Allow me to make this clear. This is
not in response to Justicar. What he thinks, or posts about me does not affect me, I advise he keep going. He only makes it worse for himself.
This is in response to my fellow skeptics
rightly demanding evidence for my post. I was lazy, I should have done this immediately. It took over 3 hours non-stop, and unless specific clarification is needed, these are my very last words on the subject.
Franc will screen capture all of these comments and put them all together, since I heard a rumour that the original slimepit threads will be moved, and let me tell you, I am never doing this again.
I apologise for the formatting issues, When I was doing the research, I was saving it little by little and this is how it turned out. I can't be bothered to repair it for asthetic reasons only.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
John Greg wrote:
Why do these people always seem to just take someone's word for it, and never bother to find out for themselves what we're all about?...
I don't know if I agree with that. It's no secret that I have always agreed with John C. Welch and Nectar on language, tone, memes (even CK was fine with me, but I'm tired of the arguments, so I'm not sorry to see it go).
I like being a part of something "infamous". So we use colourful language, we also tell it like it is, which very few others do, (you are wonderful, Paula Kirby). This politically correct bullshit that has taken over free speech, can go fuck itself. As Hitch said, "you have no right
not to be offended".
Has anyone listened to Hitch when he was
not publicly debating, or speaking? CK would not have fazed him.
This is mainly a conversation between like minded people, it is not our "press release", we all have our own views, and perspective. Some things, like the baboons, we all seem to agree on, if we agreed on everything, it would be terribly boring. If we had to mind our language, in order to "look better" to outsiders, I would not want to be a part of it, unless it was in addition to this. If you can't handle the honesty and freedom, and lack of words being considered magic, then you are not cut out to join. As I said before on ERV:
"I’m afraid that if you want a kinder, gentler slimepit, you should create one. Many of us would contribute there, and those who are with us when it comes to FfTB but feel uncomfortable with the slimepit association, can join us there..."
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-49489
here I am supporting the tone down for Abbie again:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48379
That isn't what this is. The original Slime Pit was a place to not be concerned about minding what we say, it was a place to and vent, to join other intelligent, articulate, rational, hardcore skeptics who are anti-pc dialog, anti-baboon, and the Merkins were the minority. Plus the Merkins that were regulars were not at all US-centric.
We had arguments and rants against each other, and resolved our differences, agreed that there was two ways to look at it, or disagreed completely, but acknowledged there is more to the person than their view on one topic. Other than Justi, we listened when other commenters told us that we needed to get some sleep and clarity, that we were reacting irrationally.
We got rid of the idiots and the 4channers, and the baboons without censoring, editing, or banning. Those who could not handle our bluntness and our "you have no right to be offended" stance, quietly left.
It was a private pub. The way to get a membership card was to be able to look beyond the language and tone, and see why it was important to us to have a place to talk. Pearl clutching, politically correct, victim gender feminists pussies, need not apply.
here is John C. Welch, explaining it far better than I:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-49019
and
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48565
here is Justicar saying "I-have-no-power-here-in-any-shape asking people to be a little more thoughtful in what they say, not gratuitous in how they say it ..." which is his out. He then goes ahead from then on to act as though he
has power, even in the same fucking comment:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48536
and even more in the next one:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48542
and again:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48393
and again goes back to act as if he is asking for Abbie's sake:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48401
Clearly Justicar is pushing for tone control. He is not asking for it just to be until Abbie is in the clear, he is making the argument about how we look to outsiders.
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48405
but then as an after thought, he leaves this comment about doing it for Abbie (even though he is talking about how we appear to outsiders, and not in order to protect Abbie:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48543
This why I began to get angry with Justicar this time. Last time he was in a psychotic state, he posted non-stop the exact same argument in pages and pages of text for over 48 hours straight.
Here is Abbie, clearly
not concerned about language:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48776
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48789
here is Abbie prior to that:
the two comments to follow are important:
" I dont care what words people use to express themselves or their opinions. I physically could not care less. Doesnt effect me.... Idiots will *ALWAYS* find something to complain about...."
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48265
"And this is why comment moderation and censorship are quite unnecessary..."
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48296
here Abbie is struggling with what she believes in (complete freedom of speech) and the repercussions it has had on her:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48384
Perhaps the most important Abbie quote for my defense, because Abbie comes out in support for my words:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48379
and Justicar clearly stating that he thinks the tone should be controlled regardless of if it will affect Abbie or not:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48387
and one of many reactions to Justicar's acting as though his views are being attacked, (and of course his views are the most important.)
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48388
and Abbie thanking us for caring enough to tone it down at ERV for her well being:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48484
Here is a perfect example of trying to weigh all of the perspectives, without making it seem as though they are the official spokesperson, or that they are speaking for Abbie:
Read it carefully. Having a place like the original slimepit that does not affect Abbie, and another place where the tone is moderate and outsiders can feel as though it is welcoming to them is the answer to this comment, which is exactly what I have been saying since the beginning.
"...I don’t care, really, that the FC6 say I’m a bad person, I beat my dog, hate my wife, etc. I don’t LIKE it, but whatever. Haters gonna hate. But when I see that to them, trying to wreck jobs and careers is acceptable? That can’t just be ignored. (FWIW, i’m sorry it happened to you abbie, you certainly don’t deserve it.)..."
"...If nothing else, I respect Abbie enough, and consider her enough of a friend to make changes to help her out"
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/ ... ment-48437