting all 23 of them would be difficult to see if they would add their names to that letter. It is a majority. But it is not the landslide of a consensus that one might expect.Outwest wrote:Then again, were there really 13 or is that another fabrication?
(the begining of the tale has been removed to allow for adaption to multiple scenrios)Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him, what a 'post turtle' was.
The old ringer said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.
The old ringer saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain.
"You know it didn't get up there by its self, it doesn't belong up there, it doesn't know what to do while it's up there, it's elevated beyond her ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of bloody idiot put it up there to begin with."
Is this the FfTB motto? "No turtle left below."TheMan wrote:Do you know what a Post Turtle is?
(the begining of the tale has been removed to allow for adaption to multiple scenrios)Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him, what a 'post turtle' was.
The old ringer said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.
The old ringer saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain.
"You know it didn't get up there by its self, it doesn't belong up there, it doesn't know what to do while it's up there, it's elevated beyond her ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of bloody idiot put it up there to begin with."
(Irving L Janis, 1972)The complete inventory of groupthink symptoms runs as follows:
• Feelings of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk-taking.
• Discounting of warnings that might challenge assumptions.
• Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
• Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
• Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
• Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
• Illusion of unanimity.
• “Mind-guards†— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions
Scrolling through the comments, found this:ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Headsup: Meyers's bunch of bloodhounds might be following a trail set by Meyers himself, or else one of the regulars who has got bored of simply typing "This. 100,000% this." under everyone of the fatboy's posts. It may be a genuine new christian, but it smells a little off to me. Maybe 'Tis (not) Himself?
Check out "supermudz":
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -ran-away/
This is something in the atheist community that's been grinding my gears for years now. I really have no idea why it persists. Modus tollens, motherfuckers.Nerd of Redhead wrote:Negatives can’t be proved.
There goes all the victim points, right down the drain.FrankGrimes wrote:Slightly off topic, just wondering if PZ and Co. are reconsidering their Convergence engagements:
"Harassment
CONvergence is dedicated to providing a safe and comfortable convention experience for everyone. Harassment of any kind, including physical assault, battery, deliberate intimidation, stalking, or unwelcome physical attentions, will not be tolerated. If people tell you “no†or to leave them alone, your business with them is done.
Leave them alone. Do not follow them or attempt to disrupt their convention experience in any way. If you continue to attempt to have contact with those people, you may be removed from the premises.
—
CONvergence is not responsible for solving any interpersonal problems that may arise between individual members. In general, we can take no action to prevent a person from attending the convention unless that person has made a specific and credible threat toward the convention itself. If you feel that a threat exists against your person, we advise you to seek a restraining order against the individual in question and to involve the host hotel itself (security staff specifically) and the municipal police department in advance of the convention; otherwise, we recommend simply avoiding that individual.
If that individual stalks, harasses, or attempts to assault you at the convention itself, you may report that individual to a member of Operations (they will report it to the hotel’s security staff who will get the police involved if necessary) or you may report it to hotel security directly, and the appropriate action will be taken. Conversely, any attempt to have an innocent person removed from the convention by falsely accusing him or her of threats will be itself treated as an act of harassment and will be dealt with appropriately. The responsibility for settling interpersonal disputes lies solely with the individuals involved, and CONvergence will not tolerate being used as a leveraging point in such disputes."
It's a gig I guess and more than likely a rider and room for Beccy. Sometimes you just gotta take one for the team.
Steersman wrote: Jason said (#9):
I wonder how that addresses what I said. And I wonder whether those statements of yours are some sort of rhetorical question or not, and what you meant by them. But I certainly was not arguing or even suggesting that it is racist or sexist to consider how one’s race or sex “might negatively impact†others’ views of oneself. What I was trying to suggest or argue was that your position – and that of others – is or seems tantamount to an intrinsic, a priori weighting, if not pre-judging (prejudicing), of the experiences of all parties in favour of the supposedly “under-privileged†– at least relatively speaking – that is an essential stereotyping of the “over-privilegedâ€. [Afterthought: at least potentially.] Which is part of the basic definitions for both sexism (1) and racism.It’s racist to consider how race affects races other than the privileged ones! It’s sexist to consider how your sex might negatively impact how others with privilege view you!
And while you commendably acknowledge that “[the privileged] may not be equipped to recognize the scope and depth of a problem because of the cognitive biases that keep [them] from seeing the problem to begin withâ€, I’m really not sure that you are even prepared to consider, much less have been able to understand, that that “may not†does not necessarily mean “can notâ€. While the “lived experiences†of the “under-privileged†are certainly a factor to consider, I very much doubt that it is the only factor, or even the most important one, at least in all cases.
