Chris Mooney is a freelance writer and the author of two books, 
Dear PZ,
[It's worth pointing out, my problem is not with profanity. Regular readers know that long before I entered the blogosphere, I've vocally celebrated the right to free speech and independent thinking. However, when influential and well respected professors argue like children in a very public online forum, substantive points decompose to nonsense blows, which puts a poor lens on a field that already has an image problem. As visible teachers and bloggers in the sciences, it's within our power to make strides to improve that, and a well argued rebuttal, over a dismissive profane nonresponse, achieves far more.]
I know you are a very popular writer, professor, atheist, and so on. I understand you are also likely frustrated over all the nonsense with that religious movie. If I were in your situation, I too would be terribly upset, angry, and so forth. However, your blogpost from yesterday, is entirely out of line:
Fuck you very much, Matt. You know where you can stick your advice.
That kind of language and reaction is simply unacceptable on and off the blogosphere. It seems to me, that although you two argue constantly, Matt has always treated you with decorum and respect. Regardless of how you felt regarding what he posted, it was cogent and seriously argued. Whether he is right or wrong, you are an adult, a teacher, and a respected and admired professional. Shame on you. This kind of adolescent knee jerk reaction is absolutely ridiculous and you ought to apologize.
Sincerely,
Sheril
Comments
"...you ought to apologize."
Just like you apologised to PZ for wrongly accusing him of "encouraging a boycott of the film". Oh, my mistake, you didn't apologise at all, did you?
Posted by: MH | March 24, 2008 12:40 PM
If Sheril got a detail wrong I'm sure she'll say so because that is part of accepted decorum in the blogosphere, and we respect that.
But come on, are we really saying that language like what's quoted above is acceptable here on scienceblogs? Is everyone afraid to say that this is unacceptable?
This is an issue independent of the substance of what we're debating about. It's about whether we conduct our dialogues in serious terms or not. Can't we at least agree on that?
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | March 24, 2008 1:03 PM
Sheril,
I must have missed it, but could you point me to where you take Matt Nisbett to task for telling Myers and Dawkins to keep quiet ? Only unlike you I bothered to read what Nisbett had to say, and the tone was not polite.
So Sheril, I call on you to apologise for failing to treat Nisbett the same way as you treated PZ.
Why do you demand PZ be civil and polite but not Nisbett ? Hypocrisy is not a nice trait in a person, and I expected better of you. Clearly I was foolish in expecting to act as you demand others do.
Stop acting the concern troll.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:07 PM
"If Sheril got a detail wrong I'm sure she'll say so because that is part of accepted decorum in the blogosphere, and we respect that.
But come on, are we really saying that language like what's quoted above is acceptable here on scienceblogs? Is everyone afraid to say that this is unacceptable?
This is an issue independent of the substance of what we're debating about. It's about whether we conduct our dialogues in serious terms or not. Can't we at least agree on that?"
Chris,
Do you think Nisbett's post was civil and polite ?
Do you think Sheril's call for PZ to apologise is hypocritical as it fails to call on Nisbett to do the same ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:09 PM
This is really unbelievable.
Whatever you might say about Nisbet's tone, it was nothing like PZ's.
Will no one take a stand in favor of not telling our fellow bloggers to *%$! themselves?
If so it is a sad day for ScienceBlogs
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | March 24, 2008 1:10 PM
Nisbett's attack on PZ was smug, condescending and patronizing. I don't have a problem with "bad" langauge in response; I grew out of worrying about such things when I was around 14.
Guys, generally I'm with you in the wider debate. On this particular issue, I honestly believe you've got it wrong. So do others on your "side", like Orac.
Posted by: SteveF | March 24, 2008 1:11 PM
"This is really unbelievable.
Whatever you might say about Nisbet's tone, it was nothing like PZ's.
Will no one take a stand in favor of not telling our fellow bloggers to *%$! themselves?
If so it is a sad day for ScienceBlogs"
Chris, you clearly think PZ was wrong in his tone.
Do you think Nisbett was also wrong in his tone ?
It is a simple question. Only you do not seem to be able to answer it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:13 PM
No, I will not do this. There is no comparison between the two, and if we're just going to conflate everything and have absolutely zero standards, then this is not a dialogue I want to be part of.
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | March 24, 2008 1:17 PM
Chris and Sheril, Thank you for taking the higher moral ground. I understand your point, consider it quite straightforward and necessary, and am now absolutely astonished that anyone would consider PZ's belligerent language acceptable and anywhere on par with posts that have referred to him. In a sad state of affairs, I furthermore hope my view that his approach is belligerent is not interpreted by his readers as requiring an apology. Ben
Posted by: BRC | March 24, 2008 1:21 PM
"zomg, he swore!"
What are you, retarded?
Worse. Fucktarded.
Posted by: Aerik | March 24, 2008 1:21 PM
To wit:
Fuck fuck fuck, fuck fuckitty fuck-fuck-fuck.
Does this hurt you? No. Grow up.
