The Justicar

Dear Greg Hampikian

2014-03-01T14:55:00.000-08:00

The original title for this post was going to be: "When May I Shoot My Unlettered Biology Professor?" (clips feed magazines; magazines feed firearms, not the other way around; shooting someone to stop a deadly assault isn't, as his article implies, actually a punishment; being dismissed for cheating, however, is) with the runner-up candidate title being, "Why The Biology Professor Should Bother Sitting In A Physics Class From Time To Time" (he thinks that firearms have some innate velocity different from, say, a pen or pencil in a bag; he fails to demonstrate an understanding of ammunition: hollow points expand upon entry, thus increasing their surface area and thus reducing their penetration profile; this in turn works mischief to the goal of hitting vital structures located deep within the body - one reason, among others, that better than 6 out of 7 shooting victims survive the ordeal). These were wordy and no doubt awkward for a feed reader; thus, the cordial title you see above.

The individual mentioned above has written an article appearing in the New York Times regarding a recent legislative move taken in one house of the bicameral Idaho legislature which will, if passed and signed into law, permit concealed carry on the campuses of Idaho's tertiary schools. To this professor of both biology and criminal justice, it would seem that if there exists a law which makes the doing of a thing permissible, it thereby follows from the existence of such a law that the law is an advertisement for the doing of that thing. Now, I know many of you are thinking that sounds absurd, for I thought it so at first blush too. Upon a moment's reflection, however, I must now confess my approval of his schema.

As a professor of criminal justice, I am sure the good doctor is aware of and concerned about youths and alcohol consumption, for as he sarcastically repines, "The problem, of course, is not that drunken frat boys will be armed; it is that they are drunken frat boys." This is a problem that is, one can readily see, easily traced to the encouragement of legislatures throughout the nation. Indeed, this is a rampant problem in the United States: 45 states in the Union unashamedly have been for years positively encouraging underage men and women, boys and girls to get drunk. What is worse, one should think, is that these states have been pressuring these children's parents to foist upon their children these evil libations. The curious reader will by now have in his mind a lingering question about what it is that I mean.

In all but 5 states, there are explicit laws which permit underage children (and adults, but that's another topic for another time) to drink at home (and depending on the state, in other approved locations) with parental consent. A note from dear old mom is all it takes to tie one on. Clearly, these legislatures have been paying mere lip service to the notion of wanting to abate the problem of youthful, alcohol-induced exuberance by on the one hand writing laws imposing stiff criminal penalties for those who procure for, collude to procure for, or sell to children alcoholic beverages while, on the other hand, encouraging parents to encourage their very own charges to eat, drink and be merry. Once again elected representatives have the professor's feet in both sides of their mouths by way of coveting the votes of both the prohibitionists and their rival bootlegging parents, two groups who it might seem difficult for one elected body to simultaneously woo, and on the same subject! Quelle surprise.

I am uncertain for what purpose the professor adverts to the university's "Shared-Values Statement"; does the professor operate under the delusion that students' legal rights can be abrogated by such a document? To the extent that I'm aware of how the law operates, my rights are neither enhanced nor diminished by the existence of such a nice-sounding but empty assertion that the school attempts to provide a safe feeling environment. I wonder how effective a bulwark against being raped invocation of that policy statement was in this case. Perhaps, but for the apotropaic incantation of that policy, this woman's rape ordeal would have been immeasurably worse. There's a curious artifact of that event which shouldn't go unmentioned: the men dispatched to have a come-to-Jesus talk with her rapist were all armed. No doubt that was a fluke.

Now, of course, one should note that more than half of the states permit concealed carry on college campuses. Idaho is among the 29 states that do authorize it, but each college has heretofore been able to set its own policy. That's true in a lot of states too. A quick reading of campus shootings shows that the shootings which have occurred on college campuses have only happened in either (a) states that ban carrying on campus or (b) in states in which conceal carry is authorized subject to the decision of the school administrators, who have in turn elected to prohibit concealed carry on campus.

Pst, Al Franken....

2013-03-11T02:40:00.002-07:00

Hey, Al:

So, I was milling around on the internet when I happened upon a recent senate hearing discussing what is ostensibly some kind of response to 'gun violence'. Several times during the hearing, you made reference to the absence of even a single instance in which an AR-15 has been used for self defense. Not a single example to be found you proclaimed a few times. You've been asked to imagine hypotheticals though, which you seem not to be satisfied with. Allow me to assist you, Al.

All I can really say, Al, is that as a comedian you were able to pull off better research on Ann Coulter than it seems you and your entire staff, having at its disposal the full resources of the United States Congress (aren't you a member of the more reflective chamber?), could manage. I thought about actually digging into some police reports, but then I figured I'd spot you one by just restricting myself to Youtube. Now, my guess is that it happens often enough that I'll be able to find a video on Youtube in, well, under 15 seconds. Now, I know you're really enthusiastic about this legislation, for the children of course. It's always about the children. So, I'll just use some keywords from the, ahem, anti-AR-15 homily to which the C-SPAN audience was, um, entreated?

Anyway, I'll just type in "AR-15 defense children" and see what comes up.

Hot damn! Research is hard these days!

All of that time you claim to have spent reading the previous record and thinking hard about this subject and you couldn't find a single example. I think you're totally slow-playing that Harvard education, Al. Or have you spent too much time around Ann Coulter?

(oh, for everyone else, do be sure to send this to Al Franken. And never let it be said that I never gave Al anything. Oh, who am I kidding? I seriously doubt even if he sees this he'll drop the 'I haven't seen a single example' line.)

On a serious note:

Al, the reason you don't find the examples in the 'record' is one of those whole seek and ye shall find kind of jobbies. If you really wanted to find it, it would be a trivial moment's effort to find what you imply is so obscure as to not yet have been read into the 'record'. You're a senator in the United States of America. If you wanted an example, open your mouth to one of your assistants and I'm sure they can find you as many as you'd like. It's on youtube.

I can only surmise the reason you've managed not to find an example is because you've done the very hard work of neither asking nor looking.

May It Please the Court

2012-10-03T05:10:00.001-07:00

Dear Judge Lori B. Jackson:

If it please the court, your honor, I should like to take a moment of the court's time to discuss an issue involving your honor's incompetence, if it's all the same to you. You see, judge, you are at present the jurist presiding over a divorce case involving one Mr. James Kirk, and one Mrs. Tina Kirk who, as your honor will know, have two minor children. As you will also know in regards this case, the court has been presented with a guardian ad litem report (hereinafter 'the report') recommending that said minor children, whose names I shall not mention, should be placed in the care of their father rather than their mother as a consequence of their mother's ill-controlled alcoholism and general mental illness. Also present in the report is a documented history of abusive conduct on the part of the mother as directed towards these minor children.

These reports are fairly common in your line of work, and would in the course of a normal case not rise to level of being remarkable beyond the parties directly involved (i.e., yourself, the parents, their lawyers, and various government officials otherwise bound up in dealing with this particular case); however, the instant case has a few peculiarities which attendance has drawn my attention. I, of course, refer to your decision to place the minor children in the custody of their mentally ill, abusive and alcoholic mother rather than their father, and in disregard of the report indicating that the mother is unsuited at present to properly care for the children in addition to her being abusive against them. Further compounding matters is the fact that the publicly available report has found its way to a website whereat a copy, which redacts the name of the children, has been posted to bring to the attention of the public-at-large your decision.

The guardian ad litem has filed an injunction request with the court to enjoin both Mr. Kirk and avoiceformen from posting said report, and to order the latter to remove from its website the redacted copy of the public report because the report, it is alleged, does not serve the best interests of the children. Presumably, if the best interests of the children are served by your placing these children in the care of a drunken, mentally ill parent who has a documented history of abusing her children, then people discussing the fact that you have put these children at physical risk of being harmed must serve their best interests, for stopping someone from being, oh, say, beaten is an issue more pressing than someone discussing the fact that someone has been beaten, and you clearly have ruled that being beaten is in a child's best interest.

As noted in the guardian ad litem's motion now pending before the court notes, said motion was served on the attorney of record who is representing Mr. Kirk in the case now before your court. In an order for a hearing on this motion which you had entered into the record on September 28, I can't help but notice that Mr. Kirk's attorney's name appears on page two just above your signature. I also cannot help but to notice that you have dutifully lined through the attorney's name and appended to page one of this order a handwritten note which you've initialed indicating that the order should be served on Mr. Kirk directly for he is, on your telling, not represented by an attorney. What is more is that I cannot find (a), a note indicating that his attorney no longer represents him, or (b) that Mr. Kirk has informed the court that he wishes to proceed without an attorney.

And as a peculiar aside to all of this, judge, I notice that I am not subject to the jurisdiction of your court, and even if I were, I am not a named party in the motion, so your order enjoining any of the named parties from publishing this document wouldn't apply to me in any event. Thus, in an effort to educate you in the ways of the internet; viz., the Streisand Effect, should you actually sign an order enjoining said parties from hosting or publishing this document, I shall immediately upload said document and host said document for the public, as their interest might dictate, might view it at their convenience. During the intervening period of time, I shall only link to it on the avoiceformen website.

Best Regards,
Justi
Somewhere Your Writ Won't Run

The Patriarchy Oppressing More Women

2012-07-26T09:52:00.001-07:00

As we all know, the Patriarchy is like totes for really reals, which is why in times of danger and bloodshed, we can expect these sad stories of women dying while shielding their boyfriends from harm's way.

So, RIP, to Jon Bunk, Alex Teves, and Matt McQuinn, who despite the patriarchy's indifference towards the safety, station and progress of women rose up against the system and died shielding their girlfriends from the rain of gunfire that killed 12 innocent people.

Or maybe, just perhaps, the Patriarchy is entirely a fabrication of the minds of a few deluded women who find every reason under the sun to excuse away their lack of personal capacity.

Edit: having scoured the slums (FTB, skepchick, etc) I can't help but notice that none of them is today complaining about the paternalistic white-knighting so egregiously on display in Aurora. Perhaps after they've overcome the pain and bereavement they're suffering upon learning of the horrible events leaving these unfortunate women traumatized for life, our pioneering heroes will muster up the strength to condemn the dead men for their terribly improvident, flagrant showing off male privilege.

Jumping the Shark: The Closer

2012-07-22T08:36:00.002-07:00

I am finally watching the latest episode of The Closer; right now the, I am the 21 minute mark. I am severely annoyed by this episode; whoever wrote this particular script should be beaten profusely about the head and neck until such time as s/he gets a clue.

Synopsis:
Lieutenants Flynn and Provenza are goaded into recovering Provenza's ex-wife's wedding ring which she hocked to one of those 'we buy gold' type businesses. She sold said ring for $49.00 despite the $500.00 Provenza paid for it many years ago in order to buy prescriptions for her ailing dog. During the transition sequence, these three people and the dog make their way to one of the detective's police car, and everything turns as stupid as possible.