For example, consider the “lived experiences†of religious fundamentalists who have “seen Jehovah in all his gloryâ€. Or of those who think that they’ve been abducted by aliens. You want to try arguing that their experiences are likely to be closer to the real, unvarnished “truth†than those outside those experiences?
And that bias is what makes that pile of schlock known as “privilegeâ€, potentially at least, the manifestation of some rather egregious racism and sexism.
Maybe you’re not able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Or not allow your biases to colour what I said. But isn’t “old†age-ist? You’re not trying to “appropriate or ignore [my] lived experiencesâ€, are you? Trying to tell me to "shut-up and listen"? Trying to tell me that "feminist women [and their allies] in the secular community don’t want to hear any ideas about feminism from men"? (2)Another straw-something. Sigh. Good old Steersman.
----
1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexismâ€;
2) "_http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/06/03/women-in-secularism-speakers-letter-to-cfi-board/";
You cited a dictionary. How dare you!Steersman wrote:FWIW, I made a comment on Lousy Canuck’s blog on the topic of “privilege†which Jason let through, somewhat surprisingly, and responded to. My response to him – below – is still in moderation (as of 22:25, UTC-7):
Steersman wrote: Jason said (#9):
I wonder how that addresses what I said. And I wonder whether those statements of yours are some sort of rhetorical question or not, and what you meant by them. But I certainly was not arguing or even suggesting that it is racist or sexist to consider how one’s race or sex “might negatively impact†others’ views of oneself. What I was trying to suggest or argue was that your position – and that of others – is or seems tantamount to an intrinsic, a priori weighting, if not pre-judging (prejudicing), of the experiences of all parties in favour of the supposedly “under-privileged†– at least relatively speaking – that is an essential stereotyping of the “over-privilegedâ€. [Afterthought: at least potentially.] Which is part of the basic definitions for both sexism (1) and racism.It’s racist to consider how race affects races other than the privileged ones! It’s sexist to consider how your sex might negatively impact how others with privilege view you!
And while you commendably acknowledge that “[the privileged] may not be equipped to recognize the scope and depth of a problem because of the cognitive biases that keep [them] from seeing the problem to begin withâ€, I’m really not sure that you are even prepared to consider, much less have been able to understand, that that “may not†does not necessarily mean “can notâ€. While the “lived experiences†of the “under-privileged†are certainly a factor to consider, I very much doubt that it is the only factor, or even the most important one, at least in all cases.
For example, consider the “lived experiences†of religious fundamentalists who have “seen Jehovah in all his gloryâ€. Or of those who think that they’ve been abducted by aliens. You want to try arguing that their experiences are likely to be closer to the real, unvarnished “truth†than those outside those experiences?
And that bias is what makes that pile of schlock known as “privilegeâ€, potentially at least, the manifestation of some rather egregious racism and sexism.
Maybe you’re not able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Or not allow your biases to colour what I said. But isn’t “old†age-ist? You’re not trying to “appropriate or ignore [my] lived experiencesâ€, are you? Trying to tell me to "shut-up and listen"? Trying to tell me that "feminist women [and their allies] in the secular community don’t want to hear any ideas about feminism from men"? (2)Another straw-something. Sigh. Good old Steersman.
----
1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexismâ€;
2) "_http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/06/03/women-in-secularism-speakers-letter-to-cfi-board/";
I guess that the difference between us and them is that we are right. Without question.Michael K Gray wrote:I am reading an excellent book called "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" (Kevin Dutton), and he reproduces a scholarly excerpt on the subject of "Groupthink":(Irving L Janis, 1972)The complete inventory of groupthink symptoms runs as follows:
• Feelings of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk-taking.
• Discounting of warnings that might challenge assumptions.
• Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
• Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
• Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
• Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
• Illusion of unanimity.
• “Mind-guards†— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions
Remind you of any Bloggers?
I'm surprised you haven't already been banned.Mark Thomas wrote:Apparently it's not just feminism...
I've been in an argument with multiple commenters on skepchick for the past couple days about economics and "privilege". Commenters have suggested I be banned and I've been told to "shut up and listen".
The thugocracy apparently can't be challenged on any topic...
Ooops! Guess my argument is automatically forfeit! Dang! Back to the drawing board … :-)Metalogic42 wrote:You cited a dictionary. How dare you!Steersman wrote:FWIW, I made a comment on Lousy Canuck’s blog on the topic of “privilege†which Jason let through, somewhat surprisingly, and responded to. My response to him – below – is still in moderation (as of 22:25, UTC-7):Steersman wrote: Jason said (#9):
<snip>
----
1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexismâ€;
2) "_http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/06/03/women-in-secularism-speakers-letter-to-cfi-board/";
If they got many more letters like mine they know that what's making the secular movement unsafe for women ain't Ron Lindsay, and they have plenty of examples with links.The CEO of CFI used the Women in Secularism conference to his own ends in ways that support those who are working to drive many women out of the secular movement.
