Thanks to PZ for the format/inspiration!

Be self-aware. You are the speaker in a room filled with dozens, hundreds, thousands of people. Especially at atheist/skeptic conferences, we are all very interesting people, but out of those dozens/hundreds/thousands of people who could have been chosen to give a presentation, you were chosen. Your opinion and your words are most likely highly valued, because other people want to hear them. Other people want to learn from you. Other people look up to you. Other people have not had the exact same life history, education, experience that you have had, and want to peek into your world, and hear about your perspective for a few minutes.

Not a round-table discussion where anyone can interrupt or disagree– you are a speaker, and the audience has chosen to spend their time with you. Not each other in the bar. Not with any of the other concurrent speakers. You. And if you are invited to be a keynote speaker, the conference stops, and everyone listens to you. All the more responsibility.

That opportunity requires one to be self aware. “Am I using words this audience understands?” “Am I taking the appropriate tone for this audience? Too stuffy? Too casual? Is it age appropriate?” “Will this choice of sentence advance my cause, or unnecessarily confuse the audience? Unnecessarily anger the audience?” “Could I be more articulate?” “Am I 100% this statement is true?” “Is the audience interested in this topic? Even if it is important to me, how can I engage everyone?” “Is this joke necessary? Could someone think this joke is offensive? Racist? Sexist?” “Am I talking down to the audience? Am I talking over them?”

All eyes are on you, so your own eyes need to be on you. Critically analyzing your every move, as critically as you would be critiquing an Enemy Speaker.

Be aware of your potential targets. Especially at atheist/skeptic conferences, we are pretty much always attacking/making fun of someone. Whether its Jenny McCarthy or Michael Behe or Deepak Chopra, or Sarah Palin, sometimes you need to talk about a person and their actions, not just purely vaccines or evolution or psychology or politics. Sometimes you might even feel the need to address the words/actions of someone in the audience. If you chose to do this, from a privileged position as The Speaker, where The Target will not have a fair opportunity to respond, you need to be Dexter. You need to be 100% sure. “Is this attack 100% necessary?” “Will pursuing this attack advance my goals?” “Will this attack take attention away from my primary goals?” “Is attacking this individual the best way to call attention to this issue?” “How would I feel if someone attacked me, maybe even misrepresented me, to a group of hundreds of people, and I wouldnt get a chance to respond?” “Am I 100% sure I understand this persons perspective/position myself?” “Is it possible that this persons opinions are equally valid as mine, I just dont understand their world view myself?” “Is this person really relevant to the topic Im speaking about?” “Am I abusing my position as speaker to ‘get back’ at someone on a personal level?” “If I pursue this attack, is it possible I will come out looking like an asshole? Have I honestly reflected on this attack, or am I actually being an asshole? (see ‘Be self-aware‘)”

Being a Decent Human Being is actually the best defense you can have against abusing your position as a speaker at atheist conferences. Dont abandon it for short-term gain: youre in a community, and youre going to lose that if you think of yourself as a predator on the make.

What about tactics? Lets say you are super passionate about an issue, but is a keynote speech really the best forum for your issue? Would a moderated, recorded brain-storming session be better? An official debate? An intimate, one-on-one conversation in a quiet side room? A light-hearted, open to everyone conversation in a noisy bar? Or maybe even an online discussion, where everyone can take time to think about their input and responses and questions carefully– where everyone can simply send links to others, so everyone is on the same page, even everyone didnt start on the same page? Using a keynote address to pitch an idea for a skeptics football league is no more appropriate than using a keynote address to confront someone who said something that you found personally offensive (while others did not) is no more appropriate to rant for an hour about how the rent is too damn high. Yes, you have been given the opportunity to give a speech at an atheist conference– but that doesnt mean a speech at an atheist conference is the appropriate tactic for what you are excited about 2 minutes before you give said speech. You need to put thought into this, or you will alienate your audience not because you are wrong or had a bad idea, but because you used the wrong tactic. People will think you capitalized on your invitation as a speaker, not to engage with the audience, but to pursue a personal interest (or vendetta). You abused the forum you were given. They might not be interested in providing you with that same platform in the future.

Of course, if any more experienced commenters would like to offer further suggestions, theyre welcome to continue…as long as they remember these are guidelines for Decent Human Beings, not assholes who will excuse someones bad behavior just because they are friends with the offender.


  1. #1 Wild Zontargs
    July 11, 2011

    @Justicar: I think you may have some competition here 🙂

    “This is beyond simply disturbing. Before allowing myself to get distracted by all of this, I viewed Skepchick in a generally positive light, if somewhat ambivalently at never having examined it in detail or followed it. Now that I’ve been rummaging around in it, this is just another Off Our Backs, albeit with a skeptical theme. Nothing wrong with that per se – it’s just somewhat misleading to have an about page that claims –

    ” Skepchick is a group of women (and one deserving guy) who write about science, skepticism, and pseudoscience. With intelligence, curiosity, and occasional snark, the group tackles diverse topics from astronomy to astrology, psychics to psychology.”

    This is highly dishonest and misleading. And it only gets worse once you begin to explore the myriad of fora where time and again, Skepchick and “sexism” and “misogyny” keep bursting into threads that refuse to die. And the traffic is hardly all one way, pro-Skepchick, as you might be led to believe from reading about this nonsense on Pharyngula. Seems there is quite a mass of ladies out there that really resent being misrepresented in this way.”

  2. #2 Michael
    July 11, 2011

    PZ identifies and quotes at length people that blow RW’s comments out of proportion but seems to be blind to the people that pretend that RD trivializes rape. And even despite his absurdly imbalanced post his resident commentariat immediately lashes out at him for not chastising RD enough. To which he weighs in to make sure people don’t overlook that he has indeed dutifully criticized RD. Amazing.

  3. #3 The Panic Man
    July 11, 2011

    I see the He-Man Woman-Hater’s Club is still in session. Why don’t the whole lot of you just admit your intense, searing hatred of all things not-teh-menz and be done with it?

    I keep seeing your trash in the Recent comments page and it just amazes me. I can only hope that none of you leave your houses, for the sake of women (and right-thinking people in general) everywhere.

  4. #4 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    I, The Justicar of the Azeroth Justicars, do hereby solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have an intense, searing hatred of all things not-teh-menz and am henceforth done with it so help me Zod.

    Well, that was easy and I feel a lot better about my heretofore pathetic life.