Posted by: Aerik | March 24, 2008 1:24 PM
Good for PZ! The F-bomb is the only appropriate response to two clowns who repeatedly tell you not to participate in the dialogue unless it's by their rules.
Posted by: Nick | March 24, 2008 1:25 PM
You obviously haven't been in the blogosphere very long.
As for the more general point you and Chris have been making about the Myers-Dawkins incident at the Mall of America, this is my response.
Posted by: Orac | March 24, 2008 1:26 PM
What's really unbelievable is your affected, prissy offendedness at a "bad word." And I do mean unbelievable - I don't think you're that offended, I think you're deflecting (just in case the frame isn't clear, Chris, yes, I'm calling you dishonest). Is this really the best you and Nisbet can do? I realize it's much easier to get your knickers crunched up over a ghastly breach of decorum than it is to acknowledge how rude and logically bankrupt yours and Nisbet's response has been, but really. Chris, I don't think you really get how many peoples' respect you've lost - people who cheered on your fantastic work until you slid into this PR morass dug by Nisbet. It's not just "rude pharyngulites," or nasty, bad-tempered meany atheists. You need to take this seriously Chris. We don't all have to agree, but you really need to do some introspection and question whether there's a reason people are criticizing you so vehemently. I'd advise doing it with Nisbet's counsel.
Posted by: Josh | March 24, 2008 1:28 PM
"No, I will not do this. There is no comparison between the two, and if we're just going to conflate everything and have absolutely zero standards, then this is not a dialogue I want to be part of."
Chris,
Standards are not just to be applied to PZ you know. You must meet those standards yourself, and must also hold others, not just PZ, to them. You have refused to hold Nisbett to the standards you hold PZ. PZ swore, yes, but Nisbett has been dishonest and uncivil on more than on occasion and yet you have remained silent.
Nisbett is dishonest when claims Dawkins' puts of moderate theists as the fact he was a signatory of a letter to The Times calling for creationism/ID to be kept out of UK schools. Other signatories included fellow scientists as well as number of religious leaders. Is Nisbett is right they clearly would not have allied themselves with Dawkins' in that fight. He is also uncivil in that assumes the moderate theists cannot understand that a person may have more than one message they are trying to get across. Dawkins' has a message about atheism but also one about evolution. People can, and do, reject the former but embrace the latter. Nisbett insults the intelligence of theists when he claims they cannot do that.
So Chris, is being dishonest OK by you ? It would seem by your refusal to condem Nisbet that it is.
Well I will have to disagree with you. I think being dishonest is worse than swearing. Clearly your standards differ, and lying is not wrong by you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:30 PM
Thank you, Ben. I wish others would follow your example.
Orac, I saw your post, I can't respond to everything right now--and I'm not even sure I want to. Will you, or will you not, agree that this kind of language is unacceptable?
As for the rest of you, I have been blogging since 2001, and this is the most I've ever found myself questioning whether it's worth it. If we can't even stop swearing at each other, we're really lost.
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
Give me a break. Apparently it's OK for Nisbet to implicitly compare Dawkins and Myers' statements to an arguably racist remark about Barack Obama made by Geraldine Ferraro, as long he doesn't cuss when he does it.
You're losing me. I used to lean more towards your "side" of this debate (as you well know from one of our conversations), but your response and especially Nisbet's response to this incident are so simply unbelievably wrong-headed that I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take Nisbet's and your version of "framing" seriously anymore.
Posted by: Orac | March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
Will you or will you not agree that likening Dawkins and Myers to a Clinton campaign flack who made an arguably racist comment about Barack Obama is unacceptable?
Posted by: Orac | March 24, 2008 1:34 PM
Obviously this blog is not being monitored for anti-social tone and disrecting languge I and others who value civility find disgusting.
Maybe this blog needs a delay mechanism to weed out the sicko types of comments Aerik and PZ posted. Water seeks its own level.
John McCormick
Posted by: John McCormick | March 24, 2008 1:34 PM
Yes. Or, at least, I am. You and Sheril are saying the opposite.
Obviously people aren't afraid to say that it's unacceptable because people are saying that it's unacceptable. For example, scroll up to where you and Sheril type stuff.
Whether or not you like it, "fuck" is a part of the English language and it has its uses. Sometimes, truly, it the most accurate way to express a sentiment, because some things deserve no better. PZ seems to have felt that this was such a time. I can't say I disagree. And to be honest I think your reaction is pathetic. You sound like an old maid. I'm no longer surprised you drink Miller Lite.
Posted by: pough | March 24, 2008 1:37 PM
"Thank you, Ben. I wish others would follow your example.
Orac, I saw your post, I can't respond to everything right now--and I'm not even sure I want to. Will you, or will you not, agree that this kind of language is unacceptable?
As for the rest of you, I have been blogging since 2001, and this is the most I've ever found myself questioning whether it's worth it. If we can't even stop swearing at each other, we're really lost."
Chris, this really is pathetic on your part.
Nisbett makes dishonest claims about Dawkins and PZ, but rather than you take him to task for doing so you criticise PZ for getting pissed off with Nisbett.