Am I correct in remembering that Melody Hensley welcomed(Out of deference to those who are already dealing with a difficult situation and potential conflicts of interest, we have not given Melody Hensley, Lauren Becker, Debbie Goddard, or Elizabeth Cornwell an opportunity to sign this letter though they spoke at the conference.)
I know...I kinda feel like a failure.Metalogic42 wrote:I'm surprised you haven't already been banned.Mark Thomas wrote:Apparently it's not just feminism...
I've been in an argument with multiple commenters on skepchick for the past couple days about economics and "privilege". Commenters have suggested I be banned and I've been told to "shut up and listen".
The thugocracy apparently can't be challenged on any topic...
Good for you. And thanks for the information – will be looking forward to the outcome of that meeting. As I expect many will be.Edina Monsoon wrote:I'm generally content to lurk but after the lovely AbFab video posted earlier today I'll peek out for just a moment to say High. :)
Have sent my Lindsay supporting letters to CFI, one right after WIS2, another after SkepTickle's doxxing. Rec'd a friendly reply from Tom Flynn, just an acknowledgement of the emails, and they'll take them and everyone else's into account in their meeting next week.
<snip>
/lurk
OK, quick analysis of the speakers at the conference who were asked whether they wanted to sign (I've removed those who Svan said she specifically excluded.)Sarah Moglia, *
Carrie Poppy, *
Amy Davis Roth, *
Rebecca Watson *
Desiree Schell
Amanda Marcotte *
Rebecca Goldstein
Jamila Bey *
Vyckie D. Garrison *
Teresa MacBain,
Maryam Namazie
Stephanie Zvan *
Ophelia Benson *
Greta Christina *
Katha Pollit
Susan Jacoby
Jennifer Michael Hecht
Maryam Namazie
Soraya Chemaly *
Shelley Segal
Since I'm sure at least one of you is already hard at work on this - before you post a photoshop of the Stephalump in the actual Seven on Nine costume, I have two words for you: Trigger Warning.bovarchist wrote:I am now forever referring to Svan as "Svan of Lyin'"
And don't forget...TheMan wrote:I think this will catch-on.
[youtube]o-50GjySwew[/youtube]
Camel Toe comes free of charge....now I've done it.
http://dyingunderalienstars.files.wordp ... lights.jpgConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:WHO IS NUMBER FIVE?ERV wrote:The Collective generally dont use names. Just numbers. The character you know as 'Svan' is One of Thirteen.Jan Steen wrote:I noticed that too. Why are the names of the dirty dozen not mentioned? Are they ashamed? Are they cowards?Outwest wrote:Notice she didn't identify for her readers who the others are. I wonder if they're afraid of backlash. That's standing up, isn't it? They're probably afraid people will start boycotting their appearances. Then again, were there really 13 or is that another fabrication?
Who said something about always naming names?
Gefan wrote:
Anyone want to give odds these were both shot in Florida?
(Obviously not a doxxing - it's from http://prancercise.com/about/ )Joanna Rohrback, B.H.S.
Owner/MGR.M of Prancercise LLC,
8801 W. Atlantic Blvd. #770460
Coral Springs,Fl.33077
What? Your relining the floors? You'll need to seal that paper with at least 3 coats of floor sealing varnish. I like the Rock and Roll cat scratching post you have...cool!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Starting to get along-ish...
[url=http://s391.photobucket.com/user/fairyp ... 4.jpg.html][img]http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... c4b604.jpg
I missed that. Why did Svan specifically exclude them? Did she not ask because she kind of knew that they were not sympathetic? Or could there have been a concern that asking them to sign might have prompted a polar opposite reaction? Such as those speakers sending a counter letter to the CFI?Dick Strawkins wrote:(I've removed those who Svan said she specifically excluded.)
Edina Monsoon quoted this earlier (#27816), though not quite sure where it came from:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Wouldn't there be some sort of conflict of interests if Hensley signed, as she's a memeber of the board?
TheMan: I am the cat's scratching post.
(Out of deference to those who are already dealing with a difficult situation and potential conflicts of interest, we have not given Melody Hensley, Lauren Becker, Debbie Goddard, or Elizabeth Cornwell an opportunity to sign this letter though they spoke at the conference.)
Oh, yep, thanks! Seems to be from Svan's letter:Steersman wrote:Edina Monsoon quoted this earlier (#27816), though not quite sure where it came from:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Wouldn't there be some sort of conflict of interests if Hensley signed, as she's a memeber of the board?
TheMan: I am the cat's scratching post.
(Out of deference to those who are already dealing with a difficult situation and potential conflicts of interest, we have not given Melody Hensley, Lauren Becker, Debbie Goddard, or Elizabeth Cornwell an opportunity to sign this letter though they spoke at the conference.)