    One minor point, The Panic Man, being as powerful as I am, I don’t need to leave my house to harm women. I have buttons on my keyboard to let me do it without dirtying my dandy hands:

  5. #5 Spence
    July 11, 2011

    OK, I fell for it last time, but I’m not going to now.

    “The Panic Man” has got to be a Poe. Nobody could have that many rocks between the ears and still remember to breathe.

  6. #6 INTP
    July 11, 2011

    Panic Man = those ugly beasties that lurk under bridges.

  7. #7 redacted this time :p
    July 11, 2011


    With regards to “International Day Against Stoning”, presumably all men should be viewed as potential stoners and in order to protect women, we should not go anywhere near a woman if there are rocks present? Even better, we should probably wear styrofoam #1 finger things on both our hands when we’re outside, just so there’s no concern that we might lose control, pick up a rock and throw it passers-by.

  8. #8 cthellis
    July 11, 2011

    I think this could all be resolved if we put on a play with catchy cosplay costumes. Who wants the sweet lolita dress?

  9. #9 Dave
    July 11, 2011

    [H]is post about International Day Against Stoning and his hoping it’s something we can all agree on.

    I cannot agree: I think every woman has the right to keep her maiden name. I think its abhorrent that PZ would be so patriarchal, insisting women take their husbands’ names, as if the women had no identity of their own.

  10. #10 John C. Welch
    July 11, 2011


    Also note the problem with all of this– there is no discussion. PZ says I (and Dawkins) are wrong. Ive never told PZ the reasoning behind my opinion, it doesnt matter, my conclusion is WRONG. Dawkins makes a remark. Its WRONG. He asks people to explain why. NO DISCUSSION. WRONG.

    No discussion.

    But its supposed to be ‘good for the community’.


    I’ve seen this before. They’re now “protecting the group”. RW is part of the group, so protecting her is included. If you are not part of the group, neither you nor your opinion count. It’s not a herd mentality, it’s a bit more vicious than that. It’s a circling of the wagons against the outsiders.

    Any dissent is put down, instantly and with no regard to the standards they think they hold themselves to. Because dissent = outsider = no right to any consideration on any level. It IS sad, and it IS the kind of behavior that creationists and the climategate weenies were talking about, and if you try to bring it up, then OMG FRAMING AND TONE and the attacks escalate.

    Like I said. i think, in all honesty, if someone disagreed with PZ in person using the precise language he does, or even better, some of his blog pets like Nerd do, he would very quickly start being quite concerned for his personal safety.

  11. #11 0verlord
    July 11, 2011

    The idea of equality is to pull everyone up to a shared and common equal status. It’s not to have a roughly distributed system of situational oppression and self-loathing.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who has had this impression, that if I’m *really* for equality, then I am to be expected to apologize and anguish and loathe myself for being who I am. It’s unfortunate that people I halfway respect seem to hold that attitude, and relieving that my refusal to do so isn’t actually indicative of my hating women. That’s stupid I know, but after so much of it, I started questioning myself. I wonder how many others have done the same, and out of good intentions, became that way?

    Anyway, back to lurking. Cheers. -0

  12. #12 Phyraxus
    July 11, 2011

    Man that new thread of PZ’s is a world of fun right now.

    A man is misogynistic if he hits on a woman. If she likes it, it isn’t misogyny. That’s why its called flirting!

  13. #13 windy
    July 11, 2011

    I see the He-Man Woman-Hater’s Club is still in session.

    It is? Thanks for the mansplanation!

  14. #14 Wild Zontargs
    July 11, 2011

    Arrrgh! Now Watson’s being interviewed on semi-mainstream news shows, with no rebuttal possible. Google “Citizen Radio” for one example; after their hatchet-job on Dawkins last week, I’m not dignifying them with a direct link. 25 minutes about misogynist atheists, Dawkins is a dick, Dawkins is the atheist God, and fuck all about what actually happened.

    This isn’t going to get better or go away, is it? At least, not until all the publicity value is milked out of it, or somebody else steps on a landmine.

  15. #15 Mark
    July 11, 2011

    A man is misogynistic if he hits on a woman. If she likes it, it isn’t misogyny. That’s why its called flirting!

    Reminiscent of this classic from SNL:

    Sexual Harrassment And You

  16. #16 cthellis
    July 11, 2011

    It is? Thanks for the mansplanation!

    Shouldn’t that be femsplanation or something, to use the appropriate reverse dismissal? Member of the Female Wrongs Association or something?

    I don’t know. I guess I’m just not hilariously clever like that.

  17. #17 JD
    July 11, 2011

    ERV @565,

    PZ has *never* said a word to me otherwise. But if that post is the best PZ can do, that is the best he can do.

    PZ never asked me to elaborate on my opinion, but insisted he disagreed with me. So, thats the kind of discussion you all can look forward to at TAM, I guess.

    You got that right. He claims he’s yet to here an opposing argument worthy of his attention.

    A tweet from the twit Herr PZ Myers

    Haven’t found ’em. RT @RemieV: dishonest to quote only the idiotic posts, no? What about people who INTELLIGENTLY disagree with you?

    source: twitter(dot)com/#!/pzmyers/status/90241642187071488

    A people want this fuck-tarded ideologue as a leader of the skeptical/atheist movement. It’s doomed. Herr Myers wants to eliminate all dissent and purify all thought.

  18. #18 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    Guys, ladies, gender traitors, lesbians and John C. Welch, I finally have the solution as to why analogies of Schrodinger’s Fake Rape Victim, or Jihadist, or Black Mugger Guy fail. In response to a video I did responding to a video on youtube (which essentially, says that not only is Rebecca Watson not wrong; she’s being imminently appropriate and reasonable all the way down the line):

    The problem with your analogy should be obvious. In the male/female example, the woman is the suppressed minority that is being brutally abused with offers of coffee. Whereas in your random-dude/arab analogy, the random-dude is the victim/minority.

    You are getting your victimhood status all mixed up.

    I now am convinced and ashamed to be associated with all you. Assholes.

  19. #19 frank habets
    July 11, 2011

    #617 (cthellis):”Shouldn’t that be femsplanation or something, to use the appropriate reverse dismissal? ”

    Well, we could refer to the chromosones and call it an XXplanation.

  20. #20 Rystefn
    July 11, 2011

    I fucking well hope it tears the “community” in two. Then people won’t think I’m associated with those fuckers anymore.

