Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
One blogger is busily defining group membership, another blogger is striving for continued credibility in the face of erosion of that credibility, another blogger does not know that blogger's place, and two bloggers are acting like those chicks in the TV commercial where they are buying gas and ciggs and suddenly turn into some kind of strange superhero and start whacking each other with big swords.
I shall not bother to match these labels with the blogger. Because it does not matter. (Don't even try, you'll get it wrong.)
What does matter is this (in no particular order of importance, causality, or anything):
- You can't call yourself an atheist in this country without being seen in a negative light by half the people in the (randomly populated) room.
- We are still fighting an uphill battle to force corporations to take responsibility for their role in damaging our planet's environment. And to stop doing that. THE FUCKING FISH ARE ALMOST ALL EXTINCT, PEOPLE!!!!!
- The American Government has been run for years by a secret society of Christian Fundamentalists. It is going to take some work to get over that.
- Our system of science education is borked. And there is no positive movement on the horizon. None.
- The average person walking around in this country needs to be pimp slapped numerous times to get them to have one logical thought about anything that is important.
- And so on and so forth.
Stop. The. Bullshit. People.
The infighting is intellectually stimulating (sometimes), potentially important (in rare cases), and everyone has said very smart things that we all realize the significance of (snortle), and you are all very cool and make everyone go squeeeee whenever you write anything about anything (is this making you hot?). We get it. Now stop it.
Honestly, when I look inside these arguments, I see nothing that is as important as the prejudice, the economic violence, the steady slide this planet is experiencing into oblivion, the willfully imposed states of ignorance, the violence, the bombs, the rapes, the wars (WE ARE IN TWO WARS, PEOPLE!!!) and the hypocrisy. Please consider turning your efforts to our common enemies.
Oh, and the first person who tells me that it is not my place to point out that we have common enemies is going to get my foot up your ass so far you will be tickling my toes when you blink.
Education
Comments
That made me giggle. I'm stealing that phrase.
Posted by: CyberLizard | July 17, 2009 2:11 PM
Oh, come one, CyberLizard, you can do better than I did!
Like "... you'll have to take my sock off to wipe your nose"
Come on, let's see what you got!
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 17, 2009 2:32 PM
... you'll be tasting leather for a week.
Posted by: unreal | July 17, 2009 2:41 PM
... you'll be smelling my Reebocks all day!
Posted by: horace | July 17, 2009 2:43 PM
... you'll be applying Lotrimin AF to your nose!
hmmm, too clinical. How 'bout
... you'll be tasting filet of sole for a week!
Ugh, bad pun alert. I'll keep trying.
Posted by: CyberLizard | July 17, 2009 2:51 PM
Somebody needs a hug.
Posted by: Bill James | July 17, 2009 2:58 PM
...my foot up your ass so far you'll need to buy a toenail clipping attachment for your nosehair trimmer.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | July 17, 2009 2:58 PM
... you'll be hearing the pitter patter of little feet. In your head.
Posted by: Liz | July 17, 2009 3:00 PM
... my sole will have eyes.
Is that a bad enough multi layered pun and an obscure enough reference to a song? Did anyone go squueeeeeeeee when they saw it?
Sigh :(
Posted by: JohnV | July 17, 2009 3:01 PM
... you'll be flossing with my shoelaces.
Posted by: Scott Simmons | July 17, 2009 3:09 PM
...you'll think Joel-Peter Witkin is hiding in the corner!
Posted by: mk | July 17, 2009 3:09 PM
At least you didn't call anyone a Poopyhead, per your colleague Jess Palmer.(see http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/unscientific_poopyhead_america.php)
Posted by: Rick Vosper | July 17, 2009 3:22 PM
You'll be using your toothpick to remove the toejam.
Ewww...
Posted by: Serena | July 17, 2009 3:31 PM
Eww? How about "...you'll be tasting calluses for a month"
Posted by: Stu | July 17, 2009 3:40 PM
When my ankle gets cold you'll have to put on a scarf.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2009 3:42 PM
.. even PZ Myers' laser beams will not penetrate to my toes.
Posted by: Dan | July 17, 2009 3:46 PM
That ringing in your ear will be my shoe phone.
Posted by: M. Smart | July 17, 2009 3:48 PM
Look at the bright side: it'll finally be safe to drink the water.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 17, 2009 3:52 PM
... when I tap my foot your headphones will jiggle.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2009 3:52 PM
Ah, now we are getting somewhere!
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 17, 2009 3:55 PM
Rick: I would never call anyone a poopyhead. I love all my fellow bloggers, both on scienceb.ogs.com and elswhere on the intertubes.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 17, 2009 4:02 PM
... a new skin condition that will manifest on your forehead: my corns.
... you'll suddenly develop a foot fetish, as you'll always have my feet on your mind.
... the next time you develop cold-like symptoms you should have the doctor also check for athelete's throat.
Meh. I've heard way better.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | July 17, 2009 4:02 PM
Of course it's your place to point this out - it's your fucking blog. For that matter, if we were having this discussion at my blog, it would still be your place to point it out. However, I don't agree with you...Or more to the point I do, but not everyone who agrees with us on one or more of those issues, agrees with us on all of them. And therein lies the problem and the point I was trying to make to Volcanoman on that other post.
I actually made many more points, really made a very solid response to this. Then I realized that a) it was yet another comment that was way too long and b) I should post it anyways, because my last posts were respectively, geek-rap and the one on invading Canadia.
So I posted my response at home and made a very clever reference to you sticking your boot up someone's ass so far, they'll need a shoe-shine rag to brush their teeth.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 4:03 PM
"You can't call yourself an atheist in this country without being seen in a negative light by half the people in the (randomly populated) room."
Maybe it's because they know you're godless and therefore you make up your own morals, have no rules to live by, have rejected your Saviour Jesus Christ (Rejecting someone who died for you? Can't get more evil than that), and will spend all eternity burning in HELL.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2009 4:06 PM
... your wife will be kissing my foot.
Posted by: Yagotta B. Kidding | July 17, 2009 4:07 PM
Anonymous: prove Jesus existed. Prove he died. Prove his death appeased himself and absolved us of any sins. Prove we do anything considered immoral. Prove that morals cannot have an evolutionary basis.
Alternately, GTFO.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | July 17, 2009 4:11 PM
...going to get my foot up your ass so far you will be using shoe polish for shaving cream!