Flynn drives while Provenza's ex rides shotgun and Provenza rides in the back the patrol car with the dog. This does not happen.

Flynn decides to play with the lights and sirens because he finds it amusing. This too is something that doesn't happen for any number of reasons. Notably among which are departmental policies, state laws and the personal financial liability that comes with doing so. Qualified immunity evaporates in bad faith.

While playing with the sex lights (I've always called them that because whenever you seem them on someone is about to get fucked), he decides to stare at the ex-wife while they joke and laugh. This too doesn't happen. The public do not like seeing police officers running code while laughing, and complaints come in. Police officers do not turn on their lights and then stare at the driver's seat for better than 30 seconds at a time because all police officers are fully aware of one of Murphy's laws of police work: the lights and sirens police officers use to clear traffic only attracts it.

They enter the gold selling business where we meet a very attractive lady standing behind the counter who is sorting various items of jewelry, wearing latex gloves and who announces to the detectives that the store is about to close. In the background, one hears a loud drilling type noise.

Provenza badges her and hands her a receipt for the ring and indicates he'd like the ring returned; the counter attendant returns to the back room to look for said item. She returns with the ring, gives it to Provenza. After having been complimented on her beauty by Flynn, she wishes them a good day.

Flynn walks up to her and grabs her gloved hand while paying her more compliments about how beautiful she is, how great her smile. He nods towards the glove, which she removes so he can start caressing her hand. This too doesn't happen, and is indeed all on its own one of the few ways a civil servant can be fired immediately.

They walk out and notice the lady and a man running to get into a car about 20 yards away. Neither Flynn nor Provenza bother to jot down the tag number even though they now realize the jig is up and they walked into a robbery.

They re-enter the store, with a civilian and her dog, weapons holstered, and haven't called it in yet.

Provenza's ex-wife's extremely sick and dying dog somehow manages to break away from her and resists her pleas of 'no'. This dog walks about a quarter of a mile per hour, and none of them makes an attempt to step on his leash, or walk the two feet necessary to cut the dog off.

The dog, despite the pleas and 'oh noing', sallies forth on his quest to move as slow as possible, turns the corner and starts eating the glove that was left on the counter (which somehow got to the floor). These police officers recognizing that it's evidence, don't attempt to stop the dog beyond asking it not to continue eating the glove, while they're bending over to make it clear that they're asking the dog not to eat the glove. Mind you, the store they're in was just robbed and they've yet to determine what happened to the actual attendant.

Turns out said attendant is dead in one of the backrooms. They've still yet to call in the fact that this store was just robbed.

At this part of the show (the 20ish minute mark), we join Provenza on a stakeout with his ex-wife as his partner, and her dog too. This is set up because the robbers have been either a.) impersonating police officers to rob places, or b.) are actually police officers who are robbing places. The dead attendant had told his business partner that two police officers had shown up to raid the place pursuant to a warrant, and that one was male and one was female. So, the writer wanted to keep the male/female appearance for the business partner's benefit when he later shows up. Provenza's wife is not a police officer (and apparently the entire LAPD only has 3 women working for it - all of whom were too busy so a civilian is sent instead to help conduct the undercover police work.)

While on the undercover job, she starts babbling about all the times Provenza and she shared, and how she kind of sometimes misses being married to him. Provenza notes he misses a few things . . . takes the wire he's wearing and disables the transmitter to let his ex-wife know they have about 5 minutes before the suspect is due to arrive, and he could show her one of the things he misses. No police officer, ever, under any circumstances, would disables a bug or wire in an undercover buy where that's how his backup is monitoring what's going on inside. Ever. For any reason.

Because it's a sure pathway to being killed.

Also, having done a few undercover buys in my time, I can assure you that one thing not on any police officer's mind during them is getting some ass. You're far, far, far too busy taking note of the minutest detail around yourself, and being aware that the next few minutes of your life might well be the last few minutes of it.

I get that this is a show and one has to suspend a certain amount of disbelief. But this episode is ridiculous, and is an insult to its audience.

I'm a Nazi - Obviously

2012-07-12T00:41:00.001-07:00

How do I know?

Well, for the same reason that laughing at a rape joke, a racist joke, a child molestation joke, a murder joke, or someone walking face first into glass indicate that I live in a society that is friendly and accepting of racism, rape, child molestation, murder and all the rest so too it must therefore follow that the United States is friendly to Nazis. Because, you know, I laugh at Nazi jokes.

Now, don't let the fact that we've gone to war and killed millions of Nazis, routinely imprison murderers, rapists, child molesters and all the rest counsel otherwise. Laughing at a joke quite obviously indicates one lives in a society that is friendly to whatever is the underlying story of a particular joke.

Tosh made a joke about rape (or a comment depending on what one reads) or some such. And that, of course, translates to the whole of society being supportive of actual rape - not supportive of jokes. No sir (or ma'am). Laughter quite obviously to the culturally and socially plugged in people who just 'get it' supports not comedy, not humor, not laughter, not irony, but rape. It couldn't be anything but.

When will you fuckers learn that you can stop all the ills of the world by not laughing? Mel Brooks, shame on you.

The End of the World Is NIGH

2012-07-12T00:14:00.001-07:00

I don't spend a great deal of time listening to the crazies of the world, but sometimes I can't resist. I also don't try to predict the future too far in advance, but sometimes I can't resist. So, here goes my 'prediction': the world won't be ending this year. I say this knowing full well that Howard, a regular guy who has no website, isn't selling anything or whatever, but has put the pieces together, might disagree with me. And he's a DJ IRL. So there.

Howard notes that one of the questions he gets is like: 'Where are the signs this is happening'

Oh, my evidence you ask? Sometimes people do ask me for evidence, which is very rude. Anyway, I have a series of 'just so' pieces of things I can point to which, if not dispositive alone, should form a cumulative case in my favor. I abduce, let's say, that finding calendars for the year 2013 makes the fact that 2013 will come about all but certain! You see, I have noticed this happens year on year - I see a calendar which has some future year on it, and then that future year comes about! Also, I feel it very strongly. There, I've said it. Call it my faith if you'd like to . . . I won't be shouted down!

I realize this isn't quite as strong as thousands of birds dropping dead in 3 states (count them! THREE states) in the United States of 'Mer'ka, but no one ever said the future was set in stone. Except those claiming the end of the world because of the Mayan calendar I mean.

Oh, incidentally, the states where these birds were dropping dead? Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas. Seriously, have you been there? Can you blame the birds?

Anyway, this is best listened to while hypnogogic, and possibly slightly drunk. (Greg Laden, that's pretty much 24/7 for you!)

How to Spot a Dogmatist

2012-07-08T20:57:00.001-07:00

The easiest way to spot someone for whom reality is unimportant, someone for whom all that matters is the story they want to tell is to pay attention to what she says.

For instance, the lie that I pretend to have power on Abbie's blog is being perpetuated by Sacha, who concedes that upon reading what I've actually written, I state flat out that I have no power other than what is available to the rest of the universe: persuasion. She also concedes that my announcing that out of the gate is sufficient to counter any inference that I think otherwise; rather, the only way to refute the proposition is to state its negation at a later time. And since I don't state such negation at any time, it naturally follows that she's conceded the matter is resolved.

You of course would be wrong to think that.

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:

I'm not even sure how one is supposed to look at that as a rational statement on her part. I state upfront that I lack power and then go on to pretend I have it. Is this akin to my stating I don't have a cheeseburger in my empty hand and then pretending as though I do have a cheeseburger in my empty hand? And, as she writes, this is meant to convince people that my empty hand really has a cheeseburger in it?

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.

Yes, clearly I was arguing for people to restrain themselves when posting comments . . . so too is Abbie. Indeed, her citing Jerry Coyne's non-blog website is the standard for the tone she wanted. And then Abbie has today iterated that her readers are to attempt to follow the NATGeo guidelines on tone and language:

So, #1, if you all want to comment here, try very hard to follow NatGeos suggested guidelines. I know theyre vague, but do your best.

If you dont want to worry about it, theres always #2, The Slyme Pit, a discussion board graciously set up by an ERV reader where you dont have to watch your language.

In other words: watch your language (i.e., tone) on her blog; if you don't want to do that, then she suggests you take what you have to say off of her blog to a place where it is acceptable.

In short, the 'tone' argument of mine is perfectly entailed by what Abbie herself has and continues to state publicly.

Yeah, I was way off the mark there.

Sacha is a bit like the politician who is stopped mid-sentence by a rival politician. The rival says, "I think what you're saying is a lie."
The first politician says, "Of course it's a lie, but hear me out anyway."

That's Sacha in a nutshell.

Dogmatism and Jean Kazez on Bullying

2012-07-07T15:42:00.000-07:00

There are times when I'm not at all happy to disagree with someone who's done intellectual favors for me. This is one such time. I should note at the outset that I'm putting this on my blog instead of the comments on her blog because of presence of certain dogmatists of a particularly noxious aroma. Jean Kazez played a minor but noticeable role in my recently changing my mind about the level of discourse which is wise to adopt with respect to the FTB people; namely, she was a voice among a chorus who were applying pressure to induce people like me to drop what I like to call the nuclear option.

This despite her steadfast delight at ensuring certain received opinions are not challengeable in her presence. I shall, therefore, not directly challenge her dogmas for it would be useless to do so. She quite literally won't hear it. In her recent blog article on bullying, there is much to take issue with; to avoid a 'piling on' effect she in some sense equates with a bullying tactic, I'll constrain myself to a narrow range of issues (and ask that people who read my blog don't thus take it as a lead-in to poke and prod her - that would be counterproductive).

Jean writes:

Back when I was blogging at Talking Philosophy, I once deleted the comments of some Holocaust deniers who dropped by for "rational debate." No thanks. I've closed threads here when I thought people were saying things not worth discussing. But it takes a lot for me to do that. The last time I did so someone was challenging the idea that women are raped more than men. Not. Worth. My. Time.

Notice here the scare quoting of people whose views on reality differ from hers. To deny the holocaust is, on her estimation of affairs, by definition not rational it would seem. In other words, there is only one permissible conclusion that but for its presence one is tautologically irrational, and thus no debate can follow on - axiomatically. Similarly, it is strictly forbidden to challenge her dogma that women are raped more than men. And, indeed, no discussion on that issue is worth her time; she has the truth. I will note that she's at least consistent in this, and upfront about it. Earlier in the article she advocates that there exist topics where it's acceptable to irrationally prevent from being discussed.

Only she doesn't call it irrationality to prohibit them; it's just 'non-rational'; a distinction commonly undertaken by the religious to explain that while belief in a god isn't rational in the way that science is, it's still not against reason and rationality; it's just a non-rational exercise. Jean, for all of your insights into the world, I think this is a blind spot on your part and I hope that my questions here can do for you what it is that your questions and opinions did for me quite recently.