  21. #21 JD
    July 11, 2011

    Herr Myers ignorantly spewed,

    Let’s stop the shouting that Richard Dawkins is some kind of raving misogynist. What’s happened here is that he is at some remove from all of the details, and this issue got blown up by lunatics who felt their manhood threatened and who exaggerated the situation to an absurd degree.

    Now that’s some revisionist history that would make even David Barton blush. This “thing” blew up because several of Myers feces-flinging monkey troop became completely hysterical over Dawkins comments about RW Watson’s actions and feelings.

    They so grossly misinterpreted his words that they started a letter writing campaign using rape victims and a boycott of his works.

    Of course the sane people reacted to this absurd characterization of Dawkins by speaking out against it. Pointing out that Dawkins IS not a misogynist nor a rape apologist and that their actions toward him were completely unjustified and irrational.

    That’s what caused it to become such a big controversy.

  22. #22 windy
    July 11, 2011

    Shouldn’t that be femsplanation or something, to use the appropriate reverse dismissal?

    I have made the gender-normative assumption that “Panic Man” is male, so I thanked him for mansplaining the situation to ERV and the rest of us poor deluded womens that may still be following.

  23. #23 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    Pst, Windy, I’ll explain to you how it all works because I know you’re a woman and you need that. Here, let’s talk about this over coffee . . .

  24. #24 cthellis
    July 11, 2011

    @620 Well, we could refer to the chromosones and call it an XXplanation.


    I know ERV awards the internets around these parts, but I feel obliged to make a nomination in this case.

  25. #25 cthellis
    July 11, 2011


    I have made the gender-normative assumption that “Panic Man” is male, so I thanked him for mansplaining the situation to ERV and the rest of us poor deluded womens that may still be following.

    Ah, but are you not then stating that women cannot mansplain and men cannot XXplain? How drolly heteronormative and sexist of you!

  26. #26 Rystefn
    July 11, 2011

    JD, PZ simply cannot be trusted to use reason or truth when discussing “feminist” issues. You know, like how in a discussion about genital mutilation, men aren’t allowed to speak because it doesn’t affect us, so we need to just shut up and listen to a bunch of wealthy first-world mostly white women… because their vaginas erase the privilege they enjoy of never having that happen to them, and our penises erase our experience with having that happen to us (albeit often less extreme mutilation).

  27. #27 Prometheus
    July 11, 2011

    Meyers is reported to have written:

    “Let’s stop the shouting that Richard Dawkins is some kind of raving misogynist. What’s happened here is that he is at some remove from all of the details…”

    No goddammit. No.

    As an aside related to my own area of expertise and for all the people who did not bother with a logic or ethics class in the core requirements because they could get equal credit for their humanities degree by taking “Misogyny as reflected in women’s footwear advertisements 1906-1926″….

    Dawkins statements are not:

    argument from ignorance


    false analogy

    Black Flag (O.J. Defense)

    “Calvin ball”(this horseshit term is being flung around by Marcotte, political insiders use the same term as mentalists and short cons i.e. equivocation or the Laban Swap)

    “Inhuman”(last time I checked we cornered the market on sarcasm AND blogging so I don’t even get this hyperbolic shit)

    His statements are lacking in diplomacy but they are NOT ethically or logically wrong.

    He was not mistaken.

    He is an international celebrity with an international 1st, 2nd and 3rd world audience and in a global context he is not trivializing Watson’s experience. In that context of life, death and all the marbles, Watson’s experience is beneath trivial, it is an expensive distraction.

    Roger Crisp Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford University said, very recently, “Moral indignation and blame are scarce commodities, worth preserving for the things that really matter.”

    That is where Dawkins is clearly coming from.

    He statements are both ethical and pragmatic.

    Of course if your utopia is a post-sexual merit-less empowerment world where A. Dworkin and Nathaniel Branden collide (ick)….then all bets are off.

    What RW&Co. are looking for, and PZ by his turning his back on a vastly superior scientist, friend and all around human is looking for, is a broken window culture.

    A broken window culture is where every offense to the culture is slammed. Kill a baby or break a window meh same thing….Whamo! Eventually people are not just obeying rules but they are giving them the widest imaginable berth.

    It worked (kinda sorta) in Late 18th century to early 19th century England but 220 capital offenses led to social infantilism and it has done the same thing in Japan with its public-censure-for-everything plan.

    You can’t reform a culture by killing it, that’s the bronze age biblical genocidal crapola mentality I thought we had all agreed to oppose.

  28. #28 Spence
    July 11, 2011

    If you are not part of the group, neither you nor your opinion count. It’s not a herd mentality, it’s a bit more vicious than that. It’s a circling of the wagons against the outsiders.
    Yeah, I’ve witnessed this before as well. Circling the wagons is an accurate description, as is tribalism.

    You can see the difference between Dawkins and Myers, and see why Dawkins commands so much more respect than Myers ever could. Dawkins goes out and persuades those who have no strong views but can be convinced. Myers approach only works on the converted, and while his brand of tribalism helps to “rally the troops” it can also be quite negative and divisive.

    PZ usually takes on what I would term “low hanging fruit” in the creationist vs. evolution debate, and the arrogant approach there is usually effective just because the arguments they are up against are so lame. Not to criticise them for doing this – at least clearing away the dross frees up the likes of Dawkins from having to deal with the dross. But when they actually come up against more challenging points of view, up go the barriers, threads get closed, opinions mischaracterised, logic and reason go out of the window.

    At the end of his latest, he boldly points out the JREF rules for TAM as if it justifies his position – completely missing the fact that elevator guy’s behaviour is not covered by them, as his advances were stopped immediately on request. Way to go, PZ.

    I know I should post this on pharyngula but I can’t be bothered signing up to an account just to watch the monkeys play in their cages.

  29. #29 Rystefn
    July 11, 2011

    That’s right, Spence, it’s not harassment unless you keep going after the rejection. Somehow neither “no means no” nor “only yes means yes” is good enough anymore. Now we have to deal with “it’s no before you ask.” Seriously, WTF?

  30. #30 John Greg
    July 11, 2011

    If anyone is interested, I am currently having a wee debate with Watson at Skepchick on her most recent (today) Dawkins thread wherein I’m trying to get her response to tacitly and implicitly endorsing and encouraging a boycott of Dawkin’s’s books — books, it has been noted, that have not skulked off into the libraryesque hinterlands and rewritten themselves because of his recent remarks, and therefore said books still contain great knowledge and wisdom and should therefore not be retractively boycotted.