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | July 17, 2009 4:16 PM
... My boot will be your hat ...
Posted by: Val | July 17, 2009 4:16 PM
#17 - That ringing in your ear will be my shoe phone.
hahahaha!! Am I showing my age in thinking that's funniest one yet?
Posted by: Donna B. | July 17, 2009 4:17 PM
And of course, being filled with Christian love and charity, this makes them murderously jealous.
Posted by: Yagotta B. Kidding | July 17, 2009 4:17 PM
"Alternately, GTFO"
"...going to get my foot up your ass so far you will be using shoe polish for shaving cream!"
Hmm... Maybe it's cold, nasty remarks like these that make people see atheists in a negatave light...
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2009 4:21 PM
Donna, would you believe ... twinkle toes on a bad day? ...
Posted by: M. Smart | July 17, 2009 4:23 PM
"And of course, being filled with Christian love and charity, this makes them murderously jealous."
I am filled with Christian love and charity. If I wasn't, I wouldn't warn you about where your soul is going and tell you about your Saviour.
Posted by: Aonymous | July 17, 2009 4:24 PM
N-e-g-a-t-i-v-e...If you use firefox, go to the add-ons page and download spellchecker (though I think it's automatically in the newer versions) or update FF. If you're not using FF, you should be - it is far superior to most anything else. Though I am becoming partial to SeaMonkey.
And no, it is the fact that we don't accept revealed religion, especially that of the person seeing atheists in a negative light, that is why people see atheists in a negative light. If it were just cold, nasty remarks like those - or the sort that I bust out with with some regularity, then there would be a lot more atheists today. Because no one can really do cold and nasty like theists.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 4:29 PM
And I really do thank you for brightening up my day.
Even if my cow-orkers are wondering at the guffaws and gasping for breath coming from my office.
Posted by: Yagotta B. Kidding | July 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Time for muppethuggingCOOKIES!
Posted by: becca | July 17, 2009 4:37 PM
becca -
Only if they are chocolate fucking chip!!!111!!
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 4:42 PM
I don't see that, DuWayne. All of the really nasty attempts by theists start from the (to them) indisputable premise that they're right and we all know it -- so they wrap themselves in their sanctity and get all puffed up with superiority.
See "anonymous" shortly above.
Trouble is, of course, that we have the same response to their sanctity as the kid did to the Emperor's new clothes, and when that exposes what's puffed up -- well, laughter is a good response.
Cold? That sanctity isn't real good for cold. Drafty, you know?
For serious cold, you need logic and careful rhetoric. Which requires some thought, and I'll grant that Talmudists and Jesuits have the thinking skills -- but very few of them are inclined to apply them to dialing up the nasty.
Dispassion, my friend, dispassion -- if you really want to flay someone with words, dispassion is essential.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 17, 2009 4:42 PM
I bet I can name those bloggers.
teehee
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | July 17, 2009 4:46 PM
Aye, and so can any man -- but will they come when you name them?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 17, 2009 4:47 PM
Please consider turning your efforts to our common enemies.
Yes! Like the fish. We've got them on the ropes, people. Don't let up!
Posted by: José | July 17, 2009 4:49 PM
I just lurve me some blog posts that plead against violence in the title but contain threats of violence at the end.
Posted by: Nat | July 17, 2009 4:53 PM
Nat, there are at least three ways to take that last paragraph (threat, irony, additional commentary on getting worked up over words when the physical world is falling to pieces around us). If it bothers you, why not ask Greg which way he means it?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 17, 2009 5:01 PM
Because asking Greg to clarify what he means is a pointless exercise.
But feel free to unleash it on me big guy.
Posted by: Nat | July 17, 2009 5:10 PM
Nat, I'm glad you noticed the poetry.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 17, 2009 5:14 PM
Even if you don't think you'll ever know which is right, what do you get out of assuming the most objectionable?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 17, 2009 5:15 PM
Rick @12: You realize that Jessica wasn't actually calling anyone a poopyhead, right? Or were you actually riffing on the whole comment-based-on-assumptions-rather-than-careful-reading aspect of the blog warring?
One of the things that seems to be getting lost in all the arguing is that there are large numbers of Americans who have never heard of and will never read UA, have never heard of and will never read Scienceblogs, don't care much about religion and also don't care much about science. The focus on whether atheists are destroying America's perception of science misses that part of the population altogether.
Oh yes:
...my foot up your ass so far you'll be eating my shoelaces for a week.
(OK, pretty lame)
Posted by: Peggy | July 17, 2009 5:16 PM
Nat, the title asks for an end to blogger-on-blogger violence. The last paragraph proposes blogger-on-commenter violence.
The blogosphere depends on the "he needed killin'" defense.
Posted by: --E | July 17, 2009 5:21 PM
Even if you don't think you'll ever know which is right, what do you get out of assuming the most objectionable?
The satisfaction of knowing that not only is Greg TOTALLY WRONG!!!!1!!!1, but he's also a hypocrite - or something...
Funny thing is, I just assumed off the top that it was irony - but then I like Greg, even if he is TOTALLY WRONG1!!1!
(well ok, only mostly wrong)
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 5:24 PM
DuWayne (seriously, not trying to pick on you today), I was actually hoping Nat would answer that question, since my point was that he's the only one who can really know what he meant by what he said.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 17, 2009 5:34 PM
LOLZ!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | July 17, 2009 5:50 PM
Yes, CPP, which is why it's a good idea to ask before making assumptions.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 17, 2009 5:58 PM
I concur!! I've been bouncing lightly between blogger vs. blogger and have gotten numb over the whole thing. While I sill love to read all their blogs, I'm skipping the "he said, she said" thing.
Posted by: MartyM | July 17, 2009 6:20 PM
How dare you incite a war when I am at work and can't get my shoes dirty?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 17, 2009 7:19 PM
What, you want a taste of Greg's?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 17, 2009 7:28 PM
SCIENCE bloggers ought to take a lesson from Ed Yong who consistently posts excellent entries on SCIENCE, of all things (and wins awards doing it). As long as science bloggers post political, cultural, and social commentary, yeah, they will beat up on each other.
Posted by: reggie | July 17, 2009 7:32 PM
So do please tell us, Reggie, how we should deal with the science of Intelligent Design, or of the Gerson Protocol, or of the link between autism and vaccination?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 17, 2009 7:35 PM
Hey Greg it is not your place to point out that we have common enemies.