Within the last year, the country both you and I live in on the federal level changed the definition of rape, which now permits men to be counted as victims of rape. And this, of course, means that the estimated amounts of sexual assaults in the prisons now can properly be counted as rape. This influx of numbers, whatever they work out to be once the data are crunched, could potentially work directly against your can't-be-challenged-and-will-be-non-rationally-cleared-off-the-table-as-being-beyond-the-pale dogma. Why is an academic comfortable excluding from the conversation views which are contrary to hers?

For a point of reference, I have issues that I don't discuss. Say, incest. It makes me uncomfortable and I thus generally avoid it. On what grounds is it consistent with academic inquiry, though, if on the proviso that I do engage in discussion about it, then I'm entitled to define out of consideration, as you do, views I disagree with?

Why discuss rape statistics if you're going to exclude from the conversation people who disagree with you on this? What's the point in discussing it in the first place?

You may not claim it's to educate, for you've conceded out of the gate that you've reached a conclusion and contrary data will be excluded. One cannot well-claim that one is engaging in 'education' when one defines out of existence all other views but the narrow range of views one has taken on board - this is indoctrination, not education.

And the reason I care to put this to you is because the quote above immediately precedes:

There's a problem, though, if a blog community sets the parameters so that the permitted claims fall within a relatively narrow range, and a very wide range of claims are subject to being bullied off the table.

You concede that this exact behavior fits into your definition of bullying. In two related statements, you define what would count as bullying and then opine:

To bully a claim off the table, you do things like: deleting comments, editing comments, mocking, straw-manning, piling on, insulting, and generally making life unpleasant for the person who made the claim. They then withdraw, and the claim vanishes. Wonderful.

and:

Now, it's kind of bad calling this "bullying" because bullying is always bad, by definition.

It seems that you have just defined the parameters to your liking so as to make a point that it's bad when others do it, but not when you do it for reasons of utility: expedience and efficiency:

Sometimes speed is of the essence. Sometimes we don't want to dignify a claim, or the person making the claim, by putting a lot of time and energy into a rational refutation.

But there's nothing about 'speed' and sparing 'time' which entails the tactics you describe as bullying: deleting, banning, editing and the like. Except that you construct this inconsistent-to-my-reading position so as to let moderation you've done in the past get a pass while being able to condemn what others are doing now as not kosher.

In short, Jean, there is nothing about one not responding to another's claims that entails banning, blocking and preventing other people from discussing it. Yet you in some sense seem to my lights to conflate them.

How do you reconcile this?

Ophelia Benson Emailed Me! (not)

2012-07-07T14:33:00.002-07:00

Anyone remember on July 1 this year when Ophelia Benson left the following comment:

The one thing we get to count on, in a shifting universe, is that there will always be doodz on Justin’s blog giggling about kicking me in the cunt. Always. Always. Always. Because freethought. Because hahaha. Because 4chan. Because they totes said they might be going to change! Because trolling. Because hahahahaha some more. Because guys. Because hey. Because people can be helped (and giving them a place to talk about kicking me in the cunt is the way to do it). Because it’s Sunday. Because it’s the next day. Because hahahahaha again.

There's no particular reason one should be expected to remember, and it can certainly not be found where it was originally left. That's because Ophelia Benson (and some others) managed to get Justin Griffith bullied into deleting all comments that disagreed with the slice of reality that's allowed to glean through over at FfTB. Fortunately, the obsequiously punctilious Michael Kingsford Gray can be depended on in such matters, and his reporting caused some to grow concerned that perhaps Ophelia was suffering mental decline, or a stroke or something.

Well, I woke up this morning as I'm wont to do, whereupon I checked my email as I'm also wont to do. Imagine my excitement at seeing this:

LOL!

Justi, my god, you are absolutely fucking nuts, and hilarious too.

There is almost not a word of truth in your paranoid, delusional, hysterical fantasy.

My god, if anyone was a perfect candidate for a new FfTB blog, or a Freudian couch, it's you, pal.

ROFLOL.

Maybe we should all get together and try to paper-airplane sweet nothings into one of your psychotic pockets. Ooh! Ooh! Assaults! Assaults, ya fuckin nutcracker.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Looneyfuckingfruitytunes Are Us, is the wee Justicardiod.

You friggin' pathetic, psychotic, paranoid loon, you are not even worth serious consideration.

Tristan? What the fuck are you doing skating on this delusional psychopaths coat-tails?

Rolling on the floor laughing at OpheliaJustiStefunnyZvanCarNatalieDroid.

Give us all a call when you start blowing PeeZus, pal.

Turned out NOT to be Ophelia. That's John Greg flexing his intellectual muscle. He's managed to get it to register just below 'Ophelia while having a stroke'. And it's not a particularly high bar to begin with.

[Edit: I have been encouraged to remove the offense stuff; so I've pulled a Benson by disappearing things into an Orwellian memory hole, since I know she approves of this technique. For instance:

Update August 19. I've edited this, and I'm going to edit some of the comments. Very Orwellian; very memory-hole. Yes; too bad.]

I Am Possibly a Neighbor of Spartacus!

2012-07-06T15:56:00.001-07:00

[edit at bottom]

Let us recall that in the last post the charge was plopped down at my feet that I've been overstating my relationship with Abbie in order to make it appear that I've been reading a script from her. This is a charge which I have flatly denied. Indeed, I argued that I was explicit about the fact that I don't speak for Abbie as her spokesman; rather, I state my thoughts in a way I think are consistent with what Abbie would want. Sometimes my information about what she wants is better than at other times, but it is never my being her spokesman. She's like a full-on grown-up and everything now. She doesn't need one.

So, what has happened? Sacha, Franc Hoggle's friend, has been scouring Abbie's blog to find evidence of my evil ways. She clearly hasn't yet been clued in that the cat's out of the bag here as she continues down her primrose path; I'll take what she writes piece by piece:

Here is Justicar admitting that it was not Abbie's decision, it was his, then later he quotes Abbie as saying she is "tired of the shit" which I would take to mean she is tired of being harassed,

This is the tune she's singing and citing as evidence of my supposed misrepresentations as to my speaking for Abbie. Indeed, she argued yesterday:

He acted as if he was the official spokesperson for the ERV slimepit, and led many to believe that Abbie appointed him.

And:

Spoke for her, as if he was reading a press release that she wrote herself.

Yes, I can see it now that the very best evidence to show in support of the proposition that I have pretended to be reading a script prepared by Abbie is to be found in my 'admitting' that my decisions aren't Abbie's decisions. Why, I can't think of any evidence more damning to prove that I'm pretending to speak for Abbie than to cite to me claiming not to be speaking for Abbie - dash cunning of me.

The rest of the quote at the top is this:

but Justicar acts as if she is tired of the language and other things being said, and so he says "I agree with her", only she posted the complete opposite a few pages back:

Sacha is free to take 'this shit' as the harassment. That would be entailed by my agreeing with Abbie, but is not necessarily restricted to that reading. There is more on the table than only that. The rightness of my analysis is fairly well implied by Abbie's likening what she wanted to see as what one finds at Jerry Coyne's website.

Sacha goes on to finish out my remarks as relevant:

Moreover, it is not a proper equivalence to equate ‘censorship’ with ‘being more thoughtful’. Abbie hasn’t laid down any edicts. People aren’t being banned. Comments aren’t disappearing. It’s a request (at least on my part) that people spend a few extra seconds when posting to make sure they’re not being gratuitous just because it can be done. Like I said – not to be perverse in the Edgar Allan Poe sense, which is to do something for sole fact that it can be done. The nuclear option is always on the table.

It needn’t be used to often for the sake of continuing to do it.

I ask people who come to my house if they’d be kind enough to take off their shoes. They are free to not to without consequence. It’s just a request.

But other people pointing and saying, say, you’re wearing your shoes. You know the host doesn’t really like that. Maybe you could think of not wearing your shoes, but it’s your decision.

Abbie has said she’s tired of the shit. I agree with her, and I’m trying to encourage, poke and prod people into letting go of certain things

Well, I'll leave that to you, dear readers, to parse. If that isn't proof positive that I was working hard at representing I was reading from a script on Abbie's behalf, I don't know what would. Perhaps if someone said something like:

That is the last time I will speak for Abbie unless she specifically asks me to relay a message, and then it will be word for word.

Only this last quote here isn't from me. It's from Sacha. My remarks contain things like "on my part", "like I said", "I ask people who come to my house", "Abbie has said [note, she said that publicly for everyone to read] she's tired of shit", "I agree with her", "I'm trying to encourage, poke and prod people" . . . Yup. All of those "I" statements clearly indicate that I'm (sorry, I meant Abbie is through me) trying to indicate my (sorry, Abbie's) thoughts on the matter. My ability (or is it Abbie's?) to read between the lines I (I mean Abbie) find very impressive. When Abbie gets around to telling me what I think about it so that I can speak for her, I'll let you know what I think (and of course what she thinks, right?)

I'm almost hoping that Sacha doesn't read my blog until well after she's finished discrediting herself. I am amused. By I'm almost hoping, I of course mean Abbie is hoping. After all, my first person statements about what I think clearly indicate that I aim to represent that I'm speaking on someone else's behalf.

SP2.0, let me introduce you to FfTB; you have oh so much in common.
_______________________________________

The edit:
Sacha is aware of the blog and has responded by writing:

Just one thing that Justicar wrote in his blog post that I'd like to address (without any links). He said "And if Sacha is going to maintain that Abbie has told her I've hurt Abbie and put Abbie's well-being at risk"

I never said that. Look for yourself. I took in all the evidence and came to that conclusion. Abbie would probably not say that even if she did come to the same conclusion. I never said that she and Justicar are not really friends, I said he exaggerated his relationship with her to further his agenda.

If anyone assumed I said that Abbie said Justicar hurt her and put her at risk, or if anyone thought I was saying that their friendship did not exist, I never meant to imply that. I'd like to make that clear.

Well, let's look at what she actually said.

1.) the introduction to the section begins with this parenthetical:

(This is why I went directly to Abbie to ask for her perspective and thoughts.)

2.) she then starts delineating statements of fact consequent of that conversation:

The only thing that matters to Justicar is his agenda. If he can use Abbie to secure what he himself wants, then he will (and did). Abbie is far too kind to demand that he come clean, and she was in a difficult place, she was truly struggling with the decisions, and was not secure with her decision to step away, and telling people how to behave is against what she believes in.

3.) she in the same paragraph as in 2.) invites Abbie to clarify if the consequent of hearing Abbie's thoughts and perspective aren't correct:

Abbie, please correct me if I am wrong, I do not feel comfortable speaking for you, but I do want to give some background about this

4.) and that what was just said is the last time she will speak for Abbie unless Abbie intervenes to specifically tell her to speak for her . . . again

That is the last time I will speak for Abbie unless she specifically asks me to relay a message, and then it will be word for word.

5.) the denouement:

My first email to Abbie bearly mentioned Justicar and the others who were speaking for her. I simply wanted to hear how she felt, from her.

She explained her position in detail, and all I can say is that it did not bear any similiarities to what Justi was saying.

6.) and from that detailed explanation, Sacha makes the following claim:

Justicar jeopardised Abbie's well being to suit his agenda. Consider that for a moment while I find the links to my comments...

I'll again leave it as an exercise for the reader to compare what Sacha of today is saying against what Sacha of yesterday was saying.

Jeopardizing Abbie's Well-being

2012-07-05T22:35:00.002-07:00

[Edit: the articles at Abbie's are being moved shortly; I'll worry about links once they've found a home].

It is no secret at all that Abbie and I get along well, and that we talk privately. We aren't BFFs or anything inasmuch as we're both internet people, but insofar as a friendship is possible with someone from only the internet, I think the relationship between Abbie and me is fairly well entailed by that definition. I also do not aim to disclose much of anything she and I discuss in private because, well, private conversation and all.

However, I would add that nothing I have said or written is meant to hurt Abbie and nothing I've said or written has she construed as meaning that, or taken to have had that effect. Anyone is, of course, free to deride me for whatever they'd like, whether true or untrue. But in the case of the spurious asseveration from Franc Hoggle's friend Sacha, I'm going to respond publicly.

Sacha writes, among other things:

Firstly Justi needs to feel as though he is always in control. He acted as if he was the official spokesperson for the ERV slimepit, and led many to believe that Abbie appointed him.

I am always in control of what I say and how I act. If the charge is meant to, as I think it is meant to, imply that I need to feel I'm always in control of something other than myself, then it would appear that Sacha has some reading difficulties. For instance, in the ERV thread she cites in her charge (linked to at the bottom here) that is roughly in the same vein as this complaint of hers, I pointed out that the only power I have ever had on ERV - or indeed anywhere else I write on the internet - is the power to persuade; this is a power freely available for anyone else to take advantage of, or not, as the mood strikes. I made this point quite clear at Abbie's place, and anyone who's followed the discussion should know this.

I have not acted as though I'm an official spokeperson (despite the occasional referring to myself as spokesgay, itself a response to Josh on FfTB who has that as part of his log-in name) of anyone except myself. However, this doesn't mean that I can't represent what I think others would not disagree with provided that I've had conversations with that person on the subject, and that person hasn't lied to me about what they in the main think. Abbie and I have spent metric asstons of time talking with each other, over a very wide range of topics. I can't read her mind, but that isn't the same as not having a decent idea of what she thinks about particular things.

It's also worth noting that I addressed this 'appointing' business head-on in the thread by noting that I don't speak for Abbie in any official position, and that's she's free to correct me where I'm wrong. And she, as it happens, did exactly that with respect to moving the thread off her blog and asking that for the remainder of the time to keep the comments like how Jerry Coyne keeps his website, whyevolutionistrue.

I was arguing that it wouldn't be a place devoid of profanity (which is true) and that Abbie wasn't arguing for that (which is true). However, I was wrong with respect to any and all insults (these are strictly not allowed at Jerry Coyne's place, and he will invite anyone insulting any other poster to apologize or gtfo - politely of course). I said that I didn't understand Abbie to be meaning that, and she corrected me publicly by weighing in on the issue.

All of the rest of what she said or did is compatible in every way, and not opposed in anyway, to anything I argued for. Ponder on that.

Now, Sacha goes a step further to claim that she's been in contact with Abbie and that Abbie has told her that I've hurt Abbie, and was out of line and all the rest of it. This is, quite simply, untrue.

He exaggerated his relationship with her, in order to make it appear that he and Abbie were in constant contact and discussed at length whatever he wanted to implement, or be the last word on.

This is similarly untrue. I said on ERV that it's no secret Abbie and I are somewhat close - I'm her sister from another mother as we joke - and that I said if people are trying to hurt a friend of mine, I will do what I can stop it. I am not certain of this, but out of all the people who regularly contribute on her blog, I'd say she and I are closer than she is with any of the others. She might be closer with Miranda than she is with me, but Miranda doesn't regularly contribute there. So, the point remains.

At the end, he flat out lied about what Abbie wanted. Spoke for her, as if he was reading a press release that she wrote herself.

This is untrue. I said, explicitly, that I am not a spokesman for Abbie, and I'm not reading from a script she's written out for me, but that I think I do understand what she wants fairly well. Interestingly enough, Sacha said immediately before the last line I quoted that she has contacted Abbie to get her thoughts and perspective. And then she wrote the last quote. So, the implication there is that she thinks she's representing what Abbie has said.

Indeed, she goes one step further to assert that she is directly speaking for Abbie; she writes:

That is the last time I will speak for Abbie unless she specifically asks me to relay a message, and then it will be word for word.

This, quite simply, is untrue. She also takes the odd tactic of asking Abbie at a website on which Abbie doesn't contribute to go there and offer up a correction. It might have escaped Sacha's notice, but Abbie isn't even registered there. She's not a participant there. Why would one expect that she'd ever read that thread? Unlike Sacha, I invited Abbie - on Abbie's on blog where we know she's reading every comment - to correct anything I've said that incongruent with the conversations she and I have ever had.

Note, I do not dispute that Abbie and I discuss things, and from that I learn stuff about what Abbie is thinking. But it is not the case that Abbie writes scripts for me, or that I submit to her comments for approval before writing them. It's just that given the amount of time we have spent talking on various topics, I have a fairly reasonable idea of what Abbie is like as a person. I do not have a perfect estimation though, which is why I avoid saying, "Abbie said for me to say this" because Abbie doesn't tell me what to say. And I've never advised otherwise. To get that reading from anything I've ever written is to project onto it more than the statements I make can on their face support. Reading between the lines can be somewhat tricky.

And for this reason, as much as others, is why I avoided saying Abbie told me to say this. First, she doesn't tell me to. Second, even if I'm fairly certain that if asked she respond a certain way, I recognize that my impressions can nevertheless be wrong, and Abbie being the grown-up type who can speak for herself that she is has in the past (and I suppose will in the future) intervene to state what she wants - and this sometimes is inconsistent with what I think she'd say. The frequency with which I'm right about what she wants and that her stated thoughts or whatever are concordant with what I've figured out on my own she'd likely say might to others give the impression I'm representing more than I am, but it's just that I largely understand Abbie. It is not that I speak for her.

Sacha goes to take exception to my apparent-in-her-imagination implication that when I was speaking with Scented Nectar that it was my speaking for Abbie:

He used Abbie's "wishes" as an excuse to ridicule and silence Nectar, leading everyone to believe he had spoken to Abbie about tone, language, and memes at the new place.

This is quite a bit odd inasmuch as I said to Scented Nectar that what I imagined to be the case wouldn't entail the absence of profanity (which is consistent with Abbie using it after making her first round of statements, and my continuing to use it). Why would Scented Nectar think that Abbie would want so anodyne a place considering Abbie was still swearing? And I was. And so were others. So, I correctly said that that isn't what Abbie was saying. Her later actions and reference to Jerry Coyne's site support this; she continued to swear, and swearing is not prohibited on Coyne's website. It isn't encouraged, but it is there nevertheless - because it's a place for adults and adults sometimes use expletives to express a strong feeling on something.

My response to Scented Nectar was her saying that she's uncomfortable at places where she can't rant and vent on a whim, and something about it being part of her was a longer and more full-throated than saying: Well, okay. Fine. Nothing about ranting entails needing to say "kick her in the cunt', which is the most objectionable saying to have cropped up at ERV.

So, Sacha is saying that I am claiming to speak for Abbie despite Abbie's speaking for herself alongside me after I said that if I've gotten anything wrong, Abbie is free to correct me. Which she later on did. Weird that I'm claiming to speak for Abbie when I'm also pointing out that it's possible I'm wrong and Abbie should correct me where I am wrong . . . and then Abbie seeing that comment comes along later and . . . wait for it . . . corrects me. Strange indeed!

The reason I know, is that Abbie posted a brief comment about her opinions on that topic, and they were the antithesis of what Justicar was spewing in her name. Enough people took his word for what Abbie wants, they were quoting him and attributing it to Abbie, or speaking for Abbie themselves.

Strange, isn't it. Even when Abbie intervenes to more correctly state her position (as opposed to my supposed trying to make people take my word for it, something I never have done), Sacha still maintains I'm trying to claim to speak directly for Abbie. It's odd that I'd be claiming as much right alongside Abbie stating her actual position on the same post. Are we to think that I'm arguing people should trust me on what Abbie thinks more than what Abbie thinks about what Abbie thinks? Enough people took my word for it? Over Abbie's? Can you please name these people who see me write what I think Abbie is saying and then see Abbie write what she thinks and take my word for it over Abbie's? Who are these morons?

Moreover, if I say I think Abbie means x, y, z, 1, 2, and 3 and Abbie doesn't agree and comes in to state what she actually thinks about, say, 1, because I'm incorrect, what logic does it follow to think that I've not been close enough on the rest? I could be wrong, sure. But it is likelier the case that I, being a 'friend' of Abbie's, can roughly approximate what she's saying based on what she's publicly said (and our private conversations on similar subjects).

Sacha continues for a while, eventually finding her way to make this point:

My first email to Abbie bearly mentioned Justicar and the others who were speaking for her. I simply wanted to hear how she felt, from her.

She explained her position in detail, and all I can say is that it did not bear any similiarities to what Justi was saying.

Well, okay. You emailed Abbie! Yay. Imagine that! I talk to Abbie too! Sometimes for hours and hours at a time! And we talk about a lot of stuff! But I'm not her press agent; I don't have perfect insight to what Abbie thinks! But she does! All you have to do is ask her, and she'll talk back to you!

It's odd to claim that what Abbie says bears no relation to anything I've said about what I think Abbie means considering that the example she cited is Jerry Coyne's website. Profanity allowed. Cunt kick not allowed. Adult conversation allowed. Gratuitous profanity not allowed. Insults allowed at Abbie's; not allowed at Coyne's - I was wrong about that . . . and Abbie . . . wait for it . . . corrected my impression by stating what she actually thought.

There are reasons she didn't correct the rest of it - I was close enough to right that there wasn't any point in clarifying it except for pedantry!

Sacha ends with:

I don't think Justicar ever expected anyone to contact Abbie. I think he was quite secure that everyone believed him, so my first comment came as a surprise to him. If you notice, I was not attacking him in the first comment, I simply pointed out that he was not the best person to relay Abbie's thoughts, especially when her security is on the line.

This is so odd. Sacha, are you aware that Abbie reads 100% of the comments that are posted on her blog? She's said this many times in the comments section; they are all emailed to her and she reads them all. All of them - even mine. So, in addition to knowing what I've said and having the option to correct it but choosing not to, people are still free to ask her if what I've said is off the mark. And of course it is true to say I'm not the best person to relay Abbie's thoughts: Abbie is! And you'll know that I'm not the best person for it because I said many times that I'm not the best candidate for that PR role I stepped up to take because no one else would; I suck at it. Indeed, I and others observed that it's odd I was being the moderate in the conversation. I do believe I invited you to take over; clearly you're capable of emailing Abbie just as easily as I am . . .I just know her a lot better.

And the last thing I want to address is the lie that I've jeopardized Abbie's well-being. This concerned me greatly because I care about Abbie. It concerned me even more because Sacha says she talked to Abbie and as a consequence of that has the idea that I've hurt Abbie or jeopardized Abbie's well-being. This is an outright lie.

I don't mind being thrown under the bus by everyone else in the world, but Sacha is pretending that she's representing Abbie's thoughts. And she's not. I am not in the habit of disclosing private conversations I have with people, and I will not disclose the full conversation I've had with Abbie over this. But I will not stand around and let people think that I have attempted to hurt Abbie, or that Abbie thinks I have put in her harm's way. It is untrue.

Short excerpt from a conversation with Abbie because Abbie has said this to anyone who's asked:

I told sacha the same thing I told you/everyone. Im not being precise enough, and everyone is reading their own interpretations and fighting. Which isnt what I wanted at all.

The difference between Sacha and me is that I know Abbie pretty well, and we have spent hours talking about issues like this. I am, again, not her agent or spokesperson. I am her friend, and I happen to have a rough idea, as I've said, about what Abbie is saying. To know what Abbie really thinks exactly, as always, it's best to ask her.

And, it is worth noting, that my response to Scented Nectar and John Greg about the 'walking on eggshells' thing, Jerry Coyne's site isn't such a place. But it is also one where gratuitous profanity is unacceptable.

In short, I said what I thought Abbie wanted, and I was largely correct. When what I said departed from what Abbie had in mind, she corrected it publicly.

And if Sacha is going to maintain that Abbie has told her I've hurt Abbie and put Abbie's well-being at risk, Sacha should publish the email where Abbie says that. This is an empty statement on my part because I know (not merely think) beyond all doubt that Abbie doesn't think this.

I have wanted to avoid linking to the slymepit because I'm that put off by it, but I suppose it's inevitable that I have to. So here's Sacha's attempted hit job: http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=729#p672

The SlymePIt 2.0

2012-07-05T18:43:00.001-07:00

The new digs it must be said is something I wish not to be thought of as being a part of. There are many reasons, some of which I'll now detail. There are others, but those are more intricate to explain than I'm in a position now to do.

After the hand-off, Lsuomo apparently thought that the best way to fuck over everyone's work of the previous week on scaling back and working on not alienating as many people as possible, was to make the official motto of the new place "better than a kick in the cunt". This did not go unnoticed. Stephanie (Stefunny - useful distinction to make clear a later point) Zvan at Almost Diamonds has a post up about this, and she's right to use it as a sign that some people were not honest brokers in the process.

Some of us (the others will have to identify themselves as I'm not into outing people just because), however, were. And I don't aim to be tarred with Lsuomo's groups' deceptions. Tar me all you'd like for things I've said and done; don't convict me for what others say and do. To further hamper matters came the thread with the singing along to a song that is a bit in the rape-y talk. Zvan reads it as being rape-talk, and I do too. Some others think otherwise. Given the nature of the conversation at hand, it's unwise and unhelpful to post it only to claim that it has any purpose other than being able to claim some degree of 'well you don't have to take it that way, and only do so for victim cred'.

Some people might well be in that camp. I am not. But even knowing that some people might 'wrongly' read it that way, there's an argument to be said that putting it up anyway is just to be gratuitous.

Then came my contacting some of the FfTB people; notably, Stephanie and Ophelia. This isn't my showing that I'm in support of them, but on a very, very narrow and short-lived moment. In this non-discussion between them and me, I detailed one of John Greg's more obvious deceptions; namely, he created a post addressed to Stefunny where he implies, but does not specify who, that some people are making the claims that SP2.0 will be editing and deleting posts (a charge we've made all along against FfTB - correctly so). He denies this. For reference, I take the post as accusing Stephanie as being the one making the claim because he singled her out as the post's intended target, but again in a way that he can use 'plausible deniability'.

So, what's the problem with that? Not two hours later, John Greg is constructing an argument that the ability to edit posts should be retained, but that his mind isn't made up. To flatly deny to Stephanie that it will be happening and then later claim his mind isn't settled is, well, inconsistent. Indeed, one should think that if there's a flat denial, then any later course of action or argument from John's position is constrained by his earlier remarks, unless and until he retracts them. To do otherwise is inconsistent. To do so knowingly and then argue that it's correct is to just lie.

He didn't; he's just arguing two opposing propositions for whatever reasons.

He responds that I'm distorting what he says, and if I'd read his posts I'd know he's talking about not forced editing and deleting of other people's posts. This is inapposite and irrelevant. The complaint has always been that editing and deletion revise history - the claim has never been that it's a revision of history only if someone else does it. It doesn't matter who does the editing in point of fact; that it will and does happen is the point of moment.

One of the points of pride at Abbie's place was that once it's said, it's said. And in order to 'unsay' it, one has to later on formally retract the claim, not to think better of it in a few minutes and go back in to edit shit.

Right, wrong or whatever, once it's said, you're stuck with it warts and all. You may not revise history as it's convenient for you. Hit the publish button, and it's now history.

Except over there. Now you can hit the button, regret something, and then open up the edit window to rewrite it. Instead of having to do the honorable work of confessing error, retracting a claim and then stating what one now thinks that is different.

He calls this prohibition against being able to rewrite what he says 'censorship'. No, John. Not erasing from history what you've said because you later on regret saying it isn't censoring you. Had a free chance to say whatever you thought. And then you said it. Not allowing you to disappear it only stops you from being able to claim you never in fact said what you actually have said.

No, I'm not linking to them; be judicious and you can find the comments I left at both Ophelia's and Stephanie's places, which they generously (though they didn't have to) let out of moderation. I suspect they did so as to make use of what I've said because it shows the dishonesty they've been claiming the whole while. That is fine with me, because on this narrow point with respect to the people identified, I'm in agreement. They are lying, patently, about what they're doing.

To the charge that I'm being a baboon - well, okay. I don't have loyalties to people to the exclusion of my ethics. I have maintained all along that if x is wrong for y, then x is wrong for everyone else. Even my friends. My ethics aren't my friends' commodity to be spent and handed away as they see fit. Only I have a vote on when and if I'll break my ethics. And that the FfTB people are right with respect to the points I've addressed at their places gives me no license to pretend otherwise because others with whom I have elsewhere and otherwise associated find it inconvenient.

Indeed, a sign of integrity is to concede points that one's enemies make that are, in point of fact, correct. And on this point with respect to the dishonesty of the people at the SP2.0, Stephanie was perfectly correct. I get that this inconvenient for those who want to persist in dissembling; that is their problem, not mine.

Stop lying and it will be impossible to find evidence that you've lied. It's very simple.

For others, I highly suggest you join in the 'let's bash Justicar' threads over at SP2.0; I've always wanted to be Witch of the Week to two groups simultaneously. There are, last I counted, 3 threads specifically about me. There might be 4 or 2 by the time you get there depending on who's adding to content and who's taking away.

But if you're going to do it, at least be entertaining. I'm feeling a bit like Majel Barret's funeral organizers: wear something appropriate and colorful; Majel hated it to be boring.

Oh, and Hoggle, let me thank you for the colorful, angry emails you send me:

You are a pathetic fucking crank head. Stop telling others to "let things go..." when you can't and just regurgitate crap in and endless circle.

You just churn out gibberish and bullshit, and have complete contempt for any reality that deviates from yours. You're just a screaming spoilt brat that has to have his way in everything. Stop speaking for Abbie - you represent no one other than some meth'ed up alpha male RPG character in your own fantasy world.

When you're in a position to know what I know, you'll have a leg to stand on with respect to claiming to know what I know and don't know. As it happens, you aren't. I'm not sure whether you should keep emailing so I can laugh, or whether you should stop so that I can think you've finally received the attention of the mental health experts like you've long desperately needed.

Abbie Smith (ERV) is Anti-science, and a conservative republican lapdog

2012-05-19T13:09:00.001-07:00

Do you remember when quack MISS Abbie Smith attacked science by going after the totally esteemed and respectable scientist DOCTOR Judy Mikovits (PhD)? It's the same way that Terrence Tau totally attacked his superior (and former professor) Edward Nelson by proving Nelson's supposed proof that arithmetic was inconsistent was itself wrong. This rarely happens in science and math, for we frown upon younglings attacking their betters and by extension the entire field.

Well, MISS Abbie Smith doesn't have the experience necessary to go after someone of DOCTOR Mikovits' stature. I suppose I should back up and start from the beginning on this totally serial issue. Recently MISS Smith on her anti-science blog, ERV, (found at scienceblogs.com/erv), has been up to her quackenagins as one can see in this post. In that post, you'll find linked this post from the scholarly XMRV think-tank known as mecfsforums.com. Robyn, one of its internet scholars, writes of non-scientist grad student MISS Abbie Smith:

And what else can doctors conclude other then [sic] it's all in our head. [sic] According to her [sic] she's not a doctor or even a PhD* [emphasis added]. Oh [sic] and there's [sic] several things she would have done differently (being an expert and all) in the Science [sic] paper. Ok [sic] so all this crap was said within the first 5 min and that's all I could stomach coming from a grad student.
Maybe after she becomes an actual scientist and get's about 30 years [sic] experience under her belt [sic] I might consider hearing anything she has to say. I doubt it though. You think many scientists do Conspiracy Podcasts [sic]?

If one reads a bit longer, as noted by even non-scientist grad student MISS Abbie Smith (NSGSMAS hereinafter), one finds that NSGSMAS is compared to a goat. Now, at first blush this doesn't seem too telling, but then it started to coalesce in my mind while I was sleeping. NSGSMAS attacks a liberal scientist like DOCTOR Judy Mikovits (PhD). NSGSMAS attacks science. NSGASMAS attacks a courtly old man, Steve Kerns, in a debate and even insults his wife while engaged in the debate! A follow-up post by NSGSMAS on that very issue is titled 'I can't into science, I have the dumb', where she explains what it was about science that drove her away from it entirely. It's quite sad for such a young, young (though fickle - she'll excuse horrible acts of violence if one compliments her on her looks) woman.

In any event, the keystone that shed light on the whole thing is the goat reference. She attacks liberals, is anti-science, and, I daresay, the object of the very book President Bush was reading when the planes hit the towers. She is the republican's pet goat.

*this distinction itself led to Bones' famous saying on Star Trek, "I'm a doctor, Jim, not a PhD!"

(Hopefully, by breaking this story open, PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson will see fit to hastily move me into their witless protection program. Otherwise, I fear immediate death, for VHNSGSMAS** often brags about her ability to kill a gay man*** in a single chop - and her ability to jump small outhouses with a running start and favorable winds.)