  31. #31 windy
    July 11, 2011

    Here, let’s talk about this over coffee . . .

    Wait, which one of us would be the oppressor?

  32. #32 NJ
    July 11, 2011

    Rystefn @ 630:

    Somehow neither “no means no” nor “only yes means yes” is good enough anymore.

    Interesting comment on this point on one of the related Pharyngula threads:

  33. #33 Rystefn
    July 11, 2011

    Yeah, she’s pretty good at dodging in circles around an argument, John. Anyone who can look at things logically can see she’s doing, but that’s not her audience, so why should she care?

  34. #34 cthellis
    July 11, 2011


    If anyone is interested, I am currently having a wee debate with Watson at Skepchick…

    I am horrified as to the violence in some of the remarks out there!

    New Rule: Every time someone comments on this topic, FSM smacks a baby otter.

    Won’t SOMEBODY speak for the otters?!!

    Also: the speed at which people say “stop twisting my words” and then proceed to twist others’ words in all these threads has given me whiplash.

    I’m totally suing SOMEone…

  35. #35 John Greg
    July 11, 2011

    I’ve posted what I think will be my last word on the subject (at Skepchick).

    Watson really is a master dissembler and twister of words. Cripes, she’s worse/more dangerous than sethmanapio! And disingenuous? Man, she’s a pro.

  36. #36 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    Cthellis: where is this debate happening?

    John Greg: thank Zod she’s not a radical spiderist though.

  37. #37 John Greg
    July 11, 2011

    At, in the “Dawkins Overflow Thread”.

    “John Greg: thank Zod she’s not a radical spiderist though.”

    No shit. I’m terrified of the creepy-crawly little buggers too!

  38. #38 Victoria
    July 11, 2011

    Justicar @550 Your comment got me to remembering the first time that I was called a “gender traitor”, which was in 1974. I commented to a women’s group that their stated goal of “achieving equal rights and equal access for all people”, and their current project of an art show consisting of “art made by women, of women, and for women” were at odds with each other. Shades of cognitive dissonance! If women were excluded from something, it was unjust, unfair, and so forth. If men were excluded from something, that was okay because- well, just because it was okay.

    So, as a certified gender traitor, now can I join the boy’s club? Abbie, Windy, and the other ladies could probably use some help making coffee.

  39. #39 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    OK, I found it over there. It was a short discussion.

    I wrote a parable about Radical Spiderism today, and those who don’t agree that blaming the spider is the proper way of handling the situation are just spider apologists, brainwashed by the spiderarchy. Let’s hope it serves some use for some people in checking their irrational emotions through their rational thoughts.

    Let’s hope.

    *Prays to Dumbledore*

  40. #40 John C. Welch
    July 11, 2011

    As a completely irratioal arachnophobe, I support all movements to keep the octo-limbed bastards out of my world. yyyyyyeeeeeegghhh


    NJ, and of course, the first reply to that comment? Yeah. About what you’d expect. Seriously, at this point, unless you agree in blind lockstep with PZ, Watson, or sadly it seems, laden, you are nothing more than a target for shit flung by the local simians.

    Then again, when you walk around clapping yourself on the back all the time about how much better, and smarter you are than anyone else, eventually, you become a diarrhetic chimp commune. It’s inevitable.

    It’s also avoidable. Just remember, there are 7 billion people and even more computers on this planet. most of them are probably smarter than you, and could replace you without trying terribly hard. Once you internalize that, the rest is easy.

  41. #41 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    “It’s also avoidable. Just remember, there are 7 billion people and even more computers on this planet. most of them are probably smarter than you, and could replace you without trying terribly hard. Once you internalize that, the rest is easy.”

    This. Perspective is a bitch though.

    Although, I fully stand behind (but a little far away because of fear) my spider allegory. Also, my 7 second video completely sums up the whole of this shit. I could only have improved it by splicing in Dawkins saying, “idiotic retard”.

  42. #42 Rystefn
    July 11, 2011

    I disagree, John Greg. She’s bad, but she’s not nearly to the levels achieved by seth. One time, that guy spent a week insisting that I wrong in saying “that should totally fall under depraved indifference” because it didn’t currently fall under depraved indifference – despite the fact that I clearly pointed out that in some jurisdictions it did. It was a work of art in twisting… Although, since Rebecca was privy to that and many other arguments we had, I’m sure she’s picked up a lot of the trade and added a fair amount of her own over the years.

  43. #43 Phyraxus
    July 11, 2011

    Apparently, its only racism when a white is unjustly suspicious of a black, but not the other way around. I shit you not, he is literally suspicious of “the man” and justifiably so because he has been oppressed.

    Just like a man is sexist if he thinks a woman is a gold digger. But a woman is justified when she thinks a man might be a rapist, WHY? Because nearly all rapes are committed by men on women!

    (Why, most violent crimes are committed by minorities you say? Therefore, by their logic, you are justified in being suspicious? Well, that doesn’t count because they have been oppressed! THUS they do not have privilege!)

    If you disagree, well, you are just privileged (or a gender-traitor)!

    The lack of logic, it BURNS! The goggles, they do NOTHING!

  44. #44 John C. Welch
    July 11, 2011

    I’d love to see a panel discussion with PZ, Watson and Blaghag on one side, and ERV, Dawkins, and oh, I dunno, Hemant on the other. The audience would get to play too. The rules are, when you respond to someone, you have to respond via the general tone they use online.

    so by “panel discussion” I mean “chaos”.

  45. #45 cthellis
    July 11, 2011


    It’s also avoidable. Just remember, there are 7 billion people and even more computers on this planet. most of them are probably smarter than you, and could replace you without trying terribly hard. Once you internalize that, the rest is easy

    Also, the insults at least get a lot more entertaining:

  46. #46 cthellis
    July 11, 2011

    …and oh, I dunno, Hemant on the other.

    Gods damn, how is everything about that man so sexy?

  47. #47 John C. Welch
    July 11, 2011


    Dude, I don’t know. I’m not gay, not even close, and I still think he’s a damned fine-lookin’ hunk o’man. The fact he has an amazing intellect, and really tries hard to live up to his own ideals, even treating those who disagree with a certain consistent respect?

    If I was gay or a straight female, I’d be ALL over that shit.

  48. #48 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    For fuck’s sake, John.

    A sexually deviant rapist predator like you . . . who won’t you OBJECTIFY and SEXUALIZE in your quest?!