Am I the first person to to tell you this?
Posted by: JPS | July 17, 2009 7:48 PM
SCIENCE bloggers, ought to take a lesson from other great bloggers and blog about what they feel compelled to blog about. If it happens to be all SCIENCE, all the time, good for them. But personally, I am rather fond of SCIENCE bloggers that don't try to limit themselves so much. It makes the SCIENCE that much more interesting, when I have more of a shared experience with them.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 7:56 PM
While we're on the subject of science reportage (however indirectly), let's take a moment to remember Walter Cronkite.
I fear we shall not see his like again.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 17, 2009 8:26 PM
HOOrah!
Way to put it in perspective, Greg.
Posted by: badrescher | July 17, 2009 8:28 PM
C'mon now... not a single photographer in here?
Posted by: m | July 17, 2009 8:36 PM
Hey, Reggie: EVERYTHING IS SCIENCE, DUDE.
Posted by: badrescher | July 17, 2009 8:39 PM
Bah. I disagree in one respect with Greg -- as far as I'm concerned, all bloggers should write what they want, when they want, about whatever (or whomever) they want.
Just keep your eyes on the prize. Greg's definitely right about one thing -- we've almost completely fucked up our oceans, among other ecosystems. And that's a hell of a lot more important than who to ally ourselves with against the imminent threat of appeasement.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | July 17, 2009 9:08 PM
Far be it from me, Greg, to suggest how you should run your own blog, but ... who am I kidding, I never bother resisting ... but doesn't comity begin at home? It's your blog, and you can personally exclude the bile, screeching, and nastiness, through means subtle or direct. By report, instead, you dine frequently with the worst offenders, who insist they have your explicitly expressed benediction.
Have you had a change of heart? Was it an anthropological experiment to see if atheists could be encouraged to be as foul, vile, and expressly stupid even as your average Christian? Please explain.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | July 17, 2009 9:39 PM
Why don't you tell us, oh wise and wonderful Nathan, who's shit doesn't stink and is oh so far above us mere mortals - what exactly offended your delicate sensibilities here?
This has been a raucous and thoroughly enjoyable discussion, with a very few wandering in getting pissy. For the most part, it was a thread bent on finding the best finish to "I'm going to put my foot so far up your ass..." which was started by and encouraged by Greg himself.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 10:01 PM
Yagotta B. Kidding @ # 35 - tell those people to get back to orking cows!
And Prof Laden, what a buzzharsher! Haven't you noticed that even the Big Kahuna of biology bloggers hardly ever mentions the general condition of planetary, uh, biota?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 17, 2009 10:01 PM
Case in point.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | July 17, 2009 10:21 PM
My goodness, you really are a sanctimonious and pretentious little prick...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 10:51 PM
Say hi for me.
Greg, my question was meant entirely in earnest.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | July 17, 2009 11:53 PM
(#68 was not meant to reference Mr. Butler's comment.)
Posted by: Nathan Myers | July 17, 2009 11:57 PM
OK, who wins the "so far up your ass" contest?
DuWayne: I think you kinda proved Greg's point.
Posted by: mediajackal | July 18, 2009 1:34 AM
You'll see Greg's toes unhappy because they went up a arsehole instead of being out in the sea saving the fish. THE FUCKING FISH ARE ALMOST ALL EXTINCT, PEOPLE!!!!!
Posted by: anon | July 18, 2009 3:49 AM
Well, this isn't the first time that Greg has used such charming terms in regards to those who don't agree with him. The previous was in regard to supposed pseudo-asshats, and when coupled to other threats against them, appears devoid of any ironic content (still digging for actual comment).
Maybe Greg did mean it to be ironic. On rereading it, I see no signal to suggest to the reader that it was. My comment is as much an implicit request for Greg to clarify as any "Please sir, could you expound upon what you mean in your last statement sir?" would have been.
The other great part of this post is that whenever a blogger tries to "tell Greg what to do" he has a conniption, blathering and bloviating about "There are no rules in the blogosphere!!!!!!"
Which is exactly what he's doing to other bloggers here.
"please sir, pray tell, is this whole goddamn post an exercise in irony?"
Posted by: Nat | July 18, 2009 8:09 AM
Natan! [65] ... interesting that it tool 65 comments before someone pointed out that comity beings at home, and glass houses and all that!
You are completely correct, of course, but if we stick with the rule that anyone who has cast a stone can't question the whole stone casting thing, then we will only and forever be casting stones. I have never denied my own role in this fight. Indeed, my review of Unscientific America is not out yet, is it!?!? We'll see how that goes.
And along a similar line, Jason, I agree that I should not be telling people what to blog. I hate when people tell me that.
However, when you step back and look at the total energy expenditure and the potential rift-causing outcomes and salt in the wound effects, asking the question "is this really OK the way we are doing this" is valid. I've asked.
I'll throw this in as well. These posts:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/accommodationists_and_new_athe.php
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/someone_has_been_wrong_on_the.php
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/science_religion_and_science_e.php
These are attempts at bridge building, at point out what very few other bloggers have mentioned. How come these ideas are being ignored? (Or, in some cases, developed elsewhere, which is good, but without any reference?) (maybe just because the posts suck or nobody reads my blog, I dunno, honestly).
Pierce, that is correct, but that is why I listed a range of issues. Pharyngula and The Intersection are generally concerned with, among other things, science education and science policy.
Back to Nathan's Question, I have not changed my opinion at all. I am still the guy who found Jesus. On a banana peel in PZ's waste basket. I still don't think it an insult to be called "PZ Junior" by a wackaloon creationist.
When my review of Unscientific American comes out, it will very clearly and strongly say that the chapter on crackergate in UA should not have been published, and that the text of that book when it comes to PZ Myers reads like the same schoolyard foot stopming ranting we find from ... well, I'm going to stop there before I make anybody cry.....
In fact, I have to tell you that what I am trying to do here is hard, and maybe not possible...
Going fishing now. In a lake.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 10:52 AM
As distinct from trolling :-]
Have a great day out there, Greg!
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 11:51 AM
I really don't see the problem here Greg. Seriously, what exactly is wrong with conflict? People pay attention to conflict, people want to see the blow by blow - people who are being exposed to information that they might not have been sans conflict and controversy.