Yes, sorry I wasn't more clear. Svan seems to want to imply these women would glady sign the letter but they're being left alone out of mercy because they're sooo weary with the "difficult situation" - well if I remember correctly Debbie Goddard was friendly with Justin and Karla and even posed for a smiley happy photo with Justin. If her whole conference experience was ruined by Lindsay's brutal misogynist attack she doesn't look like it, and she sure doesn't look frightened by 'The Harasser.' Maybe that's the 'conflict of interest'?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, yep, thanks! Seems to be from Svan's letter:Steersman wrote:Edina Monsoon quoted this earlier (#27816), though not quite sure where it came from:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Wouldn't there be some sort of conflict of interests if Hensley signed, as she's a memeber of the board?
TheMan: I am the cat's scratching post.
(Out of deference to those who are already dealing with a difficult situation and potential conflicts of interest, we have not given Melody Hensley, Lauren Becker, Debbie Goddard, or Elizabeth Cornwell an opportunity to sign this letter though they spoke at the conference.)
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 978#p95978
http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a60 ... 3dbd5a.jpgConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:WHO IS NUMBER FIVE?ERV wrote: The Collective generally dont use names. Just numbers. The character you know as 'Svan' is One of Thirteen.
Well, when you put it THAT way... :)Gefan wrote:And now, in a public spirited attempt to draw fire from Mykeru...Scented Nectar wrote:Trying to host an orgy under a burning effigy of Rebecca Watson would be such a fail that no humans in a hundred mile radius would be able to get horny for at least a year. The film would be of limp dicks, dry ladyparts, and lots of very awkward but futile attempts by everyone to get their gear working.Gefan wrote:Thus spake the only person whose opinion on censorship ultimately matters a flying fuck around here.Lsuoma wrote:It's all certainly boring the arse off me...ReneeHendricks wrote:Kind of surprised at the amount of panty-wadding over Mykeru. Also a bit surprised over the "oh, what about delicate fee-fees?" kind of crap coming in here. Are we shedding our thick skins and meandering over to the SJW side?
I don't give a shit if Mykeru's gone crazy, if nude pictures of Greta get plastered all over the Washington monument, or if Scented Nectar hosts an orgy under a burning effigy of Rebecca Watson and films the fucking thing.
None of this affects any of my goals in life.
Anyway, please continue...
...C'mon there's lots of people here who could get aroused by the image of Rebecca Watson on fire. :popcorn:
I was taking advantage of waking up wicked early to re-read some of the posts analyzing Stephanie Svan's decision to pour gasoline on herself and strike a match resulting in self-immolation and martyrdom.mikelf wrote:windy wrote:Unless "CFI staff" in that statement ≈ Melody HensleyOutwest wrote: There's the money quote for me:
The egotism in that statement alone. It's just too much to even laugh at right now. I would think that if the CFI staff were that upset, they would've have been complaining during the conference. As usual, she's making shit up again.By Sunday morning, several of us were actively propping up CFI staff morale.
Exactamundo. This blatant attempt to appeal to "employee morale" just crystallizes in my mind exactly how inept Stephanie, et al are at playing the organizational game. It isn't a surprise to me since their ranks are filled with:
1. Academics who think success in a bureaucracy comes from putting more hissy in your fit (PZ, Lousy Canuck,Carrier)
2. Non-supervisory individual contributors who's career success comes from subject matter expertise (Stephanie)
3. Dilettantes trying to punch above their class (Melody, Rebecca)
At the executive level, you don't succeed in organizations (or, for that matter, courtrooms, since Lindsay was a litigator) by being the loudest or most earnest. You succeed by fully preparing the battlefield before you step onto it. You decide on your goals, determine different methods to achieve those goals, game out the various responses to what you might do, and prepare for each contingency. It is my opinion that the game was over long before Lindsay stood up to walk to the podium. I expect that he circulated his speech to the CFI board far in advance of the WIS conference and solicited their feedback and suggestions. And, dollars to donuts, he incorporated their feedback into the speech so they had some sense of ownership.
Thanks for that video, and yes, they're 'cute'. 'insanely cute' would be even more accurate.Michael K Gray wrote:A completely off-topic post by which to cheer up the aminule luvverz here.
(No. NOT kittehs)
These clips are a bit old, but non-Adelaidians may not have caught them.
First. 'Cute' Baby Tassie Debils:
GrPahHjCSeE
Are you trying to tell me that the Brothers Warner may have lied to me?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Thanks for that video, and yes, they're 'cute'. 'insanely cute' would be even more accurate.
Very clever con-cat-enation there, sir.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Meanwhile, I'm being caninvaded:
