Respectful Insolence

I get it. Seriously, I really do. Advertising is a deal with the devil. I understand that and have come to accept it–to a point. For example, I can (sort of) tolerate ads for Cancer Treatment Centers of America showing up on ScienceBlogs; I even understand that outside of those of us who promote science-based medicine CTCA isn’t considered to be that bad. However, ads for homeopathy really, really irritated me, as I mentioned on Friday. It gets even worse than that, though. As if ads for homeopathy and human growth hormone anti-aging quackery weren’t enough, what popped up earlier to mock me?

Take a look:

Dr. Natura’s Colonix is exactly the sort of sheer quackery that I mocked ruthlessly nearly five years ago. And it’s here on ScienceBlogs, right here, right now.

As I said before, I understand that some ads are going to be dubious, particularly when keyword algorithms are used, but this is ridiculous. The ScienceBlogs that I used to know at least tried to get rid of blatantly quacky ads like this. No more, apparently.

Comments

#1 JerryF
May 23, 2011

You’re just mad that it isn’t EneMan.
#2 Anonymous
May 23, 2011

Why not switch to Scientopia.org ?
#3 Alex
May 23, 2011

It is a pity that there isn’t an algorithm that matches the ads with a piece of not-so-Respectful Insolence.
#4 daijiyobu
May 23, 2011

CTCA is a den of naturopathic nonscience-claimed-as-science absurdity:

http://www.cancercenter.com/bone-cancer/naturopathic-medicine.cfm

A web page wherein homeopathy is labeled “powerful” and treatment is framed around a “life force” figmentation.

-r.c.
#5 TylerD
May 23, 2011

This entire website died from cancer long ago. The only thing it’s worth is the money they’re paying you to continue blogging here. If you feel that is no longer enough to justify staying (and I wouldn’t blame you one bit) I’d recommend just going indy.
#6 Paulusgnome
May 23, 2011

If you use Firefox browser, the Adblock plus extension gets rid of all of thiose pesky ads, including all of those ads that are being complained of here.
The bigger question is whether a science-based site should tolerate the presence of these ads?
Would a fundy christian site tolerate ads from an atheist organisation?
I don’t think so.
#7 Matthew F
May 23, 2011

Isn’t there some irony that these advertisers are essentially paying money to support you writing articles that talk about how worthless they are? Don’t you see some humor in that?
#8 blf
May 23, 2011

If memory serves me right, it took awhile for the older SciBorg to get the quackery and Russian slave girl ads under control. I myself haven’t seen anything objectionable yet—another advantage of being in France?—about all I’ve seen is Nat. Geo. and mobile phone ads.

If the current problem is due to Nat. Geo., then hopefully the complaints will result in some action (and hopefully a bit faster than the older SciBorg was notorious for), albeit it’s unfortunate the problem resurfaced. It’s also possible is it’s just a fluke, or that the agencies involved have tweaked their classifications / algorithms, or even something as mundane as a new clerk unfamiliar with the sensitivities of the SciBorg authours and readership.

Other than complaining at Orac &tc., who is is obviously innocent and cannot do much more than forward on the complaints (with some choice added insolence), where should complaints be directed? The older SciBorg was also notorious for having broken or (seemingly-)unmonitored e-mail addresses, at least when it came to technical / website matters. I’ve no idea if that has been fixed yet?
#9 Chemmomo
May 23, 2011

I’m sorry, but I have to echo one of the comments from the first thread about this:

ads = noise

why is anyone any paying attention to them at all?
#10 STD Information
May 23, 2011

I certainly agree with your post it is indeed true that there are various quack ads about science that circulates around the web. Sometimes it is very difficult to determine which ad is genuine and which ad is just fooling you.
#11 natural cynic
May 23, 2011

Ah well, Pharyngula has had Christian singles dating ads. So you’re hardly alone.
#12 David
May 23, 2011

just think how happy they must be to have their ad dollars spent on a page that mocks them!

rather than complain about the ads, mock them some more.
#13 Jud
May 23, 2011

…it took awhile for the older SciBorg to get the quackery and Russian slave girl ads under control.