It's not like nothing happens, because conflict somehow interferes with people actually accomplishing anything. In the midst of all this conflict and infighting, people who are heavily focused on environmental activism are still working hard. People who are heavily involved in improving science education are still working hard. People who are heavily invested in atheist positivism are still busting ass too. People who are thoroughly bent on dealing with anti-vaxx stupidity, are still managing to fight that fight.
The only thing that controversy and conflict seem to bring to the table, is more exposure. People get offended by some of the commentary that rides along these arguments - so what? They are not only seeing that which offends, they are seeing that what offends them is not the whole of it. And they also have to consider why people who offended them, would say those things that are so offensive - even if it is only so they can compose their retort.
At the end of the day, these conflicts are a net positive. The really nice people, saying nice things and trying to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy - they get ignored. Moderation doesn't make headlines - thus why the fringe loons are always far more prevalent than the voices of moderation and sanity. This is why far more people recognize the name James Dobson or even Rev. Phelps, than Rev. Barry Lynn. This is why far more people know who Chris Hitchens is, than Daniel Dennett or Neil deGrasse Tyson.
What is more positive - people seeing FOX's take on environmental issues, or seeing conflict within the environmental movement and noticing that while there are nuts that exemplify the FOX characterization, there are also more reasoned voices? Which is better - people just quietly loathing atheists, because they only have their preconceived notions (or that of their church) or those same people seeing a conflict that includes not only angry assholes like me, but also more moderated people like Chris Mooney? (and along the way, being forced to note that even angry assholes like me are generally happy)
What is more positive - people who share similar positions on these issues sitting at home, saying fuck it - I'm not all about this mamby pamby, homogenized fucking bullshit, or coming out and getting involved, because they see others who agree with them?
And quite honestly, whether or not these differences are actually all that important overall - they are all important to the people who invest themselves into arguing their positions. Now I might see actually swallowing it and deciding that it is worth shutting the fuck up, if I saw any evidence that doing so would actually foster positive change. But I am not only not seeing, I think there is a great deal of evidence to contradict that notion. I may change that opinion, if I start regularly hearing people talk about Barry, when Christianity comes up - or hear people talk about Neil, when the discussion of science comes up - or Dennett, when atheism is discussed. And I am not talking about on the blogoshpere - I'm talking about average, every day interactions with people I run into - at school, with friends, at the coffee shop (or bar if I was into that sort of thing).
Let me ask you this; Which of your posts get the most hits? Are they the reasoned, moderate ones - or the ones that generate more controversy and conflict? I actually already know the answer to that - the more important question that I have for you is...
Why do you think that is?
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 11:57 AM
DuWayne, there are permanent seemingly unfixable rifts among bloggers who otherwise could be working together on some of these issues that have been caused as an outcome of unbridled interblogual shit slinging. That is the down side. The arguments themselves are not the issue, they are mostly valid arguments, or arguments about valid issues.
As far as where I get hits: Yes, when I was slinging shit over framing I got more hits than my more thoughtful posts on the spectrum of ideas (see links above). But the discussion that comes out of the more thoughtful posts, some of which is developing in face to face interactions and some on emails, is actually good and productive and useful.
I think that if the fundamentalist Christian right was infighting right now like the liberal scientific blogosophere is we would be exploiting that. Don't you think?
I really don't see a problem with people slogging it out. Fighting is good. I have just seen the slogging, over recent days, getting 1) immature 2) irrelevant (there are people fighting over whether they've read something, not over what appeasement means or what strategies work) and 3) boring and repetitive.
The most important posts I've ever written are the ones where teachers have contaced me privately and said "Thanks for that" or where people have met me and said "I can't tell you how much this meant".... and while those have had highish hit rates, these rates are not the point. I know all of the players in this discussion have written analogous posts in their own areas and can have huge, positive impacts on whatever it is they are normally blogging about.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 12:07 PM
But actually, this is what I really think:
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2009/07/foul-vile-and-expressly-stupid.html
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 12:10 PM
Good grief, I leave you people alone for two seconds and you get all serious. C'mon, where's that spirit of good natured comradery that permiates teh blogosphere? Let's all get back to what's important: coming up with better hyperbolic ways to metaphorically shove our imaginary foot up someone else's hypothetical arse.
Side note: Fishing, Greg? Aren't you the one crying because the fish are almost extinct? What a barbaric way to make an ironical point. Poor little fishies.
P.S. I hate seafood. Won't touch the stuff.
Posted by: CyberLizard | July 18, 2009 12:15 PM
DuWayne, there's nothing wrong with conflict, or with fighting out the issues. I enjoy it, and frankly, I'm good enough at it that my comments are sometimes part of the appeal of those controversial posts. (The first time someone told me they were a fan of my comments was the strangest thing. So was the second. And the....)
However, there is some risk to working relationships in all this argument, particularly when people don't fight "fair" (i.e., try to understand and react to an opponents actual position instead of a convenient strawman). If I know you're going to try to take me down personally when I disagree with you, why would I risk getting involved in a project that will provide more opportunities for us to come into conflict? Or if I succeed in taking you down, where do I go the next time I need a credible ally?
That's where the violence is.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 18, 2009 12:24 PM
Admittedly, arguing among ourselves and arguing against the opposition need not be mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Deen | July 18, 2009 12:28 PM
But how unfixable are those rifts really? And again, conflict sells. While I can see the irrelevant being quite irritating, I also recognize that what drew me into this discussion about six years ago, was the very extreme animosity running back and forth, between PZ Myers and my brother. And I cannot reiterate enough, just how profound the impact of this discussion has been for me personally.
And going with the rift between Ed and PZ - that was worse than almost anything I've seen around this discussion. They were totally fucking hating on each other. But while Ed is pretty close to the sleeve on his feelings now, he's interacted with PZ a few times since - and that conflict has gone from being this intense hatred, to becoming something of a tagline on occasion and probably got a lot more people listening to Ed's radio show, when he interviewed PZ.
And I am with you on which posts have been most important. I still get emails from people, wanting to talk about addiction, or more often, psych meds - issues that I feel are profoundly important. That I have been able to make a positive difference in anyone's lives is truly exciting to me. For that matter, I am thrilled to get the occasional email about my experience with theism, from people who aren't always atheists (though usually they are). Wanting to understand this or that about how I resolved various issues - or simply wanting to thank me for talking about my experience - an experience that resonates with them.