Do you not read ScienceBlogs very much. Only PZ is not the only blogger here to have used the word "fuck". Brayton has used when discussing anti-gay bigots. I must have missed Sheril's post calling on Brayton to apologise. Could either you or she post a link it to please ? I assume it exists, otherwise Sheril's post would seem to be just a load of anti-PZ vitriol. She does have a tendency to get a bit shrill sometimes.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:38 PM
Chris, it sounds like you're playing the old con of acting offended to get your own way, rather than owing up to being part of a systematic effort to silence PZ all along
Posted by: Nick | March 24, 2008 1:39 PM
Orac,
I didn't read the Nisbet comment that way. I thought he was being general about people involved in campaigns who have gone off message.
I don't think there was any intent to suggest that PZ and Dawkins are like racists. Do you? If so, obviously, that's not appropriate.
Beyond that I'll let Matt defend himself. Now, how about the swearing?
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | March 24, 2008 1:41 PM
Hey, this is the blogosphere, where terms like "fucktard" and "douchenozzle" are mainstream discourse, used by tenured scholars and reclusive weirdos in their parents' basements alike.
I'm sorry Chris, Sheril, and Matt, but you guys just lost the Framing Wars. The flap over the "Myers Expelled expulsion" was the shark-jumping moment. (A term that has itself JTS, I know.)
I've been a big critic myself of the New Atheists' insistence on yoking Science to atheism. But I know when I've been licked. The majority of the science blogosphere disagrees my views. Whatever. It'll be interesting to see if New Atheism mutates into something more hardline and produces its own Robespierre. Point is, I don't claim to herald a more effective strategy of communicating science so it doesn't matter if I'm rejected by the majority of science fanboys and fangirls. But you guys do.
Posted by: Colugo | March 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Seriously? Why?
I've had the opposite impression; that pretty much everything Matt has said to or about PZ has oozed with a lack of respect couched in words carefully crafted to seem like respect for purely political purposes. Or maybe I just don't calculate respect on a per-syllable basis.
Posted by: pough | March 24, 2008 1:43 PM
"Obviously this blog is not being monitored for anti-social tone and disrecting languge I and others who value civility find disgusting.
Maybe this blog needs a delay mechanism to weed out the sicko types of comments Aerik and PZ posted. Water seeks its own level.
John McCormick"
Er, I think you need to get your eyes tested.
PZ has not posted a comment in this thread.
Do you want to apologise to PZ for lying ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:44 PM
This is getting ridiculous. Personal attacks? Really? I personally have no problem with profanity and don't understand why people get all bent out of shape over the use of Carlin's Seven Deadly Words. I do think that PZ was exceptionally rude in what he said, but the most important part of freedom of speech is tolerating speech you don't like.
I would rather see people arguing the substantive points of the issue, but since this is all a matter of opinion as to whether PZ/Dawkins/et al should be highlighting this incident or not then there is no right or wrong answer (you may feel it is tactically or morally wrong, that does not make it factually wrong) and people rapidly devolve to moronic comments about the person they disagree with, which does no one any good.
Plus it's a Chevy Chase line.
Posted by: Rev Matt | March 24, 2008 1:44 PM
Is this the old, "Badger the person over and over, then claim victory when he lashes out in anger" frame?
Nisbet has been claiming for quite some time now that Myers needs to be quiet and stop speaking openly about his views. To make matters worse, Nisbet issues his calls for self-censorship in condescending and insulting language. My guess is that PZ got sick of it and lashed out. I'd probably do the same thing.
Not to mention that Nisbet, Mooney, and now Kirshenbaum have managed to take what started out as an amusing (if somewhat minor) embarrassment for some creationist hacks and turned it into a high-drama farce that embarrasses scientists. Who's doing the damage here? Who's failing to communicate? Who's promoting a personal vendetta? Who's providing the creationists with fodder they can use in their dishonest PR campaigns?
Posted by: Wes | March 24, 2008 1:46 PM
This is ridiculous. As a college-educated, middle-class, non-scientist I'd like to think I'm fairly close to the target demographic for ScienceBlogs such as this one, and I too must cry foul here. In the time I've been reading these blogs, I've seen much ado about "no, no, no, not THAT way" from this blog and Framing Science, with nary a suggestion of what, exactly, the "right" way is. All I can tell is that it apparently involves something that Messrs. Mooney and Nisbet know but don't feel compelled to share.
Did you not write a book entitled The Republican War on Science? In which dictionary is "war" defined as a genteel, polite undertaking? I'm all for civil discourse, believe me, but thus far all you've brought to the table is "hush up and let us do the talking" without any evidence as to why this would be a good thing to do. PZ Myers expressed the frustration that a lot of us literate non-scientists feel when we read this sort of thing from someone who purports to be in favor of the promotion of science and reason.
Worse, your suggestion in a previous post that we "check our critical faculties at the door" sounds eerily like the mantra of those promoting dogma and pseudoscience over the scientific method. I cannot fault Mr. Myers for his frustration, for I feel it just as strongly.