Missing the Russian slave girl ads makes me feel kinda left out.
#14 Jamie
May 23, 2011

Reiterating the FireFox comment, but also adding that Ad-Block-Plus is available for both FireFox and Chrome.

I see no ads whatsoever on scienceblogs.com…what are you guys talking about?
#15 DLC
May 23, 2011

I don’t know how much Scienceblogs gets paid for those ads, but they’re a bit odd to look at, next to ORAC’s debunking of quackery. sort of like reading a blog on nutrition and seeing an ad for bacon-cheese-peanut-butter and lard sandwiches.
#16 Kristen
May 23, 2011

Okay, I use Chrome. I turned AdBlock off to see what ads would come up. Lets see; Virginia Women’s Center, okay. ING Savings, so far so good. Naked ripped torso with an old guys head photo-shopped on it…ZOMG!!!!

Okay, I’m turning AdBlock back on. I’m also going to sleep with the lights on for a few months.

Maybe the ads can give you blogging material? Cruelly mock any quacks that advertise here? It’s on their dime.
#17 prn
May 23, 2011

Advertising is a deal with the devil.
Kinda makes sense with all Orac’s Rapture content, doesn’t it? At least somebody can go with a clean tail pipe, in case there’s a TP shortage.

Let’s face it, Orac gets sulky when the advertisers’ Insolence approaches his own.
#18 MartinM
May 23, 2011

It is a pity that there isn’t an algorithm that matches the ads with a piece of not-so-Respectful Insolence.

I imagine there probably is. It’s just good at identifying words like ‘naturopathy’, and less successful at words like ‘bollocks’.
#19 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 23, 2011

prn: “Let’s face it, Orac gets sulky when the advertisers’ Insolence approaches his own.”

Don’t be so fucking stupid.

Orac is – if he has any sense – rather pissed off at the fact that scienceblogs.com is taking advertising from companies whose products are (to put it mildly) not scientifically tested for efficacy.

Way to go misunderstanding Orac’s post just to try and score a cheap point… and failing to do so.
#20 Mu
May 23, 2011

Actually I like it, my favorite blogs, paid for by the very people they write against. I’m tempted to click the adds just for the damage to the snake oil salesmen.
#21 knotfreak
May 23, 2011

It works! I installed AdBlock for Chrome. It only took a few seconds and the ads are now gone.
#22 Denice Walter
May 23, 2011

@ Mu: I do so agree! In a way, it’s “target practice” for the newbies. While I’m not sure whether the ads are paid for by view or by click, either way there is certainly a manner in which we can, um, take remedial action.
#23 prn
May 23, 2011

DNA@19, you might want to check your MEd(s).

Most here have recognized that Orac actually is gaining financial support off his opposition, might be good target practice, conversation starters, and should be a waste of time on any skeptic worth a shill(ing).

Probably he’s having a great time with a little faux whining on such a soft target.
#24 lilady
May 23, 2011

@ prn: Back again, eh? I suspect you are a CAM shill, as evidenced by your frequent posting on vitamin overdoses, supplements, unproven/unproven dangerous treatments and the “government conspiracy” to keep your nostrums out of science-based medicine. Why not share with us your “connections” to these entities? You wouldn’t want us to think you just make things up, do you?
#25 Richard Smith
May 23, 2011

Orac:

ads for homeopathy and human growth hormone anti-aging quackery

I’d actually almost be willing to support the hGH quackery if it would increase the demand for hGH to the point that higher production would drive down its price. As someone with congenital hypopituitarism, I’d like to try hGH injections for a while* to see if it helps increase my metabolism, resultant energy level, mental well-being, &c, and possibly get me off some of these meds (especially the messy androgel…), but the last time I checked, a year’s treatment was around $10,000 (CDN), and likely not covered by my drug plan.

As I said, “almost.” I wouldn’t want to see any (possible) health gain of my own brought about by the ripping off of many others. I’m 43, and people usually mistake me for someone in their 20s. “Grow Young With HGH”? How about “Stay Young Without HGH”? Well, no hGH, but cholesterol meds, thyroid meds, “other hormone” meds…

—————–

*A while as an adult. I received hGH treatment while (not quite otherwise) growing up. Non-synthetic. In the “lower back”. I’ve come to the conclusion that having cadaverous extract of brains injected into my posterior is a key contributor to my being a smart-ass today.
#26 D. C. Sessions
May 23, 2011

If you use Firefox browser, the Adblock plus extension gets rid of all of thiose pesky ads, including all of those ads that are being complained of here.

They pay the bills — I won’t block reasonable ads. I do, however, block the more egregious JavaScript monstrosities that take over the whole browser for minutes at a time while they put on some animated annoyance. It turns out that NoScript does a nice job of letting me filter out the worst of them while leaving reasonable, non-intrusive banner ads (etc.) in place.
#27 clamboy
May 23, 2011

*yawn* Okay, gotta get ready to go to work, but just a few minutes browsing SciBlogs. How about Pharyngula first, always fun. Let’s see, interesting picture of a frog there, cool. Hey what’s that ad on the side? The JESUITS??!!?? Advertising for the frackin’ PRIESTHOOD????!!??? Wow. Just…wow.
#28 prn
May 23, 2011

LL@24 I suspect you are a CAM shill
No, I am independently science based.

I just try to provide some balance and levity here, letting a little sanctimonious hot air out of overinflated balloons.
#29 lilady
May 23, 2011

prn is “independently science based”…good thing she clarified that for us…

If you meant your previous comments as a joke to add levity, balance and to deflate over inflated balloons, it was a really bad joke that most posters here just “don’t get”.

Suggestion: If you find Orac’s blogs amusing for all the wrong reasons and you reject the science of real medicine, why don’t you take your opinions somewhere else…on a blog that appreciates your independent science based postings?
#30 rni.boh
May 23, 2011

Why not switch to Scientopia.org ?

Yes, Orac. Join the Dark Side. It is your destiny.

Now, where did I put my cough lozenges?
#31 prn
May 23, 2011

Medicine has great political and practical consequence these days. A practical part is that people, and even their society, can be destroyed when mistakes are made, or their rights interfered with.

I happen to agree with some things that Orac says, and disagree with others. I try to point out those things that I disagree with, and why. Some parts of the audience here amplify a tendency toward interference when it is implied or asserted. I try to help them consider implications and bounds.

You can stop heckling and stalking me any time you choose. Your continued badgering is inappropriate.
#32 lilady
May 23, 2011

Patients do have rights…to chose their doctors…their treatments and their rights to privacy. When their “rights to chose” are used by CAM practitioners to push alternative medicine, bogus treatments and nutritional supplements tied up in Big Pharm/Big Government conspiracies…then medicine does indeed become political. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA protect patients who are all too gullible about these substances.

Furthermore, when CAM practitioners advance theories about infectious diseases and immunizations, then they interfere with society’s rights to have public health initiatives in place to investigate disease outbreaks and to have high herd immunity against vaccine-preventable diseases.

Over-dosing on vitamins (hypervitaminosis) can have an impact on neurological functions, sometimes manifested by paranoia.
#33 Denice Walter
May 23, 2011

@ prn- the fact that some here of us are *not exactly enamoured* with woo ( understatement of the week) doesn’t translate to our giving blanket acceptance to everything put forth by pharma, medicine, etc.: I believe that cheats exist in *all* realms of life- it’s the human condition, not a particular venue, that engenders this- therefore, regulation and oversight are necessary in all commerce. My gripe holds that what we call “woo” is especially attractive to miscreants *because* of the lack of supervision and educational constraints, similar to the patent medicine follies c. 1900 ( not the only area at the time to see an increase in regulation). “Health freedom” can be a call to action by those who evade supervision, laws, and regulation in pursuit of free enterprise at any cost.
#34 prn
May 23, 2011

Over-dosing on vitamins (hypervitaminosis) can have an impact on neurological functions
Some of the old industrial nutrient versions, used singularly or in great excess, had some problems like that. The FDA is monopolistically restricting availability some of the better vitamin forms right now. Hypovitaminosis D still seems to be a bigger worry.

Denice@33,
“Health freedom” can be a call to action by those who evade supervision, laws, and regulation in pursuit of free enterprise at any cost.
Public criticism of (likely frauds) mixed with individual responsibility for one’s own actions would be a good start.

Drawing a nuanced line between freedom and unbound frauds certainly can be vexing. However, many advances have been nearly lost due to oppression and outside interference. “Sunlight” and court action are the traditional answers for fraud.

What about the patients who take the trouble to inform themselves about technical opportunities beyond “average”? Should regulators be allowed to “supervise” them out of existence when “regular” is exhausted, or fails repeatedly? How do individuals get to meaningfully exercise their rights? I know that I have too many negative experiences and interference that cost precious time for things that had dramatically good results. However I have been pretty diligent about ferreting out real technical literature, not falling for common marketing tripe.
#35 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 23, 2011

prn: “you might want to check your MEd(s).”

1x Atarax – for sleeping
2x Amytripyl – for headache risk reduction
2x Thyroxine – for hypothyroid

All checked.

Yours? What should you be taking for your delusional behaviour? You know … that delusion that you are funny and that other one that you actually know anything.

If you can’t remember, go back to your psychiatrist: I’m sure he’ll sort you out with more.
#36 prn
May 23, 2011

DNA@35
Thanks for sharing that. No doubt the epitome of graceful repartee’ here.
#37 Matthew Cline
May 23, 2011

@prn:

Some of the old industrial nutrient versions, used singularly or in great excess, had some problems like that.

Wait, do you meant that in the past that some synthetic vitamins would have contaminants from the synthesis process? Or something else?

The FDA is monopolistically restricting availability some of the better vitamin forms right now.

1) What’s a vitamin form?

2) Which of them are being restricted by the FDA?
#38 prn
May 23, 2011

Substances commonly sold as “vitamins”, as we’ve seen them over the years, are chosen for cost of manufacture, ease of commercial use, and shelf life, not optimum health benefits.

Like margarines, not everything with a long shelf life is better for human consumption (bugs would not even touch the worst margarines stored at summer temperatures, only ill informed humans). Recently, some vitamin forms that better reflect human biochemistry are becoming more readily available. e.g. D3 vs old D2; P5P and pyridoxamine over pyridoxine, -al; folinate and L-5MTHF over folate; K2 over K1 and K3; adenosyl-, hydroxy-, methylcobalamins over cyanocobalamin (B12).

1. What’s a vitamin form?
“vitamin forms” have differences in structural formula, redox, complexes and salts, or optical activity (l-, d- of old; R-,S- naming conventions) that can cause great variations in physiological range of benefit.

2. Which of them are being restricted by the FDA
I have given these examples several times, recently: L-5MTHF (a reduced folate) and pyridoxamine (a B6), as vitamers considered superior with less limitations, and more benefits. They were made into expensive prescription items for bogus proprietary reasons having to do with lobbied legislative and regulatory changes that many consider naked corruption. Until recent years, D3 appeared to have informal restrictions.
#39 Alan Kellogg
May 24, 2011

And what shows up in this comment thread, Genegenics. Sometimes serendipity is the biggest joke of them all.
#40 Noadi
May 24, 2011

So far I think the funniest inappropriate ad I’ve seen here on scienceblogs has been on Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It was an ad for Michele Bachmann.
#41 sqlrob
May 24, 2011

It turns out that NoScript does a nice job of letting me filter out the worst of them while leaving reasonable, non-intrusive banner ads (etc.) in place.

Given all the automated systems, I’m of the opinion there are no reasonable ads (or rather, not enough to warrant not blocking everything).

For example, I used to leave Google Ads unblocked. But given some of the content and lack of obvious vetting, I considered them a waste of time and into the block they went.