    Poor Hemant.

    (ps, take pictures if you can)

  49. #49 John Greg
    July 11, 2011

    Rystefn, you know, you’re quite right. I well remember some of your battles with him. seth is a work of art … chthonic art at that, but still….

    Long after you left Skepchick seth involved me in one of his dictional masterpieces, which led to my eventual leaving of Skepchick at that time. He had me pulling my hair out with Internetz crazy-madness.

  50. #50 G.Shelley
    July 11, 2011

    I have a thousand thoughts
    1) Rebecca’s original video was fine. It is a little creepy to approach someone in an elevator at 4 in the morning
    2) The response was also fine, it isn’t that big a deal
    3) Some of the responses at Skepchick and other places border on deranged. Calling Dawkins a “rape apologist” is beyond ridiculous.
    3b) Some people are more interested in their fantasy version of what happened than what did. These are the people who insist the man approached her for sex, chose a venue where he would be able to intimidate her and has been shown absolutely that he knew she just wanted to sleep.
    3c) some people over there seem to think that any woman who disagrees with the idea that all men are potential rapists and should keep away from women after dark is just posing as a woman
    5) His post was itself ridiculous. The idea that as long as there are things much worse happening to other people you shouldn’t really complain basically makes no sense.

  51. #51 Rystefn
    July 11, 2011

    Shelley, his post wasn’t “there are worse things than that, so stop complaining.” It was “There are REAL things happening in the world, so stop complaining about nothing.” That’s a damned strong point.

  52. #52 Justicar
    July 11, 2011

    The idea behind what Richard Dawkins said isn’t that because worse bad things are happening somewhere means we shouldn’t deal with less bad things. He’s saying that the elevator incident is not in the category of “bad” at all. In other words, she might have been complaining about not getting the right kind of fries with her order – it’s not what one would want to be the case, but it isn’t bad that it happened. It’s a non-event.

    In order for your number 5.) to hold water, it would need to be the case that there is something bad that actually happened. Dawkins says it is not. And I agree.

    Rebecca’s video on the whole was fine. Boring, useless, but fine. But then she brings up the ordeal which she takes as a chance to admonish all men on behalf of women everywhere. She, in short, said, I don’t appreciate x, therefore, women don’t like x and further therefore all men should not do x.

    So, if that’s a valid chain, then I’m going to start letting it be known that paper makes me uncomfortable. Especially newspaper. I’m not allergic to it, per se; but just the smell gives me chills, the touch gives me chills and dries my mouth. It really bothers me – almost all paper. Therefore, to make my life easier, DO NOT walk around with a newspaper because you might run into me and make me uncomfortable.

    Sorry, no. My discomfort with newspaper is my problem to work through; it is not a problem for the rest of the world to try to maneuver around.

    Same thing with crayons: the smell and the touch give me chills and make my mouth go dry. Also, so do toothpicks. Just thinking about all of that right now has completely dried out my mouth like someone tossed in some alum powder.

    This doesn’t privilege me to tell anyone to do fuck all about anything. It is entirely my problem.

    Same thing with not wanting people to speak to you in certain places/times. Don’t like that people will talk to you while you’re out in public? Don’t be out in public. It’s why I don’t go paper stores, newspaper stands, and I never colored with my children. My problem, my responsibility to work around it – not anyone else’s.

  53. #53 D.T.
    July 11, 2011

    Inquiry: did she call for a boycott of Richard Dawkins, or did she just say that she, personally, wasn’t going to buy anymore of his works?

  54. #54 Rystefn
    July 11, 2011

    She said that she wouldn’t buy any more and that she would no longer recommend anyone do so either… which has a strong implication of advising people not to.

  55. #55 Agent Smith
    July 11, 2011

    I think Justicar, as a homosexual, is sexually objectifying men and his posts make me uncomfortable. In fact, I think he probably should post on the other side of the street.

    Does anyone want to talk about my anguish over this incident?

  56. #56 Justicar
    July 12, 2011

    Dear Breeder:

    Yes, I know you can get married . . . but think of your American male sisters will you?

    The Dawk

  57. #57 John Greg
    July 12, 2011

    D.T. said:

    “Inquiry: did she call for a boycott of Richard Dawkins, or did she just say that she, personally, wasn’t going to buy anymore of his works?”

    Rystefn said:

    “She said that she wouldn’t buy any more and that she would no longer recommend anyone do so either… which has a strong implication of advising people not to.”

    Actually, if we look at her position of power in the community and the degree of her influence over her followers, fans, etc., it is somewhat more than that. In my opinion her statements amount to a passive/agressive and profoundly intellectually dishonest endorsement and encouragement to boycott everything Dawkins, i.e, talks, books, etc.

    As I pointed out earlier, I presented my thoughts on this issue to Watson over at in response to an incredibly insulting attempt by Watson to shame someone who asked her if Dawkins’s recent comments somehow rewrote his books into idiocy, but she just played remarkably childish and manipulative word games to avoid actually confronting the issue on an intellectually honest way.

    She is but a child, an insecure child bloated with the success of Internetz “fame”.

    I think she is falling apart and even perhaps morphing into a sort of contemporary version of Andrea Dworkin, albeit without the Dyke side of it all.

    I also think she is, like many, many “celebrities” before her, succumbing to her own press and believing in her own “myth”, so to speak, which is of course the most toxic form of self-image self-destruction there is.

  58. #58 Wow
    July 12, 2011

    “Inquiry: did she call for a boycott of Richard Dawkins, or did she just say that she, personally, wasn’t going to buy anymore of his works?”

    I believe that she said she was not going to buy any more.

    However, when you’re a leader, people will follow. It’s expected. And people did.

    The problem with the idea that she didn’t intend this is that why bother saying? It’s not like RD is going to change his mind just because he’s lost one punter, is it. And therefore why tell him? He already knows she doesn’t like his attitude. So the only purpose left is really that she wanted other people to join in to coerce RD.

  59. #59 Wow
    July 12, 2011

    “Dude, I don’t know. I’m not gay, not even close, and I still think he’s a damned fine-lookin’ hunk o’man.”

    And until you’ve tried, how do you know you won’t like it?

    EVERY man is a potential homosexual. Maybe there’s a “gay switch”, which would certainly be of comfort to those wanting gay marriage banned: that COULD switch that gay switch and ruin the next generation!

    Funny how Rebecca’s helpers are helping the religious right in their gender hate.