Those are by far, the absolutely best posts to me.
But that doesn't mean that getting people to pay attention to things they haven't before, isn't important too. And so what if conservative bloggers jump all over this shit? I say good. Because that means people who are pretty firmly apposed to a lot of things that I happen to believe, are going to read arguments and see positions that they may not have seen before - or if they've seen them, haven't understood before. I think it is a net positive for them to actually read it from the horses mouth, once in a while, instead of filtered through someone who is diametrically apposed.
The folks from that end who aren't going to recognize that the same shit happens on their end of the spectrum, probably aren't going to change their minds anyways. But there are those who will recognize that and those are the folks who just might be convinced by a well reasoned, evidence based argument. They're also the types who might not just come for the controversy, but stick around for the interesting discussions.
I certainly find it unfortunate, when people come to loathe each other enough, that they can't make effective allies. But sometimes rifts that seem unimportant to us, are that important to others. Some of the environmentalists I have dealt with, were rather firmly fundamentalist Christians. There was a pretty solid rift created between some groups I was involved with, because some gay rights activists tried to mix it up with their signage during a protest - several of the fundies left, taking with them some others who were just pissed that the gay rights people mixed it up and offended them - had I been there, I probably would have left as well. But that was ultimately a irreparable rift - I certainly had no stomach for dealing with the anti-gay (and anti-choice) bigotry that this aroused. And ultimately, while I think that it was incredibly bad form to mix it up at the protest (unless it is a very generalized sort of engagement, it's always a bad idea), I was definitely among those who couldn't tolerate dealing with people who (several of them clearly expressed) flat out hate and believe their god hates, most of my friends.
Ultimately, I think being allied with those folks was considerably more harmful than good.
I certainly don't think anyone in this discussion is going to have dearth of allies in the future. Given the feelings expressed across the board on this, there are a lot of very strong feelings in every direction. And ultimately, if a position is unpopular enough that it can't garner any allies, I suspect that it isn't a very solid position to begin with.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 1:15 PM
Ack, I should have been clear that while many of us found the fundies as allies thing rather unworkable after that, there were plenty of people who thought it was not that important...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 1:24 PM
Fishing, Greg? Aren't you the one crying because the fish are almost extinct?
I'm fishing in a lake out of which several hundred zillion eggs are removed each spring because it produces so well. Big difference between freshwater and ocean!
I put them all back, anyway.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 1:38 PM
But how unfixable are those rifts really?
That is my point, Duwayne. The Framing Rift between PZ/Laden and Mooney/Nisbet led to some productive conversations. After hacking git out over Framing with Chris, I went ahead and vigorously supported and endorses his book Storm Worlds. I still do. Sheril and I have worked together on a couple of things yet I am squarely in PZ's camp on crackergate and related issues. I have big problems with some of Unscientific America, but I very much agree with other parts. In fact, I've been convinced to change my mind about certain aspects of science communication that I previously thought differently about.
But what people are not all getting is that despite the appearance that you can do whateverthefuckyouwant on The Internet it is simply not true that Whateverthefuckyouwant does not mean that there are zero consequences. It is a shame when people's personal ego stroking requirements require that they cause backwards steps to be made. Or, when that happens, to spend so much time and effort justifying the whole idea of internal backbiting.
Oh, and by the way, almost nothing I'm saying applies to most of what PZ and K&M are slogging about. I think K&M goofed big time with Chapter Eight (not in bringing up crackergate, just in the way they did it). PZ is fully justified in full on counterattack, and once that happens it is hard to not counter counter. These two teams have to start to take it down a notch soon, I think, and I suspect they will.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 1:50 PM
Two of my favorite bloggers hate each other? Oh noes! Seriously, what was their beef with each other? I'm just curious, not looking to re-open old flame wars. A one sentence summary will do.
This kind of blogowar just exhausts me. The initial point/counter-point is interesting enough, but then commenters get all lathered up like they have some sort of proprietary claim on the individual bloggers involved. And when immature third-parties dive in as an opportunity to reignite old animosities it starts to get a little ridiculous. I start to lose interest in even making fun of the parties involved.
This is why I don't bear grudges; I'm too lazy. It takes too much energy to keep the RAGE going. I've had my little outbursts against the likes of Mooney and Nisbet, and while it's fun to rant but, as Greg points out, how important is it in the big scheme of things? Perhaps I would feel differently if I were famous like these guys, but I don't really give a shit what anyone has to say about me. Go on, call me a poopy-head. You'd be hard-pressed to find an insult that I haven't already thrown at myself. Some of the fragile little egos involved need to just lighten up.
Posted by: CyberLizard | July 18, 2009 2:24 PM
Nope. Or at least for some value of "the liberal scientific blogosophere" and "exploiting."
The whole Limbaugh/Steele and Palin/Palin things look a lot more to me like "I've got dip -- who has the chips? And what kind of beer is in the fridge?"
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 2:28 PM
Juniper Shoemaker and I are sitting this one out. Care to pull up a chair? I've got popcorn -- maybe you could bring some lemonade?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 2:44 PM
Cyberlizard -
That's the thing - I think they're pretty much over it. I suspect they don't particularly care for one another, but they do seem to have buried the hatchet...That said, I did write about it not terribly long ago, because it was relevant to a post. I also found it quite interesting reading what I personally had to say about it then, compared to my position now...
The third and fourth real paragraphs have the links...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 2:44 PM
Greg -
I guess I can see where you're coming from - I certainly get that there are consequences to anything one does. And in all honesty, while I have been paying attention to the back and forth between the various bloggers in this who kerfuffle, I have not had the time to actually dive into comments, or blogs besides PZ, K&M, You and a very few others.
I'm still not sure I agree entirely, but I am not sure I really can disagree. And that could just be my own ego, which really hates admitting I'm WRONG!!!!1!11!!! Probably the latter really. Or not so much that I'm wrong, but that I've been misassessing the situation and what you are saying. Probably all of the above really.
You may not have noticed this about me, but I tend to argue things pretty well into the ground...
Oh and Cyberlizard, I forgot to mention...
URA Poopyhead!!!1111!!111 (not really, but you totally invited it)
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 3:01 PM
extreme animosity running back and forth, between PZ Myers and my brother.