“Download Star Wars episode I here” – It was still in theaters

“Get your free PS3″ – It was more than a year away from release
#42 chris
May 24, 2011

It is a pity that there isn’t an algorithm that matches the ads with a piece of not-so-Respectful Insolence.

Guess what just showed up alongside the “Weil vs. evidence” post? “Dr. Weil’s supplement program recommends vitamins that fit your health and nutritional needs.”
#43 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 25, 2011

“No doubt the epitome of graceful repartee’ here.”

Still more factual than anything you ever come out with.
#44 prn
May 25, 2011

titmouse@78 You’ve been conned. … You can have your alt med and your real med provided you keep them separated. Combined, you lose the real med.
Sounds dogmatic. I was in a hospital earlier this month, and the top two surgeons would really like to know how we accomplished some (altmed) things that went beyond “real med”, because the “real med” results generally aren’t too nice, and are instantly recognizeable when they occur, as expected.

Order + chaos = chaos shows it was a weak, fragile, unstable or misapplied solution, where someone needs to be fired. “Order + chaos = order” may suggest a competently applied, robust solution. More like engineering than mangled, or bungled, medicine.

Real med + alt med = alt med says little about whether something altmed works or not, with one possiblity being ” = advanced med”, as the case may be.

lawrence@83 You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own set of facts.
Huh? Sounds like someone hasn’t been much around, or inside, corporations. Common examples of “own set of facts” include proprietary information, dirty laundry , and trade secrets.

David N Andrews@43 Still more factual than anything you ever come out with.
An empty snarl, Dave. I’ve posted substantial links and PMIDs to technical papers here at RI to show a basis to my “altmed” positions. You need to learn to shoot straighter, pay attention, or do some homework. Otherwise, you’re just going to be another parrot pseudoskeptic.
#45 squirrelelite
May 25, 2011

At one of our favorite breakfast stops this morning, I saw an ad for Cancer Treatment Centers of America running on one of the cable news channels. The ad features a woman telling how great her experience was at CTCA and how she is now cancer free because of them, etc., etc. (The sound was off so I couldn’t hear the exact words.)

The ad touts the standard science-based treatments like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation but also adds spiritual support and mind-body medicine to the list.

A couple times a streamer runs across the top saying something like:

Treatment outcomes may vary. Do not expect your results to be as good as this case.
#46 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 25, 2011

“You need to learn to shoot straighter, pay attention, or do some homework. Otherwise, you’re just going to be another parrot pseudoskeptic.”

You mean you want me to waste effort on you? Think yourself lucky you get as little as I expend on you. You’re hardly worth it.
#47 prn
May 25, 2011

DNA@46 My suggestion was more general. I don’t think we have much to discuss, either – thanks for that.
#48 sqlrob
May 25, 2011

Huh? Sounds like someone hasn’t been much around, or inside, corporations. Common examples of “own set of facts” include proprietary information, dirty laundry , and trade secrets

Sounds like someone doesn’t know what the phrase means. What you’re saying is that different people have access to different facts which is not what the phrase means. It’s self evident that different people have access to different sets of facts. Facts don’t vary based on whether or not they’re known.
#49 SC (Salty Current)
May 25, 2011

It’s out of control, and does appear to be happening since the NatGeo merge. The ads are the opposite of everything Sb is supposed to stand for. Dreadful. (And there were some interesting ones for science organizations and events in the past that would seem much more suited to the readers here.)

I recently eliminated ads from my blog after noticing one calling to “Defund Planned Parenthood.” In any case, I’ve received far more in donations than I have from ads, and it means far more to me.
#50 SC (Salty Current)
May 25, 2011

I can (sort of) tolerate ads for Cancer Treatment Centers of America showing up on ScienceBlogs

My tolerance for those is in tatters as well, as they remind me of the commercials. The “tag on my toe” one is bad enough, but there’s a new Secretesque one I’ve only caught vaguely that appears to imply that if you bring a sufficiently positive attitude to the process and fight, you’ll survive. Guess my father didn’t really care to stay alive. They’re loathsome.
#51 mikmik
May 27, 2011