  60. #60 Rorschach
    July 12, 2011

    Sorry, but I just can’t let this one stand :

    We sat in the audience in horror as she refused to talk on the subject her panel had been given, and instead went on a private rant, maligning four women from a previous panel for saying that women were welcomed in the atheist community, and had often held high positions in atheist organizations. Rebecca’s latest personal attack during a public speaking engagement is certainly not her first. My fond hope is that it will be her last, and that she either agrees to abide by the principles of common decency, or is denied her bully pulpit.

    That would have to be the same audience that I sat in. The one where most people listened with open mouths to Paula Kirby and Tanya Smith completely dismissing the existence of sexism in the atheist movement. The one where I asked Rebecca whether she was going to say something about this, and she said she was going to do it at the next panel, because the time was up. The same audience that cheered and applauded when Rebecca made her remarks on the later panel. Sorry, Victoria Johnson, but lying is never a good thing to do to sway an audience, not even on a blog. You may have looked on in horror as you say, but you would have been the only one. I note that the Watson-hating fanclub here welcomed your lie warmly and uncritically.

  61. #61 Wow
    July 12, 2011

    “because their vaginas erase the privilege they enjoy of never having that happen to them, and our penises erase our experience with having that happen to us (albeit often less extreme mutilation).”

    Although this would mean that the advice to kick the bloke in the nuts should be discarded, since women don’t know the pain that causes.

    At least circumcision has a point: lower infection rate because there’s no warm, moist area to grow bacteria.

    What’s a little eye-opening is that the insistence that women aren’t as sex mad as men is very similar to the demand to mutilate women: women aren’t allowed to enjoy sex. One makes it a social stigma to do so, the other one makes it a medical improbability.

    Again the feminists are helping promote the same ideas as the religious suppressors of women do.

    Oh, and to reduce the posts, to this claim:

    “I will extend that to “a person being attacked is less likely to win than an attacker in a fight.” ”

    Sorry, if you know you’re in deep shit, you fight for something.

    To some extent, being attacked by three people is easier than being attacked by one. You KNOW you’re FUBAR. So you go all-out. No messing. Take them out and if that means they could die, you KNOW that it’s them or you. Meanwhile they think that they have you. So going first, you have surprise (most KOs are from a punch never seen). So if you’re lucky, one goes down for good. Now the two remaining are shocked. That gives you a chance to put another one down. If you do, the last one thinks that they’re now fooked and they weren’t in this for THAT to happen. So they scarper.

    But you can beat a thousand assailants if you’re too far away, so distance is ALWAYS your first option.

    If you can’t get away, TAKE NO PRISONERS. You’re fighting for your life, they’re fighting for your fanny. And you have just the one life, whereas there’s plenty of muff in the world, so no point in getting hurt getting yours.

  62. #62 Wow
    July 12, 2011

    “I should really quit reaching for the most convenient excuse on hand. I’m going to dig myself a hole here for offending other people that have Asperger’s”

    That’d be me!

    Don’t worry, Southern Geologist, I wasn’t intending censure (well, not much, barely a tap on the wrist), but there are women and men who want more than equality for women and given there are men who want LESS than equality, this isn’t a problem. You need two extremes of equal nutcasery to have the proper position somewhere in between. Cutting off one extreme doesn’t work. See “Overton Window” for what happens when you do that.

    These feminist still, in the main, recognise that “no means no” means that men still can ask, even when they know women are better than men.

    The situation here is that Jen, for example, isn’t willing to accept that. Therefore making it specific to Jen hammers home the problem: she’s setting herself up as the One True Source Of Right Thinking and that’s pissing off not only men, but women too.

    When you can make your point specific, you may be able to get actual change. If you make it general, it’s more likely to be brushed off as “just hatin'”.

  63. #63 windy
    July 12, 2011

    You may have looked on in horror as you say, but you would have been the only one. I note that the Watson-hating fanclub here welcomed your lie warmly and uncritically.

    What lie? She was talking about her and her husband. “We sat in the audience in horror”, not “We, the audience, sat in horror…”

  64. #65 John C. Welch
    July 12, 2011

    It is possible, is it not rorschach, that SOME of the audience was not happy at watson’s actions and that SOME of the audience was, and NEITHER OF THEM (either part of the audience) WAS WRONG?

  65. #66 cthellis
    July 12, 2011

    I don’t have anything useful to say here right now. I just feel compelled to snag post 666.

  66. #67 ERV
    July 12, 2011



  67. #68 dustbubble
    July 12, 2011

    Well, The Guy in question just has to be outed now, just for the record.
    Looks like the next conference is going to be comfortably held in that elevator, if this keeps up.

    Wimminz can take the stairs.

  68. #70 ERV
    July 12, 2011

    Well, I think one important thing we can all take away from this is that Rebecca Watson is definitely NOT an attention whore.

  69. #71 Justicar
    July 12, 2011

    Damn, I shouldn’t have slept – good material here.
    I have not uncritically accepted anyone’s views of what the audience were like during Paula Kirby’s panel. I watched the video. I don’t seem to remember a single boo. I don’t seem to remember a single person standing up and calling them on the carpet for throwing their sisters under a bus. Rebecca was in the audience; she could have availed herself of doing it there.

    And, rereading the comments, she spoke for her and her husband. Novel, isn’t it? She spoke for herself and her husband (whom she presumably knows and talks to about things occasionally). She’s not saying her perception of events is the universe’s perception. She said she knows what she thought about, and she knows what her husband thought about it. Seems imminently reasonable to me – constraining her opinion to two people, one of which she can absolutely know to be a fair representation, and the other she can be fairly confident in. Well, unless you want to posit that her husband might not be honest with her. I am not so much an ass to assume that of him.

    Perhaps you could even try learning from this little exercise: don’t speak for the whole fucking world. State your perspective; state your opinion; represent what you think. Just because you think/feel something doesn’t mean it generalizes. Asshole.

    Oh, that’s right – the Q&A is NOT the appropriate time for her to ask a question or voice her displeasure because she can’t monopolize the time since the speakers have the power. I have watched the video twice, and I fail to see where any of the ladies on the panel have said that sexism is a done deal, an afterthought of a bygone era.

    Indeed, it started off with the announcement that though fully a third of the audience that day were women, it’s still not good enough. But that it’s better than it has been, so it’s progress but not yet quite where it needs to be.

    The panelists discussed their personal interactions and perspectives. Why are their perspectives somehow invalid, but Rebecca Watson’s perspectives The Gospel?