** h is for homophobic. V is for very, or vengefully.
*** gay men being a subset of men it is a forteriori true that she's bragged about this because she's able to kill a regular man with a single chop. Or, perhaps, even a Ti Kwan Leep Boot to the Head

Logic, Magicsandwichshow Style

2012-04-20T21:08:00.001-07:00

For those not in the know, Sunday last the fortnightly produced Magic Sandwich Show had as its theme the continuation of various and sundry conversations previously held, for one example, between Eric Hovind and Thunderf00t at the Reason Rally. The normal lineup was present (that is to say DPRJones, C0nc0rdance, AronRa**, and Thunderf00t) and joined by creationist and Christian apologist Eric Hovind (son of Kent Hovind, guest of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in sunny Florida), and his presuppositional confederate, Sye Ten Bruggencate. One is hard against a wall to classify the conversation among the panelists, but substantially incoherent comes charging to the fore of my mind. I do not aim to write a comprehensive* overview, but there is to my mind nevertheless a topic of substantial import (and interest): logic.

This article presumes the reader has watched at least some the relevant episode of the MSS.

At the outset, Bruggencate admits outright that the entirety of his reasoning is circular. This, he supposes, does not present a problem, for it is the case that everyone uses circular reasoning. And it's okay to do it if you're him because his circularity is manifest by god (no indication of how that's supposed to work). And this he calls just circular reasoning. But atheists, he charges, do the same thing but without reference to some external constraint by another mind. This he calls viciously circular reasoning. Grounding his conjecture and dismissing anyone else's he pulls off by invoking the universality and necessity of the laws of identity and non-contradiction.

It is important to note here that he conflates universality and necessity. Something can hold true everywhere in the universe, but still not be a necessary truth. This is technically a nomological issue, which he simply fails to parse in anyway that isn't extremely naive.

Take the so-called law of identity. Why would one suppose that it has to be true? I know the efficient reasons people will cite: well, I never notice anything simultaneously existing and not existing, moving and being still, rising and falling. These are observations which give us an intuition that the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are in fact true, but this says nothing whatever about their needing to be true. I also cannot see a valid way to meaningfully say a universe in which they aren't true is an inconsistent universe. To make that claim, one needs to already presuppose a concept of contradiction. But that's only a coherent concept if one assumes the law of identity in the first instance - not a safe assumption to make about a universe that isn't constrained by that law.

As it happens, I cannot imagine what a universe in which something could be not itself would look like. But this still says nothing whatever about whether such a universe is in fact possible or, for that matter, extant. It just doesn't seem to be the universe in which we find ourselves.

So we take in our stride certain axioms for reasoning, axioms which formalize what it is our senses apprehend: a rock is a rock, and it is not a fish; a fish is a fish and it isn't a verb. This notion seems to remain conserved from one moment to the next, and has not ever been noticed to fail to be the case. So, we have as axioms (that is to say things we assume to be true, but cannot actually justify) that things are what they are, and they are not what they are not.

Bruggencate and Hovind see this as a problem, for we can not prove logically that it is so (or rather, they argue that we can, but that we do so only circularly). They are full of shit, of course, for no logician is under the misapprehension that a logic predicated on these two assumptions is in turn capable of justifying or proving those assumptions. A system that can prove itself consistent is inconsistent; this is known as Godel's incompleteness theorem. (This is a rather complex topic all on its own, and I am not in this post taking any effort to develop the reasoning. Not to invoke reGreta Christina's virus of 'later' that always translates into 'never because I'm too busy and important', but the incompleteness theorems deserve a post of their own.)

And this could have ended the entire botched abortion that was the MSS this week.

Not content to remain only marginally inept with logic, they press on demanding to know if an atheist can be wrong about something. Of course. We could all be wrong about something. They then go the extra step to say that because we could be wrong about anything, we could be wrong about everything. And thus we don't know anything. This is trivially dismissed. To say that I could be wrong about anything is not suggestive that I can be wrong about everything.

Indeed, it's not possible for me to be wrong about everything, for there is one inconvenient truth that cannot be sidestepped: I am conscious. Whether I'm a brain in a vat, plugged into the matrix, suffering severe delusions brought on by some capricious sky wizard or what have you, it remains the case that I am aware of something. Even if that something is false, or imaginary, or projected for me: Consciousness is the one thing that must be true, even if everything I experience is entirely imaginary.

*This article may (or may not) become the overview to a more detailed series that addresses these topics in more depth. I suppose the largest determining factors are interest and whether or not I have time to lay a properly academic foundation for the more abstruse strictures of logic. So, stay tuned, or not, for that series (or its opposite!). For the moment though, this covers some of the issues that whiled away much of the show.

**Yes, AronRa was being a petulant child in this series of videos, essentially whining like a small child who's been told no and then isn't the center of attention. I am particularly dismayed by the sheer rudeness he showed to C0nc0rdance by trying to cut him off from answering questions directly put to him in the first place. This is not the sign of a person who holds in his estimation that C0nc0rdance is sufficiently educated and intelligent to answer a question that is put to him by name. And this isn't an isolated incident of AronRa acting as though he's the one who is sufficiently smart that when someone else is asked a direct question, he needs to silence that said someone else and answer the question for them (and nearly always with the same litany of examples). Also, AronRa, you should consider abandoning the woo-laden claims about 'truth' and 'true' being different, such that your concept of one is super-mega above that of what others can conceive. You aren't as proficient or knowledgeable about logic as think you are; and some of your very stupid claims demonstrate this. *stares you down*

Magic Time!

2011-10-27T13:58:00.000-07:00

I am fairly ethically naive I must confess. I do not think this is an indictment against me so much as a strength of mine. Consider by way of an anecdote having an argument with someone. To my mind, an argument is an argument is an argument and it should be evaluated in light of its premises, necessary implications, internal coherence, logical consistency and, of course, any datum that bears on it. In this way, in broad terms, an argument can be either good (sound and valid), or bad (unsound or invalid, or both) or indeterminate (I'll leave this one alone for now). I see no benefit that enhances an argument by appending to it the label 'philosophical'. Are these arguments somehow unlike other arguments? Do they not fail or succeed on all of the criteria I've laid out?

If so, then certainly no argument is improved by calling it philosophical. Indeed, an argument is frustrated because it should immediately be called into question for not having to observe the ordinary conditions of what makes an argument. If an argument is improved by adding philosophical to it, then in addition to all of these criteria is added that isn't available to 'regular' arguments? I fail to see any benefit at all in adding that label - except, perhaps, in the ego of some minds as setting out some esoteric bar that lesser intellects should take notice not to dare apply tension. Of course, I don't find this a strength, but I am aware there are quarters in the world where obscurantism is a sign of enlightened thinking; I'm looking at you postmodernity.

Ethics seems to operate this way to my mind as well. Suppose for a moment that we have some ethical framework that seems to work in all but the strangest constellation of novel circumstances. For the moment, I am thinking of information and the exchange of ideas, knowledge, or even just raw information. I think an interesting discussion on states secrets would perhaps not be available to the general proposition that the free exchange of information should be encouraged (or at least not discouraged) in certain situations. Do we really want the Energy Department to disseminate the security protocols of the local nuclear facility to everyone on the web? I'd say not, but I am available to persuasion otherwise.

In the instant case, it is generally considered in a society that publicly educates its citizenry that the citizenry in response is available to hearing ideas, thoughts, opinions, recommendations and such like and then weighing all of the competing information to arrive at a decision. This is, after all, what is democracy, no? We take it to be a fundamental treachery of human dignity, reason, intellect, the Enlightenment, civic duty and so on to prohibit the ability of people to exchange information. We have a lot of words and noun phrases for this concept because it is important (so important in fact, that we're willing to wage war in its defense - that is to say that the concept of freedom of thought and speech is more important to us than whether or not some few--or even many--people might have to be slaughtered in armed conflict to make certain it persists).

Call this whatever you'd like, but this seems to my mind to fit squarely into the topic of 'ethics'. We also don't allow this to be modulated by group association: the blacks, say, can't be told they can't know something this week because the whites said so. Equality therefore seems to be now inexorably linked to this freedom of thought, speech and inquiry. This is, to my mind again, an ethical proposition and a proper ethical framework.

Like with throwing philosophy in front of the word argument does no work in improving an argument, so too is there no improvement by throwing medical in front of ethics. In fact, it would seem that medical ethics are inferior to just regular, garden variety ethics.

I am speaking, of course, about the HPV can now be given to little boys issue, on which Abbie yesterday wrote. I am, like most people, overjoyed that this is available to boys and men (even if not directly beneficial to either, though it is). The health of society is contingent on the health of its population. In fact, one is a subset of the other. We are all bound up in this lot of our lives together, and it is therefore in my interest to see to it that as many members of my population are taken care of because their survival is my survival. Their health is my health. Their security is my security.

These are not novel ideas, and I am certainly not breaking any new frontiers in moral thinking. But to question a statement asserting that it's unethical to give to boys the HPV vaccine in the context of how we distribute healthcare is to court controversy apparently. The long and the short of it is this: if it is true that a physician may not offer to a patient some potential treatment which has some indirect benefit to the patient through his (or her) membership in society even after (as required by law) making known to the patient the consequences of the treatment (up to and including death), then medical ethics are inferior to 'regular' ethics. Medical when preceding ethics seems to directly translate to 'inferior'. This is denied to a potential patient as even an available option - deciding for him or her on his or her behalf. What a gracious offer that is to excuse me from my responsibility to do that pesky thinking thing for myself.

Are patients expected to be unable to hear information, ask questions and then make a decision? Does this happen a lot? I am told that it happens often (a scandalous implication of our education system I note). Fair enough. So, the solution to that is therefore to have a class of elite ethical thinkers who can in advance determine what patients are allowed to be told, hear, evaluate and decide upon. To do their thinking for them - to act as a sieve through which it's determined when a patient (always selected by race, gender or gender identity I note, and even age) is a person deserving of being able to make his or her decisions for himself - or not.

I'll put this as Christopher Hitchens has earlier put it on an only-collaterally relevant point: how many of you here aren't grown up enough to hear information? Whom do you appoint to do your thinking for you, on your behalf? To whom do you delegate the task of reading the relevant information and deciding for you, relieving you of your responsibility of thinking for youself? Hands up, please. Who has a nominee?

Medical ethics boards and standards insist that such a person must exist. "We" have decided that not only is there one person good and smart enough to relieve all of us of our duty to be responsible for our own lives, to think, read, analyze and decide matters of our own health and risk as it relates to the health of our society and fellow creatures, but rather there are tens of thousands of people who are just that good, just that smart, just that wise, just that prescient to determine in advance what any of us will think about an optional vaccine. Well, so long as you have the right genitalia that is. Women - smart enough to think on their own. Men - on this issue, not allowed to even be informed, let alone determine whether it's an acceptable risk/benefit to them to take the vaccine. Well, that is, until all these people decided that you're now allowed to know about it from those medical professionals whom you pay to advise and treat you.

I've been here before and I do not like this circle.