Probably he’s having a great time with a little faux whining on such a soft target.
Posted by: prn
—
No, I am independently science based.
I just try to provide some balance and levity here, letting a little sanctimonious hot air out of overinflated balloons.
Posted by: prn
LMFUCKINGAO!!! To bad you aren’t ‘independently’ logic based. As far as science based, we will shortly see about that, nevermind that. You have stated a subjective opinion about yourself that has virtually no meaning. Keep in mind that 82% of people think they’re above average. Your absurdity certainly provides levity, I’ll grant youn that!
I try to point out those things that I disagree with, and why
No fucking kidding? WTF do you think the rest off us do, in fact isn’t that a primary purpose of most commenters here? Sheeesh

Some parts of the audience here amplify a tendency toward interference when it is implied or asserted. I try to help them consider implications and bounds.
Some parts of the audience?? Amplify a tendency??
Thanks for your help for the implications and bounds counseling. I never would have thought statements could have implications, let alone bounds!

vitamin forms” have differences in structural formula, redox, complexes and salts, or optical activity (l-, d- of old; R-,S- naming conventions) that can cause great variations in physiological range of benefit
Oh shit, more independent science based knowledge!!! I had no idea that there was light shing in my body(optical activity) or that by polarizing the chaotically random vector properties as described thus:
E~
(~r; t) = E~
0 cos(
~k ~r !t + ) ; (1)
B~
(~r; t) = B~
0 cos(
~k ~r !t + ) ; (2)
Here ~k is the wavevector of the wave, is some phase angle, ! is the angular frequency, and E~0 and B~0…
LMAO By the way, In chemistry, isomers (from Greek ισομερης, isomerès; isos = “equal”, méros = “part”) are compounds with the same molecular formula but different structural formulas. Why didn’t just say “isomers”. We all know what that meanns, but apparently you don’t. We all fucking know that chemicals including vitamins come in(LOL) various ‘forms’ which affects their bahavior and functioning.
Also,you seem to consistently rely on interpreting statements based on incorrect dictionary definitions, analogy, etc. Another example of your dishonest bullshit and flim flammery. BTW, can you tell me if my parody of you pretending to be scientifically learned makes sense? I never grajitated high school myself. Is that what you mean by “independently science based“, IOW, self taught

David N Andrews@43 Still more factual than anything you ever come out with.
An empty snarl, Dave. I’ve posted substantial links and PMIDs to technical papers here at RI to show a basis to my “altmed” positions. You need to learn to shoot straighter, pay attention, or do some homework. Otherwise, you’re just going to be another parrot pseudoskeptic.
I haven’t seen any links supporting your pretend arsenal of knowledge. You pretend to sound learned, but sound pedantic and ostentatious. Your pathetic bravado is painful and embarassing to watch. I am purposely being a severe asshole because you presumtively explain what we really mean back to us, and that is the fucking pinnacle of rude and insulting treatment.
I don`t suffer fools gladly.
optical activity (l-, d- of old; R-,S- naming conventions)
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/isomerism/optical.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)#Naming_conventions
#52 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 28, 2011

“I haven’t seen any links supporting your pretend arsenal of knowledge. You pretend to sound learned, but sound pedantic and ostentatious. Your pathetic bravado is painful and embarassing to watch. I am purposely being a severe asshole because you presumtively explain what we really mean back to us, and that is the fucking pinnacle of rude and insulting treatment.
I don`t suffer fools gladly.”

Yah-fucking-boo.

As if I give a shit what you think.
#53 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 28, 2011

(assuming that mikmik’s having a go at me … trolls seem to love doing that)
#54 LW
May 28, 2011

No, mikmik’s having a go at prn. Your name appears as part of a quote from prn.
#55 prn
May 28, 2011

mikmik@51
You are a fine specimen of your species. I’ll check and see if bananas are still available for 29 cents a pound.
#56 Denice Walter
May 28, 2011

@ David N. Andrews, M.Ed., C.P.S.E.:

Some of us are *troll-bait*: as they think that we represent the medico-pharmaco-educational-governmental-media-international-establishment killer elite or suchlike. mikmik is one of us!