    Oh wait, I know why: Paula Kirby is privileged. Mary Ann Waters is privileged. Rebecca Watson? She’s being oppressed.

    Paula Kirby: ladies, don’t want to be invited to speak. Start speaking. Do not wait for the door to be opened for you; open it and walk through. If someone stands in your way, puts an obstacle in your path, kick him in the balls, walk over it and get the job done.

    You: how dare you say sexism doesn’t exist?! TRAITOR!

    Better luck next time!

  70. #72 Tom
    July 12, 2011

    Chris Mooney is an extremely petty individual as well- I can guarantee you despite this ridiculous write up (RW has important “work” in the movement) he didn’t even know her prior to the controversy. And I also guarantee you that our favorite little templeton prize winner doesn’t give a crap about “elevgatorgate” beyond attempting to slander Dawkins reputation.

    I really hope Rebecca is happy. A week ago, she was a new atheist that displayed utter contempt for religion (sometimes, despite Steven Novella urging, she couldn’t keep it to herself). This week, she is a concern troll arguing the atheist movement is a secret vehicle of male privilege.

    Proof positive ideas doesn’t mean anything when attention is available. Now PZ is really in a catch 22- his girl is now working with his mortal enemy to discredit the movement.

  71. #73 mk
    July 12, 2011

    Oh yes. So true! Not at all. ;^}

    I’m sure, just like Jen McC, she just wants it all to go away so she can get back to her nice quiet, happy life!

  72. #74 Justicar
    July 12, 2011


    No, she’s not.

    This reminds me of Bob Saget’s comedy central roasting where Gilbert Gottfried was doing his “raped and killed a girl in 1990” refrain.

    I don’t know why though.

  73. #75 thememe
    July 12, 2011

    On Skeptchick “The Privilege Delusion” RW wrote:

    Despite the fact that I’ve seen hundreds of comments from those of you who plan to do the same, I’m sure Dawkins will continue to be stinking rich until the end of his days. But those of us who are humanists and feminists will find new, better voices to promote and inspire, and Dawkins will be left alone to fight the terrible injustice of standing in elevators with gum-chewers.

    Well, i seriously hope that she doesn’t think that self-proclaimed Feminist Primadonna Rebecca Watson herself should be that new voice for humanists and feminists?!!!

  74. #76 Tom
    July 12, 2011

    That’s right. A prestigious oxford professor that devoted his life’s work to advancing biological sciences, a best selling author, and brought the atheist movement to the forefront of american society should be left in the dust. Why? Because we have a completely uneducated, non-scientist, internet celerity to provide a new voice to “promote and inspire”!

    Give me a break. Also why was the “stinking rich” comment included? Is it additional part of the male patriarchy to have money now?

  75. #77 Justicar
    July 12, 2011

    It’s the same reason that Paula Kirby is useless and retarded now. Apparently, work hard for all of your life and become “successful” and you’re suddenly too inept to know what it takes for “regular” women to “make it”.

    Silly Richard Dawkins. I feel so sorry for him being such a great writer. Why, if only half as many people bought his books, attended his lectures, realized that “atheist” isn’t a slur, well, then he’d be twice as able of understanding.

    There seems to be some inverse relationship between success and having insight on what it takes to become successful. This is a highly asymmetric model, which I think deserves further scrutiny. How do all these clearly inept people make it to the top, or even the high middle area, while all of the people who really know how it works, who really understand what it takes, who really “get it” can’t seem to do it? No doubt it’s part of the Spiderarchy.

  76. #78 Michael
    July 12, 2011
    “Chris [Mooney] is a science and political journalist…”

    Mooney as a professional journalist will no doubt refuse to broadcast a one-sided view of the events. He will demand that RW identify EG so that he can ask him about his side of the events.

  77. #79 Spence
    July 12, 2011

    Dawkins will be left alone to fight the terrible injustice of standing in elevators with gum-chewers.
    So wait a minute. This started out with Dawkins making a point that standing in elevators and chewing gum weren’t worth worrying about. And now that has somehow been twisted around to being the only thing he’s worried about. Is Rebecca Watson really that detached from reality?

    Still, watching Rorschach’s post – laden with emotionally loaded terms (lying, hating) – being demolished by windy, Abbie and John using, you know, logic and evidence made my day. It really shows which side of this debate is sticking to critical thinking and rational skepticism.

  78. #80 Wild Zontargs
    July 12, 2011

    @670 mk: “Suffice it to say that it involves not only what one skeptic man (now infamously) said to Watson in an elevator at 4 in the morning, but how Richard Dawkins then dove in and minimized the incident.

    We’ll be discussing this and the lessons to be taken from it–as well as Watson’s important work to spread skepticism and, especially, to make the skeptic movement a more welcoming place for women.”

    And the previous blog post there was called “Newsflash: Astroturfing Works”. Yes. Yes it does. Head, meet desk.

    “Comments here will be considered as possible questions and jumping-off points for the show.”

    Somehow, based on the teaser, I think I can guess which comments will not be considered.

  79. #81 Tom
    July 12, 2011

    Mooney will demand that RW’s tale fits his accommodationist narrative. She likes the attention. He likes a chance to take shots at Richard Dawkins and the new atheists in generally. Merely a relationship of mutual opportunity. That is all.

  80. #82 Prometheus
    July 12, 2011


    “Mooney will demand that RW’s tale fits his accommodationist narrative. She likes the attention.”

    Will someone please toss a small hand mirror between them so we can watch these two silly gits fight to the death.

  81. #83 cthellis
    July 12, 2011




    That’s it, I’m done with the lot of you~!

    Better luck next time!

    *weeps bitter tears of bitterness*

  82. #84 John C. Welch
    July 12, 2011


    I don’t have anything useful to say here right now. I just feel compelled to snag post 666.

    (nelson) HA-ha(/nelson)




    That’s something that the PZ Blogpets don’t get. There is nothing wrong with blunt arguments, or calling someone out in a direct fashion. Cthulu knows I’ll not say profanity is wrong either, nor is a really good rant. Sometimes, *sometimes* even being abusive is called for, to get the point across that you are really, really unhappy.

    But it can’t be your only tactic, it can’t even be your favorite tactic and I say this as someone who has turned abusing companies who don’t like to listen to polite into a bit of an art form. I’d much rather NOT have to do that. Yes, it’s fun, but it’s depressing. “Really? I told you the same thing in a calm, polite fashion a month ago and you told me to pound sand. I abuse you like Dibs in public and all of a sudden you’re so willing to listen. WHY ARE YOU TEACHING ME THIS TACTIC?”