Atheists Are Like Donkeys (not a pun)

2011-10-27T11:58:00.000-07:00

And that's why we're so lovably unfuckable according to a certain pastor. You see, good Christians are like oxen, docile and compliant whereas atheists are like doneys, rebellious and hard-headed. So, the babble explains why we shouldn't date one another: if you yoke together a donkey and an ox, you don't get any work done. Where the ~~atheist~~ donkey leads, the servile christian will follow. Therefore, to plow the field (use your imagination), you don't yoke unequal animals together because what matters isn't whether the animals get along. No. What really matters is plowing the field and harvesting a new crop. I'm sure this has to do sex.

Of course, one immediately notes this pastor's homily would cause a massive degree of panic for those miscegenists out there, or even those who espouse the virtue of heterosexual marriages. After all, you don't yoke together people who are different, and I'm told that women are from Mars and men like penis. Or some kind of limerickroll. See, gay marriage is awesome because, you know, 1.) bondage, 2.) of similar animals!

Anyway, youtuber soreta yuki does a fabulous job on this piece. Also, he's got coffee, bourbon and cigarettes*. So, you know he's like way cool and fuckable.

Nod to @gingeratheist
*also, we have cookies, drugs and hookers I'm told. How can you possibly turn that down?

This Is A Souper Sekrit

2011-10-25T15:26:00.000-07:00

But I have been stalking/investigating a certain someone - undercover, hiding under cars (the ones I'm not bombing), diving into trashcans and other moves I imagine spies in real life don't do. But after all of that, then I walked inside and went to youtube to start the real investigation.

It is with pride that I announce I have finally managed to track down Miranda's (@mirandachale) alpha.

Homeopathy, Fempecked

2011-10-23T20:26:00.000-07:00

It has been made known to me that Rebecca Watson, strong and competent advocate of science, has produced a video in which she brings to bear her much commended knowledge of the basic science on the matter of homeopathy, one of her specialties noted by PZ Myers. According to Myers, one needn't publish science papers to speak competently on science. True enough. But according to him, Watson (by name) has done a "fine job on explaining alternative medicine and how homeopathy doesn't work."

So, in his leisure time, when he's not white knighting, perhaps he should look at her doing this 'fine job'.In her most recent contribution to the public understanding of homeopathy, she sets on display the full weight of her penetrating knowledge. Please watch before reading on. I know, I know. You only need to get through the first minute forty-five or so.

She claims (claim 1) that if you asked a homeopath, the homeopath would tell you the following: if you bought some produce and failed to wash it such that when you ate it still had shit on it and you contracted e. coli, the homeopath would prescribe that you eat more shit because like cures like.

Well, I'm not normally in the habit of defending woo, but at least get the claim right, ma'am. Like cures like. Shit != e. coli. If one contracted a disease, the symptoms would be what are viewed as similar. The symptoms are the familiar results of gastroenteritis: diarrhea, pain, abdominal distention. These are hardly restricted to e. coli infection, and are certainly not a necessary consequence of shit. This all presumes, of course, that what is caused by the e. coli in question isn't just a UTI, or deadly meningitis. So, no, a homeopath wouldn't advise one to eat more shit - not even a little (see claim 2). What one might advise use of would perhaps be something silly like arsenicum album, or colocynthis, or gelsemium, or any host of other things that are conspicuously not listed as 'fecal matter'.

How do I know? Well, it's a little thing that's generally known as being educated about a topic before discussing it. It's not like this is secret information one has to go to quack school to learn about. One can spend a few minutes at Google University and see this. Of course, this depends on one being able to differentiate cause from sign from symptom from mechanism of infection. Watson seems to think that e. coli having a mechanism of infection riding on some shit means that the mechanism of infection is the thing to be treated. The homeopaths are quacks, but not retards. They at least know the thing to be treated are the symptoms, and the cause of the infection - not the medium through which the pathogen is transmitted.

Picture it: any trauma room, USA. The trauma team is scrubbed, gloved and awaiting arrival of a patient reported to be bleeding from the chest (sign), in pain (symptom), penetrating chest wound (cause) from a gunshot (mechanism). Our highly trained team then approaches the gurney, pull back the cover to begin treating a .357 revolver. This is the rough analogy Watson has drawn.

She goes on to say that dilution is like taking a 'tiny' amount of 'fecal matter', putting it in a glass and shaking that up, taking out 'a drop', putting it in a swimming pool, mixing that up, taking out a drop and puting it in the ocean, and then we're on our way to having a remedy.

Well, no. That's not how they prepare homeopathic remedies. It's not even the same scale. I linked to a video by a silly graduate student who did a replication of the actual advised process using household bleach, mathematics, scale, at (no real) risk to his own health to demonstrate the process. To include the process known as 'potentization', which is noticeably unlike a swimming pool or ocean. (video embedded at the end).

Also, there's an important number threshold that is passed in this process, but Watson clearly is unaware of this - hence the drop to swimming pool reference. And drop to ocean reference. She doesn't know the mathematics on it. Scale is meaningless, to say nothing of introducing to the 'sugar and water' confuction some seawater, chlorine, unmediated controls, a dubiously inaccurate method, and, of course, the mechanism of transmission instead of the pathogen or symptom thereof ultimately that is 'like' the thing to be prescribed (depending on the results of an exam and the totality of the circumstances).

Also of note is that she introduces a new element to the Periodic Table: shit. Apparently, one can have 1 atom of shit, which I've labeled a shatum (atomic number 2), not to be confused with a shmatum (its diatomic, natural state, usually found embedded in the most common element, atomic number 1).

Why does this matter? Normally, it wouldn't - one quack talking about other quacks is normally not a cause for my attention. Except a noted scientist is pointing to this quack and saying she does a 'fine job' of explaining this - presumably, fine means 'without any semblance of science education, or understanding' despite his having said she understands the basic science. No, PZ, what Watson does is what the creationists do - she fucking butchers science and then states a conclusion not borne out by her chain of reasoning (based on a complete absence of evidence one notes). It's just okay when she does it because she's saying the right conclusion, I guess.

To paraphrase a friend of mine, Watson only knows how to operate by taking another's position, mangling it and then attacking that MANglation.

Here are some screen shots of PZ lambasting one quack (Althouse) in favor of lauding another quack (Watson), noting that the first quack was no match for the second, and the ensuing exchange:


PZ Speaks

Someone who's literate responds

PZ speaks again - out of his ass, again

Remember, Rebecca Watson could be educating people near you. So long as people are happy with this dumbass who has delusions of mediocrity, then we'll continue having such a profoundly unlettered halfwit be a public (horse) face of our movement.

Here's Myles.

Jane Caro Contacted Me

2011-10-22T08:33:00.000-07:00

And since we all know that I have nothing to do in life, and that I'm not working on any projects right now, I thought that I'd finally put something on my plate! I'm going to labor under the premise that this is actually Jane Caro (I'm in the process of trying to verify that right now).

Assuming it is she, she has mentioned that she is, in fact, interested in and available for (no information on specifics - also something I'm working on learning) speaking/debating/whatevering she does best at events in the states.

Incidentally, the way Jane Caro came across me is my article reviewing her debate on IQ squared; a debate I might add in which she-quite appropriately rudely-spent a full nine minutes slapping around her opposition with that petty matter of facts. She was googling (shamelessly as she said) herself.

It is a real shame that she the top return in google for 'jane caro debate' is my youtube video of that debate. The same for other variations on that theme. The lowest my youtube video of that which I found either 4th or 5th. Constantly I am met with the bewilderment of the PZ stripe of atheists who are constantly bemoaning the lack of diversity in the movement. Why aren't there more women in atheism?

A fairly straightforward solution to my mind is that instead of finding the ones who have capacity to be good examples of smart, driven, educated, articulate and serious humans who are ignored, we're too busy recruiting the perky dilettantes we tirelessly see being paraded around as strong advocates of atheism - let alone, women in atheism. Consider for a moment a mere matter of style, to say nothing of substance.

We have choices, and since the time available for speakers at events is limited, some of the choices are mutually exclusive. To invite group a of speakers, means that you simply cannot have group b speaking. Thus, we should hope organizers are making group a as robust as possible.

You're a member attending some conference, anywhere, USA, on the issue of skepticism, atheism, and communicating the same. Two speakers are slotted for the same billet and you have to choose between them.

Speaker a begins opens with some variation on the following concept: "I'm still drunk", "So, I was in a bar last night with the event organizers"

Speaker b opens with: "the prima facie evidence that all gods are man made is, of course, their treatment of women."

As a mere issue of style, it would seem that we have two very different approaches.

Speaker b in this case is Jane Caro, and speaker A is Rebecca Watson. Their educational backgrounds are similar. The difference between them then is not a result of that. The difference is in capacity, drive, and desire. Whatever the differences between, one simply has more capacity, and yet is almost unheard of here in the states - though she's amenable to working the circuit here. She runs a successful business in marketing, is an author and invited panelist on Q&A, in addition to being an invited debater at an IQ2 debate. In short, she's not a slacktevist. She does the online thing, twitter, but she also debates, attends public discussions, travels in the business world and so on. She's also witty and well read - a clever wordsmith who's expert in bringing to bear her background in communications and marketing, she's a force to be taken seriously. Where is she in the states? Where is she at our events? Why is a woman of her capacity mostly highly ranked in google for my crap blog and youtube channel?

Why oh fucking why don't we have more women in atheism?! Why is so hard to get women speakers?! Well, it can't be that we don't want them - listen to all the Watsonistas - they love women. Sure, there's the caveat that they have to agree with Watson, but it's slim pickings out there. There just aren't any women who exist who can compete with Greta, Watson, Benson, and PZ - the four horsewomen. Except that there are: just no one who's organizing meetings/events is asking them.

What about substance? Well, Watson has released a video excoriating the "Church" for executing Galileo, decides to spend part of a keynote speech lambasting a conference attendee, wasted her time on a panel with Dawkins (on communicating atheism) to read us her e-mail and youtube comments, and to call down Paula Kirby for being too old, blind and successful to see that sexism exists.

Let's see if this slacktevism bit can be used for good. Let's get Jane Caro invited as a paid, key-note speaker at a convention here in the states. With all of the 'No." meme silliness running around, I'll be modifying that and instead of signing 'No." from here on out, I'll end it with "JaneCaro." I certainly hope others help get this message out.

She's on twitter @janecaro, where she frequently comments on @qanda (Q&A). Sometimes, she shows a wry wit:

JaneCaro Jane Caro #qanda gilding the lily, unfortunate phrase to use in a discussion of black and white relations.

And then there's Jane Caro. For contrast, here's a video of each:

Edit to add a list of debates with Jane:

- discussing 'spin', or how plain, effective communication is going the way of the dodo .

- should public funds be used to fund private education?

Richard Dawkins Is Coming to Visit Me!

2011-10-20T07:30:00.000-07:00

Did you know that he's scared to death of debating William Lane Craig (from Jerry Coyne)? So, Craig is putting out a chair at some Oxford shindig for Richard to sit in should he (Richard) so choose.