It’s such fun to be noticed! Even by JB @ AoA! And to be considered “establishment”: truly hilarious! I have a theory about prn- not entirely as he seems, methinks.

Keep up the good work! AND, more gutter language,*s’il vous plait*! It’s necessary.
#57 prn
May 28, 2011

DWi56: I have a theory about prn…

Many here seem eager to project their erroneous (pre-) assumptions onto me. I have warned from the outset that I would not automatically correct their errors, since a series of such Q&A would be a form of fishing for personal information that I was not willing to discuss.

…AND, more gutter language
Aw, Denice. I had hoped you would try to raise the bar.
#58 Narad
May 29, 2011

Many here seem eager to project their erroneous (pre-) assumptions onto me.

“Pre”? “Assumptions”? If I knew you were comin’ I’d have baked a cake?
#59 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 29, 2011

DW: “mikmik is one of us!”

TFFT!

Was hard to tell from the convolutions in the comment. But, having confirmation of mikmik’s friendly status, I say:

mikmik… make the ignorant bollock-brain have it!
#60 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 29, 2011

LW: “No, mikmik’s having a go at prn. Your name appears as part of a quote from prn.”

This ‘italics for quotes’ … not used to it; I use quotes for them. But thanks for the clarification. I was actually thinking that the mikmik comment was a sock-puppet thing … no wonder it read so much like that prannock prn.

For mikmik, please feel free to pass on the message you got to its rightful recipient, prn!
#61 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 29, 2011

DW: “I have a theory about prn- not entirely as he seems, methinks.”

Oh? This would be interesting to hear. Even if it were entirely wrong, I’d love to see it on here … and the resultant tirade that prn would no doubt pull out of its arse for us.

“Keep up the good work! AND, more gutter language,*s’il vous plait*!”

Thanks.

Fuck it, yeh … more such

“It’s necessary.”

And, for Scots, compulsory!
#62 Denice Walter
May 29, 2011

@ prn:

Disclosure: I support myself _entirely_ ( 100%) through 1. researching and managing my own investments ( stocks, bonds, mutual funds, EFT’s,etc.); I advise relatives/ friends about their finances *gratis*.
2. counselling young adults and returnees about “finding their niche”.

Your turn!

re: “gutter language”- David is gifted in this area and should be encouraged to develop his talents to the utmost. He is a high-ranking amateur but could go “pro”.
#63 prn
May 29, 2011

DW@61
Congratulations, on your acumen and successes. My background is industrial with new technologies, with more recently acquired skills in survival over “expert” naysayers, medical cost control, nutrition, and self-defensive medicine.

Re DNA #52, 59, 60. If by “pro” talents, you mean the sounds of Vietnam-era 42nd Street in Times Square, I’ll take your word.
#64 prn
May 29, 2011

DW@61
Congratulations, on your acumen and successes. My background is industrial with new technologies, with more recently acquired skills in survival over “expert” naysayers, medical cost control, nutrition, and self-defensive medicine.

Re DNA #52, 59, 60. If by “pro” talents, you mean the sounds of Vietnam-era 42nd Street in Times Square, I’ll take your word.
#65 mikmik
June 1, 2011

@David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
I see others cleared my intentions up. I agree with what you say, and I like your style. You are Scottish?
I’m Scottish!
But yes, I am unclear, and get this – one time I came back to a comment I had made at Pharyngula, and I couldn’t tell what I was trying to say.
LMAO at me!
– - – -

Yah-fucking-boo.
As if I give a shit what you think

It’s shite, not ‘shit’! ;+]

– - -

Hey, prn, you hurt my feelers. Did you know that it’s easier to peel bananas from the non stem end?

Mike Laing
#66 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
June 7, 2011

Aye, a ken it’s ‘shite’

First time I said ‘shite’ to a Finn, the response was ‘Mitä vittua?” (I’ll let you find out on google translate!)