Clearly science does not speak for itself to a great many people. Why are we wasting our time arguing over whose voices should be allowed to bring it to life? We have bigger battles to fight.
Posted by: PuckishOne | March 24, 2008 1:48 PM
Dear Sheril,
I think that an apology is owed, but not by PZ! See Myers-Dawkins-Expelled-gate: Mooney and Nisbet, Framers of the Absurd, Have Stepped Over a Line and Owe an Apology where I think I avoid most profanity (maybe all) but point out that Chris and Matt (more Matt than Chris) really do go over the line in suggesting that PZ and Richard are delusional!
If I was PZ, Chris and Matt would have gotten a "fuck you very much" from me as well, and there would be no apology forthcoming.
Let's get to the real issue here. What Chris and Matt, and Sheril as well, apparently, have suggested is not at all supportive of what should be our common goal. And look around you, guys. You are very much alone on this.
Join us. We will forgive you.
Greg
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 24, 2008 1:50 PM
You sound like an old maid. I'm no longer surprised you drink Miller Lite.
She does have a tendency to get a bit shrill sometimes.
I love casual sexism thrown around.
*
-----------------
As for the topic, I have to disagree. PZ's answer wasn't very civil, true. But it wasn't that inappropriate either.
It's not something I would have used, but I don't swear much anyway.
But as an expression of PZ's sentiment towards Nisbet, showing his emotions and position, well it works and is quite precise.
Btw. your post is a tiny little bit like concern trolling, at least it appears to me like this. ;)
(* Not!, of course, for any irony impaired around here.)
Posted by: student_b | March 24, 2008 1:50 PM
"Orac,
I didn't read the Nisbet comment that way. I thought he was being general about people involved in campaigns who have gone off message.
I don't think there was any intent to suggest that PZ and Dawkins are like racists. Do you? If so, obviously, that's not appropriate.
Beyond that I'll let Matt defend himself. Now, how about the swearing?"
Nice wriggle. Do you know how spell double standards ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:50 PM
It is a sad day when you would rather attack form than substance, and that you would hold form to be the actionable instance where as the full substance Nisbet's "shut up" column is ignored in its entirety, and that you would would much rather complain about one word by PZ than the entire STFU diatribe by another.
I want nothing to do with such a low standard evaluation. Your knee jerk reaction leaves me stunned an unimpressed by your standards.
Posted by: scote | March 24, 2008 1:53 PM
For our friends from across the pond...
With all due respect, I think whining about someone's language, without addressing the issue or substance is defelction and spin of the lowest sort.
I believe PZ's comment was clear and concise, sometimes insults and swearing are the best way to express an opinion.
Oh, and not all insults are ad hominems. Sometimes, they are just insults. And often, well deserved.
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | March 24, 2008 1:53 PM
This is really too bad. Isn't this getting a bit adolescent, PZ? You act like this and want non-adolescents to take you seriously?
Posted by: Jon Winsor | March 24, 2008 1:54 PM
Man, civil dialog in the US today seems to be "Muslims are going to kill us, Blacks are inferior, Democrats are communists, Science is evil, atheists are immoral, and Christianity superior." Just so long as you don't use a four-letter word, it's all ok.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | March 24, 2008 1:54 PM
"That kind of language and reaction is simply unacceptable on and off the blogosphere."
It seems to be common, nonetheless.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 24, 2008 1:54 PM
Here's a list as of an hour or so of commentary on the critique of the reaction:
The Framing Critique (Dawkins-Myers-Expelled!-Gate)
(indicating a preponderance of opinion that Matt and Chris ... and, sadly, Sheril ... maybe have stepped in it a bit...)
Come on guys, bring it on home. Work with the good guys. You'll feel better.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 24, 2008 1:54 PM
I thought PZ's comment was entirely appropriate.
When do you two change the name of your blog from "The Intersection" to "Concern Troll"? Will there be a politely worded, profanity-free press release?
Oh yes... fuck. (I hope no one faints after reading that horrible profanity)
Posted by: Schmeer | March 24, 2008 1:56 PM
"Orac,
I didn't read the Nisbet comment that way. I thought he was being general about people involved in campaigns who have gone off message.
I don't think there was any intent to suggest that PZ and Dawkins are like racists. Do you? If so, obviously, that's not appropriate.
Beyond that I'll let Matt defend himself. Now, how about the swearing?"
Nice wriggle. Do you know how spell double standards ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 1:56 PM
Honestly, I now have more respect for PZ for saying that to Chris.
Posted by: Chad | March 24, 2008 1:58 PM
Are you *really* more upset over the particular word that PZ used, rather than the suggestion by Nisbet that PZ shut up? What if Nisbet had said "Shut the fuck up", would that have been worse? It's rather the same, if you ask me. Telling some one to shut up is pretty unfriendly, and begs for the response, "Fuck you very much".
What if PZ had said, "Piss off". Should he have said, "Forget it". Or how about, "I respectfully disagree, sir, and I'm going to continue to speak." What about "Please, sir, I beg your forgiveness, but I would like to disagree. May I continue to communicate in the blogosphere?".