Seriously? Over what? I had no idea. This could explain why your brother has ever linked to my blog (I think) once ... though I find cliquish behavior by him unlikely. But maybe. Or maybe he just doesn't link to anybody.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 3:27 PM
See my link above for links and a bit of an explanation...It is very much an early manifestation of the accommodationist debate...
And no, Ed's not cliquish like that, he just rarely links to things he isn't debunking and to the blogs where he noticed those items in the first place. I think he actually links PZ more than any of the other scibloggers in these parts.
Keep in mind this was really fired up about three years ago (not six, I was mixing dates with number of years - though the discussion actually was happening before the aforementioned links) - if I am recalling the chronology, you were either just getting into, or hadn't yet started, blogging. There was occasional flareups of sniping between them after, but it settled rather quickly and now they seem to manage reasonably.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 4:01 PM
Right ... six years is before the interent, I think. Three years is before my time. I got to scienceblogs on Nov 4 2007, and prior to that, blogged for just under one year on my own, blissfully unaware of most of Sb other than PZ and a couple of other blogs.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 4:17 PM
Two of my favorite bloggers hate each other? Oh noes!
only 2? LOL!
Posted by: omar | July 18, 2009 4:43 PM
Hey now, I was viewing and printing stuff like The Magic Mushroom Growers Guide off of sites I visited using Netscape navigator, in the nineties. There weren't any actual dinosaurs left back then, but I seem to recall hunting Pterosaurs around that time...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 4:55 PM
They warned me that false memories were a sign of senile dementia.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 4:58 PM
The American Government has been run for years by a secret society of Christian Fundamentalists.
I guess you mean "The Family" but didn't mention them.
BTW hate to tell you all, but isn't Hillary a member (technically, via meetings that might have attracted a less nutty person on general terms, but still ...)
Posted by: Neil B ♪ | July 18, 2009 5:08 PM
I tend to round things off to five year intervals.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 5:08 PM
You know what blogwars need?
Steel cage death matches.
Or MFCarebear Tea Parties with (yes, yes, chocolate chip!) cookies.
Or possibly both. That would probably be most interesting.
Posted by: becca | July 18, 2009 5:28 PM
Steel cage tea parties to death chocolate cookies?
Mmmmmmm.... what a way to go.
Memo to self: do not, ever, ever, become entrapped in the macabre-field of a pregnant woman. Neil Gaiman himself wouldn't stand a chance.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 5:38 PM
Meh - I want snickerdoodle now...I am such a hard bastard to please...
I kind of like the idea of the steelcage deathmatches...I think these were actually discussed at one point, when the earlier blogwars - with their accusations of all manner of vile, accommodationist type, un-Atheist activities were going around...Apparently them Seed overlords refused to sponsor the underground fight location - something about liability or somesuch, and no one else wanted to actually pay for it - so there you go...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 6:21 PM
Dude, tell the truth. You miss the halcyon days of me correcting your Linda Buck fuck up!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | July 18, 2009 6:26 PM
I think these were actually discussed at one point, when the earlier blogwars - with their accusations of all manner of vile, accommodationist type, un-Atheist activities were going around...Apparently them Seed overlords refused to sponsor the underground fight location - something about liability or somesuch, and no one else wanted to actually pay for it
Not at all. Seed totally sponsored the steelcage death match, and it was held in Minneapolis. PZ and I won, and I got to become a scienceblogs.com blogger.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 8:49 PM
Greg
Perhaps Ed not linking to you has something to do with Isis.
I don't really know much about anything going on here, but as an outsider, I see Ed link to Isis or praise her often enough. I see Isis fling poopy your way often enough. Maybe it doesn't mean anything, it's just the first thing that jumped out of my fallible little brain.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | July 18, 2009 8:49 PM
Greg
Nevermind, I see that Duwayne has responded. He would certainly know a lot more than I do on the matter.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | July 18, 2009 8:54 PM
Physioprof, you need to provide an apology to Stephanie Zvan right now.
I can't believe the level of asshatitude you have reached. You are an unredeemable shit.
A sincere apology to my fellow blogger or you are out of here. Do it now.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 18, 2009 9:06 PM
becca-- You know what blogwars need?
Steel cage death matches.
BETTER: Kiddie-pool Jello wrestling. NAKED.
Posted by: ERV | July 18, 2009 9:14 PM
Abbie, I'm trying to bring some consensus to these conflicts but you're making it difficult [1].
May I suggest steel-cage jello tea parties with naked death chocolate cookies?
[1] I might have phrased that differently if the subject weren't you and naked jello. I prefer to avoid the ambiguity -- and I do think that jello deserves to be treated with dignity.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 9:28 PM
ERV
Remember that we're talking about Mooney and PZ.
Jello and naked do not leap to my mind.
Still, if there's nothing else to watch at the time...
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | July 18, 2009 9:29 PM
D.C.
Jello has no dignity.
Jiggling all around town like that, in my day deserts didn't act that way.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | July 18, 2009 9:35 PM
I am totally seconding Kitty's bitch - Mooney and Myers - naked in jello?!?!? That is only mildly less disturbing than the suggestions of PZ and Ed, lathered in beargrease, fighting naked with bowie knives (which someone made, when Ed had PZ on his radio show a month or so ago)...
Seed totally sponsored the steelcage death match, and it was held in Minneapolis.
Where's the damned video?1!!?!!??!1
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 9:57 PM
1) Oh don't even get me started on you, DC. I'm holding a grudge since you beat me to mentioning the enchanted forest chronicles over at SW. Though the Gaiman reference almost made up for it.
2) ERV- As long as it's to the death. Or at least, to the pain. Who wants to get jello stuck in their perfect ears?
3) I'm a pregnant woman with a craving. Fuck you DuWayne- fuck Snickerdoodles.
I demand "naked death chocolate cookies"!!!
4) Ninja asshole + dramallama = CPP. But the pirates can take care of that.
(is there somewhere written a Law of The Internets dictating that the more convoluted and incestuous an internet discussion becomes, the greater the potential for excellent random quotes?)
Posted by: becca | July 18, 2009 10:00 PM
I've never heard of it, but I do believe you're onto something.
"Becca's Law" anyone? Do I hear a second?
As for other unbalanced accounts, I have two things to say. One dangerous to me, one just dangerous:
1) The Frying Pan of Doom.
2) Chipotle Chocolate Brownies [1]. They are totally awesome, but might also earn me #1 from Becca because there's no telling in advance what works for a preggers fantasy reader.