    However, it’s what PZ likes, it’s what Jen and Laden and all the others like. “They disagree, they are other, they have no rights, bring the rain.” It’s not just their first tactic, it is, from what I can tell, their only tactic. And if you dare say “Look, there’s a difference between blunt and…whatever the fuck this is”, then you get attacked just as viciously for being a “coward”. (Which is amusing given that PZ never comes CLOSE to his blog tone in public. So who’s the coward?) It’s all bullshit.

    It’s why I dig people like Abbie and Hemant. Hemant is blunt and forthright, but he manages to do so with some respect for the other. Even when he thinks, and calls them stupid, he never descends into the pharyngularity. Abbie is *perfectly* willing to return fire in as withering a barrage as possible, but she has always seemed (to me at least) to be just as willing and able to actually discuss things with people who disagree at their level. If they’re being decent, she seems to return the favor. if they’re being tools, well, okay, that game can be played as well.

    The set of replies to Rorschach is a perfect example of this. They aren’t exactly *genteel*, but they are to the point, and primarily attacking his points. a lot of folks should learn from this.

  83. #85 cthellis
    July 12, 2011

    It seems hard to understand how Mooney will navigate his base desire to attack both Dawkins and PZ in this instance–both of whom he has painted with the same broad, illogical brush–with each one being the focal point on “both sides of this serious, serious divide” that is totally only the fault of some random internet commenter shmucks, and totally isn’t being used as a bludgeoning tool by other prominent members of the community.

    The set of replies to Rorschach is a perfect example of this. They aren’t exactly *genteel*, but they are to the point, and primarily attacking his points. a lot of folks should learn from this.

    Why should we listen to anything you have to say when you are an incorrect, scurrilous buttmunch whose points can have no actual meaning because of something something tone warrior something traitor poopyhead?

  84. #86 Mark
    July 12, 2011

    What Mooney and Watson have in common is that they have both been at the centre of schisms in the ‘skeptic movement’ due to proscriptions on behaviour. When Mooney was telling PZ to change his behaviour in order to not scare off liberal theists, PZ’s response was that “nobody has a right to be not offended”. When he stabbed a nail though a cracker, no actual harm was done to anyone (though some Catholics decreed it a hate crime). Plenty of people were offended, but his position was that it was their problem; he shouldn’t have to modify his behaviour in order to pander to their feelings.

    Things seem a little different this time around for some reason.

  85. #87 Blargh
    July 12, 2011


    Things seem a little different this time around for some reason.

    You don’t get it because of privilege. Or something…

  86. #88 ERV
    July 12, 2011

    LOL @ Mr. Deity.

    “Now, had she been chewing gum…”

  87. #89 cthellis
    July 12, 2011

    I was just about to link that Mr. Deity with a “this will end well.”

    Also, more YouTube commenters to support whateverthefuck you feel like! Hooray!

    I’m sure it’s already somehow brought in Jewish Conspiracies and the 2012 apocalypse…

  88. #90 mk
    July 12, 2011

    That was just fucking brilliant!!

  89. #91 Gabby
    July 12, 2011

    This is why I stick with the funny people. I need jokes to cope with stress. You guys have been great, but the Mr. Deity crew just knocked it out of the park.

  90. #92 Victoria Johnson
    July 12, 2011

    Re Rorshach @ 661

    Rorshach: How on earth can you interpret my personal feelings as “a lie”? I expressed how I (and my husband) felt about the presentations. I never said that the whole audience felt that way. Indeed there were people present who supported Rebecca, including Skepchick fans, PZ, and members of the Horde. There were also some people that agreed with us; we have spoken with some of them at the conference. I wouldn’t venture to guess how many people fell into each camp.

    I am offended by being called a liar, as I value my honesty and integrity rather highly. However, given the sort of profanity-laden feces-slinging that characterizes “argument” in the typical thread on Pharyngula, I guess I should be happy you didn’t suggest various activities with a rotting porcupine.

    As to honesty, I use my real name when I comment. Is Rorschach your first name, your last name, or an anonymous cover?

  91. #93 Mark
    July 12, 2011


    I gather that if I look deep into my heart I will find enlightenment. Good job there’s still a way for this man of privilege to be saved!



  92. #94 Bob Johnson
    July 12, 2011

    Justicar #672

    For the record Victoria and I talk all the time about many things. We also read each other’s posts before they are posted – both as an editor and as ERV has stated it is best to write, wait, and edit most postings.

  93. #95 Justicar
    July 12, 2011

    @Bob Johnson:
    I was working under the premise that you and Victoria spoke. I only put it that way to point out the absurdity of the completely unfounded charge by Rorschach up-thread. If it came across as anything otherwise, then I profoundly apologize for it as nothing more than to ridicule the gentleman up-thread was my intent.

  94. #96 windy
    July 12, 2011

    he never descends into the pharyngularity.

    I used to descend into the pharyngularity, before it got too popular. /hipster mode off

  95. #97 John Greg
    July 12, 2011

    So, why doesn’t Rorshach come back and apologise?

    That’s one of the things that drives me batty about all these Internet battles. When some poster is proven to either be clearly in the wrong or to have lied they so rarely, rarely fess up, admit it, and apologise. Are people really so afraid of admitting error? I always apologise when I am proven in the wrong. If you ask me, to do so is liberating.

    Anyway, I tried to comment on an earlier Rystefn post yesterday, but for some reason it was not allowed and never appeared. I got a message saying I was being moderated. I don’t know why though. It was a quite reasonable message explicating Watson’s dishonesty and word games in our wee debate about the Dawkins boycott. So, ERV, what did I do wrong? Was it my white male privilege that did me in?

  96. #98 ERV
    July 12, 2011

    Sorry, John– I dont see any of your comments in the spam trap, or in the very sneaky ‘pending comments’ trap. Is the one you left #658?

  97. #99 John Greg
    July 12, 2011

    Ooops. Yep. That’s it.

    /blushes in his ancient embarrassed blindeness

    I ‘umbly offer you my apple oagies.

    “… the very sneaky ‘pending comments’ trap.” LOL.

  98. #100 cthellis
    July 12, 2011

    Lovely spaaaam, wonderful spaaaaaam…!

New comments have been disabled.