Give me a break.
Posted by: factician | March 24, 2008 1:58 PM
The race to the bottom makes you look sooo good to the public at large, let me tell you.
Posted by: Jon Winsor | March 24, 2008 1:59 PM
Dean Johnson (RIP): unwitting prophet of blogosphere discourse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnMtvuvM_i0
Posted by: Colugo | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM
Since PZ's FU very much (in line with Eric Idle's excellent song for the FCC) is a response to non-sensical calls for him to STFU about creationist hypocrisy it is really amazing that Mooney, Nisbet et al don't get that the framing of **expelling** people from Expelled shows the movie's hypocrisy an their false claims for what they are. This is the **perfect** framing and you don't need to know any science to see it, that's why it is so perfect.
Maybe some people who know science better than they know framing aren't seeing the forest..
Orac has an excellent explanation of why the Expelled expulsion is so perfect (though it should be self-evident from PZ first post on the topic):
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/the_dawkins_incident_sometimes_its_neces.php
Posted by: scote | March 24, 2008 2:06 PM
I, for one, have enough PZ and his flagrant disregard for those who have opinions other than his. He has become a boil on the ass of Scienceblogs, albeit the boil that brings in the hits. A good comparison of a good communicating atheist would be Phil Plait. He quite explicitly runs a tightly controlled site that does not tolerate much of the behavior that can be found on PZ's. By continuing to allow a person who shows disrespect to so many people as PZ does on Scienceblogs, I feel that Sb is harmed in the long run. Let PZ take his anit-religion side-show elsewhere, but he can stay behind and use proper decorum to speak of issues with which he is professionally trained. In fact, that should be a requirement of all Sb posters. Let's see, who is trained in communicating? And has proven successful at it?
Posted by: Steve | March 24, 2008 2:07 PM
While I don't agree that PZ's response was all that big a deal, I will say that responding with more of the same when Sheril complains about it is particularly douche-tastic.
Posted by: Brian | March 24, 2008 2:09 PM
I meant to say Matt. Oops, I tend to get those two confused nowadays...
Posted by: Chad | March 24, 2008 2:11 PM
JJ: I just want you to know that all the "fucks" on the scienceblogs.com for my site (and by the way, that was a brilliant idea) are Physiprof being profane in my site. I would never say fuck.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 24, 2008 2:14 PM
Everybody has, to some extent, a "flagrant disregard for those who have opinions other than" their own. And everyone can be, um, vociferous about it.
I think it actually can advance debate in some ways (see current discussion).
Especially when it comes to atheism, the forces arrayed agaisnt we non-believers are tremendous. A few f-bombs isn't always a bad thing.
Posted by: PalMD | March 24, 2008 2:17 PM
I, for one, have enough PZ and his flagrant disregard for those who have opinions other than his.
Oh, where did PZ said people who have an other opinion then himself should shut up?
Ah, I forgot, sorry. Wrong frame.
but he can stay behind and use proper decorum to speak of issues with which he is professionally trained. In fact, that should be a requirement of all Sb posters.
Once again, somebody who doesn't understand the point of ScienceBlogs.
I'll let you in a little secret: ScienceBlogs isn't just about science! *shock* *horror* *flagburningoutrage*
Let's see, who is trained in communicating? And has proven successful at it?
Hmm... nobody here that I can think of.
Oh, you don't really mean the framers, do you? The only thing they're communicating seems to be framing for the sake of framing.
At least that's the impression I've got from all those discussions. If this is the wrong impression I've got (could be, can't be sure)... well, they aren't that good at communicating then, aye? ;)
Posted by: student_b | March 24, 2008 2:18 PM
No, the real point here is not whether PZ adolescent sycophants gunk up the boards with mindless profanity, but how the whole New Atheist movement appears to those outside it. Almost everyone who is borderline religious or fully religious will lookup at us, shake their heads, and say, "is that what we're supposed to become? No, thanks - I'll stick with my church."
Posted by: dm | March 24, 2008 2:20 PM
No, the real point here is not whether PZ adolescent sycophants gunk up the boards with mindless profanity
Word of advice. When lambasting others for profanity, don't use profanity yourselves. ;)
Posted by: student_b | March 24, 2008 2:25 PM
John McCormick wrote "Obviously this blog is not being monitored for anti-social tone and disrecting [sic] languge [sic] I and others who value civility find disgusting."
You could always get a nanny-filter?
Posted by: MH | March 24, 2008 2:30 PM
Sheril,
I normally enjoy your posts and dislike the anti-theist rhetoric of PZ and others, but I'm going to disagree with you on this one. After reading Matt's post and PZ's, I have to say that PZ's comment was entirely appropriate. Sometimes, when someone is completely full of shit and out of line, you have to tell them honestly, and frankly, that he/she is full of shit and out of line. "Fuck you very much," really was an appropriate response to Matt's idiocy.