At this point my karmic wave function is so totally a superposition of alternate states that I'm going to collapse.
[1] Recipe on request. Lethally good.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 10:08 PM
PS: Becca, did you check out the Gaiman link?
Let's see Disney tell that version of Snow White!
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 18, 2009 10:13 PM
I demand "naked death chocolate cookies"!!!
I am heartened by the fact that you are thousands of miles away from me, rather than sitting up in my bed at three am, demanding chocolate mother.....(censored so as not to cause another craving)...And then getting pissed when I came back with ----------, but without the damned pickles you decided you wanted ten minutes after I left....
Yes, I have issues stemming from the last pregnancy...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2009 10:16 PM
Okay, Becca, I just Tweeted Becca's Law. That makes it all official and stuff.
If you like "Snow, Glass, Apples," I recommend Tanith Lee's fairy tales. Also not for children.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 18, 2009 10:57 PM
Perhaps I should clear up a few things here. On the battles between PZ and myself in times past, we have indeed had our spats and at times they've gotten ugly. I really regret that now. We still have some fundamental disagreements, but I let those disagreements get personal a few years ago and I really wish I hadn't. We have many mutual friends who assured me that if PZ and I ever met in person, we would get along just fine. And guess what? We did. From my perspective, it isn't a question of disliking him but burying the hatchet; I genuinely like him and find him charming and funny. We still have those disagreements, of course, but there is no need for those disagreements be anything but intellectual differences of opinion.
On the question of why I've never linked to Greg's blog before: No, it has nothing to do with cliques of any kind. In fact, there's a simple reason for it. As far as I can remember, this is the first time I've ever actually read Greg's blog. The truth is that I rarely read the other ScienceBlogs, not because there aren't lots of really, really good ones out there but because I'm just too busy. I read PZ's blog a couple times a week. I read Orac's blog somewhat less frequently. I read Isis' blog more often because she makes me laugh. Other than that, I am almost entirely unaware of what my fellow SciBlings are writing most of the time. I just have so many irons in the fire at this point that adding more blogs to my daily or weekly reading is way down on the priority list.
On the subject of the post itself, the blogger on blogger attacks, I generally agree with Greg. Half of me wanted to point out the same thing that Nat has, that the idea of Greg lecturing anyone on such things destroyed yet another irony meter. But then I remembered that my own behavior has been less than stellar in this regard, so I'm hardly the one to cast stones. I do regret having gotten into those pissing contests in the past and I make up for that now by staying out of them.
I stayed out of the huge fight between Mooney/Nisbet and several other ScienceBloggers because I just didn't have any desire to get involved. I don't think either side behaved well at all, just as I don't think think either side is behaving very well in the current brouhaha between Mooney and Kirshenbaum and PZ (I haven't gotten to that part of their book yet, though). Here's the thing: I really like and respect Chris and Sheril. I like and respect PZ too. And I do wish that everyone could disagree in a more civil manner (just as I wish I had learned that lesson before adding my own poor behavior to the bill).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 18, 2009 11:47 PM
Greg: "the first person who tells me that it is not my place to point out that we have common enemies is going to get my foot up your ass so far you will be tickling my toes when you blink"
It seems fitting then, both of your foot and my ass, that I shall be the one to mention it? Especially after Braytons post...
Posted by: the real meme | July 19, 2009 12:08 AM
Is this still about the 2 godlycobblers pimping an irrelevant and awful book(and their blog,we can safely say) by including a chapter about PZ and thereby causing a blogosphere ruckus ?
Oh please !!!
I say tho all the accomodationist pimps out there, look what the RCC's dogma says about 9year-olds being raped by their stepfather,and get back to me as to how you think this world would be if those freaks would run the show.
Idiots.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 3:48 AM
For the record, I find the whole lot o' yez an unmitigated embarrassment to atheism. Pray the Christianists never get the idea to read any of your blog comment logs. Fortunately, they will never even notice any of you exist.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | July 19, 2009 3:52 AM
Nathan Myers the pompous self-righteous concern troll :
Your concern is noted.I dont think anyone cares.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 4:12 AM
Ed, you are truly a class act. I knew there was a reason I like your blog. And your brother is a fucking wild ride and I love him just as much. There are some kick-ass genes running around in the Brayton family.
Omar @95, two from among all of my favorites. If I had to list all the bloggers I like, well, we'd be here a while. Let's just say there's a reason my google reader always has 1000+ unread posts every day.
I hate Jello.
Posted by: CyberLizard | July 19, 2009 8:53 AM
Cyberlizard -
First, I hate jello too.
Second, thanks for the compliment.
Third - this is where it gets confusing, so you may want to take notes (and imagine trying to work this all out as a kid - even a rather clever kid)...
While the genes in both our genetic lines are pretty wild, Ed and I don't actually share them. Our dad adopted our brother Rick and me, when he married our mom - I was two at the time. So I have one genetically half brother, directly above me in age (I am the youngest), six years to be exact. Ed is the next in line, but as the son of Rick and my adoptive father. Then there is Kevin and Mike, who are also the children of my dad and his ex-wife. Keep going and you have Jill, Susie and Jack, who are my dad's ex-wife's offspring from a previous marriage - also my siblings (Jack likes to brag about teaching me to read when I was two - Susie used to brag about introducing me to sci-fi/fantasy), even though they aren't technically my dad's kids. They do refer to him as dad... And of course you can't skip our two cousins who were raised in turn by my dad's ex-wife, then our brother Kevin - who are sort of hybrid siblings.
We won't even try to go into my paternal genetic siblings - that's just a whole different can of worms...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 19, 2009 9:39 AM
Morning all!!
Ed- Thanks for stopping in and clearing that up. I wasn't aware of the earlier rift between you and PZ. It was before my time.
Duwayne- As always, you confuse me and make me giggle.
Nathan- Get over yourself. You're an embarrassment to other arrogant tools.
Rorschach- Actually it's 'Godlycoddlers' but thanks. I feel like I've contributed to the cause, regardless of loosing the contest. (raises fists to the heavens, shouting in anguish) COYNE!!!
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | July 19, 2009 10:21 AM
I demand a flowchart, DuWayne. My eyes glazed over at about "adopted our brother Rick and me".