Well, Richard has accepted the invitation, with dignity. Not only will he not sit in that chair, but he's also got an entire lexicon of places with chairs he won't be sitting in (time permitting).

Therefore, I'm pleased to announce that a lifelong dream of mine is coming true: Professor Richard "The Dick" Dawkins will NOT be sitting in the chair I've set out for him in my shower. Man, I'm so excited. I hope his plans don't get canceled since this was a last minute non-addition to his schedule.

If you set it out, he will not come.

I'm Dying . . .of laughter

2011-10-13T07:30:00.000-07:00

Ever make an ass out of yourself? It's happened to me once or twice. So, I thought I'd share. In a recent post, I included a screen capture of an e-mail I sent off about the ACS giving the finger to atheists.

Well, I've received a reply!

It's awesome when you tell someone off. Even better when it's the wrong someone.

I deserve whatever snide comments are headed my way. Bring it on, motherfuckers. I can dish it, but unlike certain people, I can also take it.

American Cancer Society Can Suck It

2011-10-13T06:37:00.000-07:00

[Edit at bottom of page; please see]
So, always on top of things, I'm bringing you breaking news from two weeks ago. You're welcome. This year alone I've had to give up a couple of charities I have formerly donated to, to include a couple of ones in the atheist community. RDFRS is still on the list (of course), and MSF is on the list (of course), but the ACS is off the list (of course). Apparently, the ACS just makes way too much money to decline an offer of roughly half a million dollars from some lowly atheist scum family. Todd Stiefel must be extra special dirty, what trying to donate matching dollars to a cancer charity like that.

I was repulsed!

So, my contribution to ACS likely won't be missed (they're just swimming in money I suppose) because, well, I'm not Todd Stiefel's family. But I do what I can when I can, and this year when I donate again to MSF, it'll be in the name of the ACS.

So, if anyone wants to hop on board and donate to a charity that does actually need money (and uses it wisely I'm told), donate to MSF in the name of the ACS. Or wherever you donate already, I'm sure they'd love to know the American Cancer Society is supporting them this year.

Assholes.

So, um, for the response to this, please this post.

Another Hitchslap

2011-10-10T18:16:00.000-07:00

This post is not well-considered on my part, and is meant to just document my feelings on Christopher Hitchens and his latest appearance. Had I known he was to be in attendance, I'd have found a way to make it to Texas this weekend past. Alas, I didn't, and I cannot reverse time. So, the very next best thing to being there is to have snippets of this powerful speech on video. I don't aim to say that it's powerful in the way that Hitchens always is, though it is that. I am put in mind of Ancient Greece, and I do hope my readers will indulge me for what may very well turnout to be a somewhat strangled association here. But in the Roman Senate, debates were undoubtedly worth seeing. I've always enjoyed debate.

But as I sat here watching for the third time his recent delivery, and how he struggled to retain his presence and fight against a bitter cough, the fatigue of cancer and its treatment, and to strain against what I imagine is mental cloudiness wrought at the hands of both strong pain killers and 'chemo brain', I was put in mind of the waning moments of a Senatorial debate. These debates raged up until nightfall on matters of great importance, and their legacy has echoed throughout the ages. It is up to one's imagination to decide what the chamber would look like in the waning hours of a waxing debate among the Senators. Senators of the era were generally elder members of the civilization (indeed, the word is derived from 'old man').

In modern times, Hitchens isn't elderly, but given the rigors of his condition, the currency he's expending to remain standing and speaking on matters of social importance roughly balance the equities in my imagination. The tragedy of these erstwhile debates is that they ended at nightfall. Darkness being a common metaphor for death, and the nightfall being the end of the debate puts Hitchens to my mind as a consul (or proconsul depending on how one views the matter I suppose) prolonging the debate on a matter of passion and duty. He knows the nightfall is looming, the alpenglow sounds the ominous approach of the end. Beautiful to behold, but unmistakably serious, and finite.

Hitchens knows he's staring that in the face, and yet knowing what it presages he doesn't for a moment fail to appreciate its beauty, majesty or pressing reminder that whatever work one needs to get done requires prompt and disciplined attention. Not for a moment losing the feeling of rapture at the privilege of seeing the sunset before him, he basks in its glow, faces it straight on, and dutifully attends his duties and concerns without a whimper of 'repine' for his situation.

What is more poetic than that to my mind is that he knows as the few remaining grains of sand cascade through the glass, this is a debate he's lost. Nevertheless there's still some time to press the argument until he must 'absolutely' stop - that is until the day is spent and with it his place on the floor. He does this with a solemn dignity, poise, and style that is his most powerful Hitchslap yet: to both the religious who cry that we turn to Jesus on our deathbeds, and to the 'spectre of death' itself - you may kill me, you may make me cease to be, but you not will silence my arguments. Like the tales of the Roman Senate, his thoughts and words will also echo through the ages because the work he's done in this world cannot be canceled out.

It is my sincerest hope that sometime soon I will get to see Christopher Hitchens live, in person. Barring some tremendous breakthrough in the human understanding of this strange world, he knows as well as you and I know that there are very few occasions left. And I naturally wanted to take a moment to disagree with him on a single point of note.

Last year, Hitchens debated William Dembski. During the debate, Hitchens pointed out to the audience that the theme park of the afterlife is a poisoned chalice to be pushed away. He goes on to explain that he wouldn't want to meet Shakespeare because he already can in the books he's left behind; that to meet the author would almost certainly be a disappointment. While it might be true that meeting Shakespeare would be a disappointment, the Cicero of the atheist movement? Not a chance.

I'm Condescending

2011-10-08T08:22:00.000-07:00

It is true. I am here to confirm the widely spread (by me) rumor that I am in fact condescending. I suppose I should slightly unpack that. If you say something stupid, the first time I address it I may or may not be a gender-neutral naughty word here about it. But the second time, not so much.

Why? Well, if it's something I'm taking my time to write back to one on, then it's on a matter that is owed some degree of intellectual pursuit. Or I'm drunk. Or both. Whatever.

Oh, right. Small detail: if you can't get the little bits right, you should probably not be overly surprised when people who've been successfully graduated from (a non-public?) high school don't take your more 'refined' claims all that seriously. For instance. You knew there would be one, right? After all, it's not like I just randomly blog about any old nothing! No, I blog about particular nothings. And here's one. Nothing exists outside of our minds.

It's a fair enough conversation to have if one wants to keep things out of the realm of science. But A. Hughman is clearly not happy with that. So, we have, apparently, philosophy, science and poetry all in one. He makes mention that sound is a pressure wave in air. Well, more than that. It's a wave of pressure propagating through air which hits an eardrum. But more importantly it is interpreted by a brain. (and ultimately, dear readers, it's really about language) This is important because of the non-thought experiment asked in circles of self-styled sophisticates: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? See. Well, Hear. Just ask yourself. Somewhere in the world a tree has just fallen. Did you hear it?

Apparently, you'll be happy to know, it doesn't. You ~~see~~ hear, if there isn't a brain connected to an eardrum in the equation, the displacement of air actually doesn't happen when a tree falls. That being settled, you'll also be happy to know that color works the same way. If there isn't an eye (and presumably a brain, though that part wasn't explicitly made a requirement) to see a given hue, it isn't there.

If Richard Feynman were still alive, I'd go kick him right in the nuts for filling my head with notions that it wasn't an antenna that made Moscow Radio exist, or that made the radio waves materialize. He lied to me saying that they were there the whole time.

Fair-minded readers might take his first sentence or two at face value: he's not really saying that things stop existing if a brain isn't there in the mix. Rather, only, our ability to comment on them is absent. Clearly, I'm not so generous because, again, he undertakes to explain physics in this sketch of his. This means it's not a 'what-if' or 'gee-whiz' question, the likes of which a properly educated philosopher might think is a legitimate variety of question a respectable person can straight-faced ask in polite society. No, he's drawing this as a direct model of our actual universe. A statement of how information propagates through a 'sound' wave (through air!).

Why does this matter, and why do I care, or why should you?

He's not alone. This is the kind of routine, fundamental lack of education in mathematics and the sciences that infects the core of the 'skeptic' movement as regards people of a certain generation. Or rather, I should say, is the apparent core of that generation. The skeptically competent are too busy working in careers of import on matters of relevance. No longer burdened by such mind-straining dilemmas as whether a displacement wave continues to propagate in the absence of an eardrum and the brain to which it's attached, they've cloistered themselves in 'labs' at 'research facilities' where they 'study' slightly more complex problems about this universe of ours.

But 'we' don't hear you. You run obscurely popular blogs (obscure to the public, popular among those who also do 'research', pr 'care' about knowing something about something) that most people aren't aware of. So, in your stead, your proxies are this ilk of vocal, intellectually curious but perhaps, um, academically wanting skeptics who are, talkative, funny and pleasant. I suppose they're also my proxies too because they're willing to ask the questions the average person is willing to ask. Unfortunately, unlike the competent, they're unwilling to answer these questions.

They have a show they run live each Tuesday. On blog tv. And they'll discuss anything (plush toys was one of the more heartwarming ones I watched. Got me right there.)

At bat, we have a musician who likes to contemplate philosophy, logic and say really stupid shit about science (Newtonian mechanics are almost entirely wrong; Relativity 'we know' is almost certainly entirely wrong) and other such pearls of wisdom.

There's a gentleman who likes to subtly peddle his vague religious hankerings and has a master's of science degree in an unspecified field and tells us about, say, water and 'other, more subatomic molecules'.

Michael Payton (yes, the one who had his ass handed to him by William Lame Craig) appears occasionally. He's the one who gave me the study to shore up the claim of "general knowledge' that 'everyone just knows' about 16 year old, black, runaway, homeless, crack addicted hookers (an awfully specific group!), and then rage quit when the publication to which he cited addressed none of the parameters noted above, with the reminder that 'it is kinda' common knowledge.

This is all an outcrop of youtube and, I'm not sure what it is that I'm aiming for here. I go there, and I address some of the issues, but, you know, I'm condescending and a jerk and an asshole (so I'm told!). So, maybe some of you other science types who have superior personalities can give it a go. Because, and you're welcome for the guilt trip, this is who quite a lot (if video views are an indication) of the skeptical, atheist community hear talking. And they think these people are making good sense, and talking about profound Deepities.

In the last month, I've heard that water is like other 'subatomic molecules', Galileo was executed, pressure waves are a language that doesn't exist unless and until someone is listening to it, General Relativity is almost certainly entirely wrong (twice I've heard this one), and I am nonplussed.

Why is it that these people who go around saying things and not immediately standing appropriately embarrassed and apologizing for saying such a stupid, stupid thing are garnering so much attention? Is there some wave that is sweeping the skeptic community where having delusions of mediocrity is a step in the right direction?

So, um, someone clue me in here. What. The. Fuck. Is. Happening?