Posted by: tonyl | March 24, 2008 2:33 PM
So Nisbet doesn't want PZ or Dawkins to talk to the media and Sheril doesn't want PZ (and anyone, it sounds like) to ever say curse words on the "blogosphere" or in real life.
Poor Dawkins and PZ, pretty soon they're not going to be allowed to say anything to anyone at this rate.
Sheril, you are the one that needs to grow up. Real adults are mature enough to handle "that kind of language." If what PZ did was so unacceptable then Science Blogs would have punished him, and I'm pretty sure you do not speak for Science Blogs.
And claiming that there are commonalities within the "blogosphere" past the fact that blogs are written by humans just proves to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: mlf | March 24, 2008 2:34 PM
don't you kids have an internal message system for discussing such petty matters? I don't want to read about such childish drama.
Posted by: Joe | March 24, 2008 2:36 PM
This isn't the internal seekrit message system????? (looks around)
Posted by: PL | March 24, 2008 2:39 PM
The response was completely appropriate. When someone who knows fuck all about a subject tells me what to do, I will happily tell them to fuck off.
Posted by: Donalbain | March 24, 2008 2:39 PM
Real adults are mature enough to handle "that kind of language.
Yeah, but real adults don't want to have to deal with it. It's like spam - it gets in the way. It becomes so prevalent, that the signal-to-noise ratio of the discussion degrades to the point where there is no real communication. Just mindless apes flinging excrement.
Posted by: dm | March 24, 2008 2:40 PM
Did I miss the vote where Sheril got put in charge of what words people around the world can and cannot say ?
Only I don't think I did, it is the sort of thing one would remember.
So why then is she acting all high and mighty lay downing the law as what PZ can and cannot say ?
Come Sheril, stop acting so pious and let some air out of your ego before it bursts from over-inflation.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 2:43 PM
Apparently I do, too. That's very interesting. (It was directed at Chris, not Sheril, just in case that wasn't clear.) I'm not sure what else I could have used to express my meaning without getting into long-winded descriptions of a person who disapproves of naughty words for the sake of some kind of decency that's never really defined and likely not relevant or necessary and who is old and behind the times and... Can you think of anything? I'm happy to learn. I'd prefer not to be casually sexist.
Posted by: pough | March 24, 2008 2:46 PM
don't you kids have an internal message system for discussing such petty matters?
As my old boss used to tell arguing coworkers, "Get a room, guys." Once you've got the door closed you can pound the table all you want, and even say "fuck you, man," from time to time.
Posted by: Jon Winsor | March 24, 2008 2:46 PM
Bullshit. Obviously some real adults do want to "deal with it". It can sometimes be like SPAM, but often not. It has not become so prevalent that there is no real communication. Apes are not mindless.
Posted by: pough | March 24, 2008 2:52 PM
"Fuck" is not spam. It is not noise. In this case it was most definitely the message. PZ desired to express real, visceral annoyance at Matt and one of the ways the Englisgh language provides for doing that is saying "Fuck you".
Posted by: Donalbain | March 24, 2008 2:54 PM
Bullshit. Obviously some real adults do want to "deal with it". It can sometimes be like SPAM, but often not. It has not become so prevalent that there is no real communication. Apes are not mindless.
Oh Yeah? Well Fuck you too, dude! Kiss my ass.
(no offense - just trying to fit it ;)
Posted by: dm | March 24, 2008 2:57 PM
Could someone come up with a list of books and films Sheril should not read or see ?
Only if she so dislikes the word "fuck" she cannot see "Four Weddings and a Funeral", or read "Trainspotting". Both make liberal use of the word.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM
Although I don't think PZ should stay quiet on this whole matter, I do agree with Sheril and Chris that PZ stepped over the line.
Let's be clear - we have the facts and the empircal evidence on our side. We don't need to stoop to the level of Ann Coulter to make our point. Although it does make for entertaining blog reading, it also makes for some golden quote-mining opportunities for others who already have a fine-tuned spin machine.
Posted by: Timcol | March 24, 2008 3:03 PM
I see everyone else has already said it... still it bears repeating: OMGWTFBBQ -- oh noes!!!1! He said the F word!!!1! AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!eleventyone!
Untrue. He told him to, in effect, tell journalists who might ask to interview him about Expelledgate "I'm much too embarrassed to talk about it, please talk to the NCSE instead, or to a communication genius like the glorious Matt Nisbet."
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 24, 2008 3:04 PM
student_b:
Chris Mooney is a communicator of science to the general public. He gets paid specifically for having this gift. He relies on the ability of people to understand and comprehend what he writes and speaks (when on tours)to make money. Maybe people should, you know, listen to him. Give him a change. Just try it; if it doesn't work, so be it. But no, the reaction from the elite has been: "Chris does not have a PhD, let alone a science degree, how dareth this mere mortal try telling me, the great PZ, what I should do!!!! PZ smash Chris!!! AARRRGGHH!!!" Please let us know when you make some money selling science minded writings to non-science people. Oh, and to the old guard of science high-mindedness, thanks for being sooooo successful at communicating the importance of science to the general public. A+ Job!!!