Kitty'sBitch: if I may, I think "Godlycoddlers" is much more imaginative than the simplistic "faitheists." I mean, that was just a combination of two words in the original contest description.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | July 19, 2009 10:55 AM
Getting back to the main *thrust* of the topic:
... my foot will be heads and shoulders above ... your head and shoulders.
Posted by: Paul | July 19, 2009 11:44 AM
... I'll be able to get a pedicure at your dentist.
Posted by: Dan | July 19, 2009 11:55 AM
"so high my toe will be in your eye"
Posted by: Paul | July 19, 2009 11:59 AM
Lets try to leave the jell-O out of it please. It is Sunday. Likely, we'll be having Jell-O at supper and I would prefer to not think about it this way.
Posted by: Chris | July 19, 2009 12:21 PM
... my foot will be up your creek without a paddle....
Posted by: Irene | July 19, 2009 12:40 PM
I demand a flowchart, DuWayne. My eyes glazed over at about "adopted our brother Rick and me".
Hah!!! Try being a rather clever eight year old trying to figure that shit out...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 19, 2009 12:47 PM
... I'll be picking your nose with my big toe.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 19, 2009 12:52 PM
Anyone who can't tell the difference between "concern" and curiosity isn't equipped to participate in the discussion. (Not that that ever stopped anyone.)
Greg, I wasn't asking if you had a change of heart about the wisdom of making fun of atheists. I was asking if you had had a change of heart about arranging to have your own blog filled with bile and spite directed at its own participants. But maybe you don't really even notice it?
Posted by: Nathan Myers | July 19, 2009 1:39 PM
Nathan, you really should be able to intuit how he feels about it. He hasn't banned you yet.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 19, 2009 2:05 PM
DuWayne, as soon as I wrote that I figured it would be something like that. That's how my family rolls too. And my wife is from a big Greek family, full of cross-linked 2nd cousins and whatnot. I've given up trying to decipher it.
Posted by: CyberLizard | July 19, 2009 2:09 PM
DuWayne wrote:
Actually, this is not accurate. Mike is actually the product of my mother and her first husband. Mom was married three times. She had 4 children with her first husband (Jack, Jill, Susie and Mike), then married my dad and had two children (Kevin and me), then my father married my stepmother, who already had two children (Rick and DuWayne). And then my mom married my stepfather, who already had one daughter (Nancy). And then my mom and stepfather adopted my cousins (Jason and Jamie), who were actually my father's nephews from his sister Nancy. So all together I have one full-blooded brother (Kevin), two half-brothers (Jack and Mike), two half-sisters (Jill and Susie), two step brothers (Rick and DuWayne), one step sister (Nancy) and two adopted brothers (Jason and Jamie) who are really my cousins. Oh, we also picked up a few strays along the way, like my best friend Rick, who lived with us in high school. It's no wonder even DuWayne can't keep it all straight, right?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 19, 2009 4:08 PM
Nathan: I was asking if you had had a change of heart about arranging to have your own blog filled with bile and spite directed at its own participants. But maybe you don't really even notice it?
No, I don't really notice it most of the time. If this was my house, my car, or my corner of some bar or coffee shop, things may be a bit different, because there would be a presence. But this is just a blog post. Slog way. Every now and then I'll wade in an praise you or bitch at you or whatever. You never know.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 19, 2009 4:22 PM
Fortunately, they will never even notice any of you exist.
Actually, I purposely go out of my way sometimes, to make sure they do...
And Nathan, that Denny is a gent who is right up your alley, as far as using "polite" language to say very nasty, hateful things...Peas in a pod there, you and Denny - peas in a pod...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 19, 2009 5:01 PM
Wow Ed, the vast majority of my friends whom I've actually tried to explain this to over the years, are not only confused as hell by it all, but what they are confused about is wrong...And here I was, rather proud when I thought I had finally gotten it all straight - around the time I was eleven or twelve...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 19, 2009 5:06 PM
@Ed
You were a lot easier to follow than your (step)brother. ;-)
Posted by: The Science Pundit | July 19, 2009 5:45 PM
Technically, we aren't step-brothers - our dad adopted Rick and I...We aren't blood, but we are legally brothers.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 19, 2009 7:28 PM
Kitty's Bitch @ 125,
Oops,haha,sorry !
Im trying to promote this, because I dont like the official winner, and there is plenty of opportunity at the moment...:-)
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 8:49 PM
Nope -- still "step" brothers. It's a blood thing, not a legal custody thing. Otherwise how do you figure "half brothers" come into the picture?
Nothing wrong with it. I'm from "yours, mine, ours, and cousin Beau's" on both sides of the family, plus during the Depression farm folk (yup) ended up putting up kids who may or may not have been related at all. Didn't matter -- it's hard to have too many kids on a farm [1], and behavior issues settle out real fast when eatin' follows chores. No matter how long it takes.
[1] As my father told me, "We always had enough to eat. It may not have been fancy, but there was alway enough."
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 19, 2009 9:48 PM
this is just about exactly what I was thinking this morning as I looked over my RSS feed.
I have way better things to do than start/participate in DRAMAZ on the interwebs. My Real Life is dramatic enough, thanks.
Posted by: bug_girl | July 20, 2009 9:32 AM
DuWayne: Maybe you could ask Ed for some help with your reasoning skills.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | July 20, 2009 12:14 PM
Though I still think Greg broke the Irony Meter by lecturing other bloggers, I might need a retune of my own Irony Detector. Presuming Greg's last comment was intentionally ironic, I'm clearly not picking up his frequency.
Posted by: Nat | July 20, 2009 12:18 PM
Nat, you just need to practice Greg speak. Such as:
"If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then, is the friend of my friend my enema?"
Posted by: Bill James | July 20, 2009 1:09 PM
Nathan: Maybe you could ask your proctologist to remove your head from your ass...Just a thought.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 20, 2009 5:36 PM
I came here from Isis and I'm not sure why she sent me here. Can someone please explain?
Posted by: S.D. | July 22, 2009 4:04 PM
S.D., I couldn't begin to guess without context. Even then, you might be better off asking her to explain.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 22, 2009 4:14 PM
see: http://tinyurl.com/nlr459
Posted by: S.D. | July 22, 2009 4:20 PM
That would be because the comment she links to, provides some context for that post of hers. She was joking, though I admit to not seeing it at first either. But then some context was brought to bear (not just this, also some email exchanges)...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 22, 2009 4:31 PM