Posted by: steve | March 24, 2008 3:04 PM
(It was directed at Chris, not Sheril, just in case that wasn't clear.)
Ups. Uh... eh... I really should have put more points into my reading comprehension skill.
I thought you meant Sheril, so sorry for that.
Still, I think that using old maid wasn't appropriate. Ok, maybe I'm just picky, but using old maid in this context (together with the comment about light beer) sounds like you meant to effeminate him. (The argument usually goes like this: old maid, light beer -> not a real man -> feminine -> thus a problem.) Old maid isn't something usually used on men after all. (It's like when someone calls a man a pussy, or a sissy and thus by application female -> bad.)
That's why I've objected. Is my reasoning understandable? Probably not, so I'll just shut up for now. It's off topic anyway. :/
Posted by: student_b | March 24, 2008 3:12 PM
Steve wrote: "Please let us know when you make some money selling science minded writings to non-science people."
Who do you think has sold many more "science minded writings to non-science people", Dawkins or Mooney?
Posted by: MH | March 24, 2008 3:17 PM
Recall that Nisbet and Mooney initiated this charade by accusing outspoken atheists like PZ and Dawkins of helping creationists. What PZ has said to Nisbet is kinder.
Posted by: llewelly | March 24, 2008 3:18 PM
Steve,
Can you point to any publication Chris has made that explains science to the public ?
I now he has published books on how the Republicans have tries to sideline science, and on the political response (or lack of) to global warming but those are not books explaining science to the public. They are books explaining parochial US responses to science, hardly the same thing.
Richard Dawkins though has written a number of books explaining aspects of evolution to the public, starting in 1976 with "The Selfish Gene".
Explainin science, which Dawkins does is not the same thing as writing about how science and politics collide. Dawkins has also written a book on the latter (The God Delusion) and the book he is currently writing will deal with creationist claims that evolution is "just a theory".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 3:18 PM
"Recall that Nisbet and Mooney initiated this charade by accusing outspoken atheists like PZ and Dawkins of helping creationists. What PZ has said to Nisbet is kinder."
Ah, you are falling into the trap of assuming that Chris and Sheril are tying to be even-handed. It is clear that Sheril has some kind of personal animus towards PZ, just as PZ has towards Nisbett. Unlike PZ, Sheril lack the integrity to admit it. PZ is not the first ScienceBlogger to tell someone to fuck off. If Sheril was really concerned about people telling each other to fuck off she would have taken those other ScienceBloggers to task when they did so. I have asked her for a link to the post where she did so. Her silence says it all really. She does not give a stuff about what wa s said, but about who said it to who.
And yes, I will admit. I do not like Sheril. I find her patronising and shrill.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm with PZ on this one. The f-word is a word like any other, and can be very effective when it comes to communicating. Further, having read what PZ was responding to, frankly, I think he showed far more restraint than many others with nastier tempers would have in the same situation.
And I'm sorry, but I think it's wrong and offensive to tell PZ and Dawkins to hush up and let the professionals deal with it.
It's not your story to tell - it's theirs.
Posted by: Katsu | March 24, 2008 3:33 PM
You know, I've been reading ScienceBlogs for years now, and I've seen no such attitude toward Chris. You're making this up out of whole cloth.
My perspective on this: I was a fan of Chris, ever since reading RWOS (I even got a copy signed at one of his readings). Sheril was a welcome addition to the blog. However, their posts about "framing" show a noticeable step down in quality and critical thinking. For someone who is supposed to "get" the framing thing, Nisbet does a miserable job of using it himself (his entire approach seems to be crying "you're doing it wrong" to people who command large audiences). You were better before you took up Matthew's cause, Chris and Sheril.
And you were very, very wrong on this one -- you should admit it, and then drop it.
Posted by: Davis | March 24, 2008 3:36 PM
When PZ told Nisbett "Fuck you very much, Matt. You know where you can stick your advice" is there anyone who is left in any doubt as to how PZ feels about Nisbett ? I should not think so, which would suggest that as a "frame" it was highly effective. If only the frame advocated by Nisbett and Mooney was as effective.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 3:37 PM
Except for a handful of comments here today, which show thought and interest, it seems that quite the 'fringe' element has come aboard. Name-calling and extreme rudeness, like little children do, is always a BIG TURNOFF!!! Shame on all you 'INTELLECTS'...
Posted by: Linda | March 24, 2008 3:38 PM
Give me coarse truth over mannered bullshit every time.
Posted by: H.H. | March 24, 2008 3:48 PM
"Except for a handful of comments here today, which show thought and interest, it seems that quite the 'fringe' element has come aboard. Name-calling and extreme rudeness, like little children do, is always a BIG TURNOFF!!! Shame on all you 'INTELLECTS'..."
Linda, did you bother to read what Nisbett wrote ? And if you did can you not see why PZ might have found it insulting ? And can you see why some of us think Chris and Sheril are not being even handed, in that they refuse to criticise Nisbett whilst critising PZ ? Do you not feel ashamed for not addressing those points ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 24, 2008 3:54 PM
Sheril,
I agree that PZ's response was impolite and crude. What exactly were you expecting?
Uh, have you never read his blog? Or is it alright when he treats people from say Climateaudit that way since they are "denialists"?
This has been an interesting little display of fratricidal combat over who gets to be the official "progressive" voice of science.
I'll sit back and watch. As John Stewart would say, while munching pop corn, "Yes. Go on!"
Posted by: Lance | March 24, 2008 3:55 PM
Linda said:
Except for a handful of comments here today, which show thought and interest, it seems that quite the 'fringe' element has come aboard. Name-calling and extreme rudeness, like little children do, is always a BIG TURNOFF!!! Shame on all you 'INTELLECTS'...
I'm intelligent enough to pay attention to the real SUBSTANCE of what someone is saying, whether or not their message contains profanities. If you turn your ears off to everything that's said once you hear an "unpleasant" word, than that's YOUR LOSS.
I guess, "The world is fucking round, you idiots!" is a bad message, cuz, you know, it contains the F-bomb. Therefore, you shut your ears off and refuse to listen to the message.
"The world is flat, ladies and gentlemen", is a message that you will happily listen to, because it's polite, and after all, politeness is all that counts.
What a tragedy that some people limit themselves in such a way. Like I said: your loss.
Posted by: snow dog | March 24, 2008 3:55 PM
My sentiments exactly.
The rabble swear. We do not. If we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard than they, how can we ever expect them to look to us as examples of emotionless rationality?
I will stand with you Chris, and echo your heartfelt words (well, they would be heartfelt if expressing emotion weren't so unscientific).
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to joylessly fornicate with a lab assistant.
Posted by: Brownian | March 24, 2008 3:57 PM
When I read PZ's "FU very much" comment, I thought it was surprisingly immature. However, it is becoming clear to me that it was the right response. Exchanging ideas without profanity is an admirable goal, but swearing may be the only appropriate response to something as stupid and offensive as Nisbet's post. Is there a better way to sufficiently offend him so that he goes away and takes his ridiculous appeasement strategies with him?
Posted by: jesustweak | March 24, 2008 3:57 PM
I think that Orac, Jake Young, and "Cool Aunt" Janet have got this situation exactly right. Nisbet and Mooney's conflation of "science vs. creationism" with exposing blatant hypocrisy is nothing but evidence of failure to think through the situation logically. Now this post and Chris's comments here are nothing but childish whinging.
After Nisbet first came to ScienceBlogs, I read several of his posts and then decided he didn't have much of substance to say. I liked Chris's posts that stuck to science, and I thought that the addition of Sheril to the blog was brilliant. I'm now revising those opinions and probably won't read this blog anymore. I definitely won't be buying any more of Chris's books.
Posted by: chezjake | March 24, 2008 3:58 PM
...Trainspotting...
Good movie. But it involves adolescents, not scientists with PHD's. Sick Boy is not your ideal front man in the struggle against the counter-Enlightenment...
Posted by: Jon Winsor | March 24, 2008 4:00 PM
I think most have missed pointing out that Matt also called Richard and PZ delusional and labeled their beliefs simplistic and unscientific without any evidence to back his conclusion.
It is a bit strange to denigrate their beliefs and then denigrate them for denigrating the beliefs of others.
Plus Chris and Sheril's spineless response to PZ and the commenters here - if you can't criticize Matt then don't criticize anyone - perhaps some cheese to go with their whine.
The whole issue is more complicated than any side is willing to admit. The difficulty for most people is living with uncertainty - people crave certainty and science can't provide that. Religion tries tending to reject uncertainty - ecumenism just doesn't sell well.
What we need to see is that more than one path is possible - as Daniel Berrigan and Thich Nhat Hanh titled their book "the raft is not the shore" - the concern is where we are going not how we get there.
Posted by: michaelf | March 24, 2008 4:00 PM
Oops meant "Jon" Stewart. No "h" of course. No doubt in the spirit of the current lovefest someone would take the opportunity to call me a "fucktard" for the typo.
Who am I kidding? I'm sure someone will anyway.
Posted by: Lance | March 24, 2008 4:02 PM
I recall that Ed Brayton of "Dispatches" once told PZ to eff-off, after PZ jumped on him (Ed) for criticizing Dawkins. Did you speak up then, Chris Mooney? (Sheril wasn't a co-blogger back then, I think).
I mean, I'm no big fan of this type of language, but even religious types like Rob Knopp occasionally resort to it (he even titled a post about PZ being an a$$hole, although he retracted it later). Did you get bent out of shape them and tsk tsk him? Zuska of Thus Spake Zuska has told many other bloggers here that they have their heads up their asses, and so on. So this sort of profane namecalling is not exactly new here on ScienceBlogs. It's all well and good for you to take the high, profanity-free road on your blog, but clearly some of your SciBlings don't feel the same obligation to avoid bad words and even, yes, namecalling.
Posted by: Adrienne | March 24, 2008 4:03 PM