Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2009 4:00 PM

Sheesh. Boo fucking hoo.

And whoever signed me up for the David Icke website, thanks. I need some crazy email to keep the ones from "Mr. Irrelevant" company in teh spam filter.

Posted by: Rick R | June 22, 2009 4:03 PM

Sensitive baby is sensitive.

And why do these jerks always want to unzip and whip out their lawyers?

Ooooooh. The internet is soooooo mean.

Posted by: H.H. | June 22, 2009 4:10 PM

He says he's European, and many of them seem to have a very different notion of what constitutes free speech than we Americans. Recall the man who was sued (successfully) in England for calling Chiropractic "bogus." Imagine if Petter actually did take legal action on the grounds that the comments here constitute "slander per se." So far Dawkins was almost outlawed from Oklahoma, but he would totally be jealous if Europe banned PZ from entering a country under hate speech laws!

Posted by: maureen Brian | June 22, 2009 4:11 PM

You're absolutely right, PZ. This place is for grown-ups - who may well be anywhere between 15 and 105 - who have worked out what they think, what more they want to know and how to stand up for themselves.

I sit here amazed sometimes at just how rude people can be - I mean of course those who want to convert us and those who want to change the rules of the game. Time and again they whizz in on an opening sentence saying, "you've got it all wrong" and head straight downhill from there.

Have no truck with them. Most of us like this place the way it is!

Posted by: ZK | June 22, 2009 4:13 PM

See Arkell vs Pressdram (1971) for one way of dealing with these legal pipsqueaks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylet/PI

Enjoy!

ZK

Posted by: rijkswaanvijand | June 22, 2009 4:13 PM

Don't know what you wankers all signed up for..
But could you please be so kind as to add my adress to the lesbian porn mailing list?

Thanks.. A lot!!!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2009 4:14 PM

Hey, I get those emails too, Rev! Do you also get the gay advocacy stuff, the lesbian porn, the Heritage Foundation newsletter, those cheery emails from Ken Ham, the lingerie catalogs, the black fashion magazines, and the mass mailings from WND? Among many others?

Gay advocacy.. check
Lesbian porn... um yeah, someone else sends those to me... um check
heritage foundation for sure
ken ham check
Was getting some hovind things for a while but those stopped
no magazines as of yet
and mass mailings from wnd yes
Bob Jones U and some other really strange ones.

Among some political ones from the creationista contingent here in SC

But this was the first ones about The Reptilian Blood line ruling the world, and the first in a while.

I don't think I've made fun of David Icke before, that I can remember. Not that I wouldn't.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 22, 2009 4:18 PM

My legal representative's bigger than your legal representative, Petter! Ner-ner-ne-ner-nerrrr!

Posted by: Tigerwolf | June 22, 2009 4:19 PM

Petter can't be that serious about lawyers. He didn't even ask for a camera!

^..^

Posted by: Akiko | June 22, 2009 4:19 PM

Having a degree does not make a person a scientist. Caling yourself a scientist does not exempt you from criticism from other scientists and non=scientists.

Posted by: Carlie | June 22, 2009 4:24 PM

Oh, man, I needed a laugh so badly. Thanks, PZ.
I feel a bit left out - I was insulting to Petter too, but since I didn't directly call him a poopyhead I guess it was too subtle for him to get.

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 4:25 PM

Well, Petter sounds like a Swedish name to me (Nickname for Peter). Here we have overly ambitious laws to protect personal integrity onlie called PUL.
I suppose he could have had them messing about in his head whilst writing the letter. Who knows.

Posted by: Nova | June 22, 2009 4:25 PM

@#4 and #7
True, but mostly your thinking of Britain's dysfunctional understanding of libel, not a Europe wide phenomenon. Though in general Europe does take a slightly different stance on free speech than the US but in a different way. This is to prevent situations like the Neo-Nazi parade through a Holocaust survivors camp that was allowed in the US a while back.

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 4:27 PM

Well, Petter sounds like a Swedish name to me (Nickname for Peter). Here we have overly ambitious laws to protect personal integrity onlie called PUL.
I suppose he could have had them messing about in his head whilst writing the letter. Who knows.

Posted by: Nanu Nanu | June 22, 2009 4:28 PM

Compared to some places on the internet what he got here were COMPLIMENTS.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 22, 2009 4:29 PM

Bummer, I feel so left out, got busy the last few days and didn't check back on that thread.

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 4:30 PM

Well, Petter sounds like a Swedish name to me (Nickname for Peter). Here we have overly ambitious laws to protect personal integrity onlie called PUL.
I suppose he could have had them messing about in his head whilst writing the letter. Who knows.

Posted by: franz dibbler | June 22, 2009 4:34 PM

I promise to use the word "flensing" at least once a day now. At first I misread it as "pubic flensing" but realize that be even more effective than a public flensing.

Posted by: pixelfish | June 22, 2009 4:34 PM

Poor Petter. Getting upset because he first takes on the mantle of All Scientists, and must suppress speech which might make scientists look rude. Likewise, taking all references to Christianity to include him. And having taken on the mantle of EVERYBODY, then gets upset when it is noted that SOME of people he wants to speak for have possibly committed human rights abuses.

Petter, great advances have been made since the days of Copernicus and Tycho and we now know the world does not revolve around you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 22, 2009 4:36 PM

Ooh! Ooh! Abuse me next! Abuse me next! I want attention, too!

You doo-doo head. Your mother dresses you funny. She parts your hair in a strange way too.

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 4:36 PM

Well, Petter sounds like a Swedish name to me (Nickname for Peter). Here we have overly ambitious laws to protect personal integrity onlie called PUL.
I suppose he could have had them messing about in his head whilst writing the letter. Who knows.

Posted by: littlejohn | June 22, 2009 4:38 PM

What? You get lesbian porn? God lord man, share! You know my address.

Posted by: Carlie | June 22, 2009 4:39 PM

I promise to use the word "flensing" at least once a day now.

I will never in my life be able to hear the word "flensing" without thinking of Judy Blume.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 22, 2009 4:39 PM

Dear Brother Petter,

I am sorry your feelings are hurt. It is indeed a rough and tumble world and I blame your mother for letting you out in it without full body armor. What were you thinking coming to Pharyngula? As Brother Padraic used to say to me at the Christian Brothers' orphanage, "If you play with matches you're going to get burned." (Brother P's preference for burning was usually candle wax on tender body parts.)

Will it make you feel any better Petter if I say that I too am hurt? I did my best to write something that would offend you, and it seems to have gone right over your stylishly coiffed European head. You don't mention my post at all in your complaint, and I am gutted. Next time I will go for a more ad hominem approach when dealing with your continental brethren. Would something along these lines bring me to their notice? "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

Yours in mutual woundedness,

Smoggy

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 4:42 PM

Well, Petter sounds like a Swedish name to me (Nickname for Peter). Here we have overly ambitious laws to protect personal integrity online called PUL.
I suppose he could have had them messing about in his head whilst writing the letter. Who knows.

Posted by: Richie P | June 22, 2009 4:42 PM

Boy, the posters here don't mess about do they. I'm an ardent Atheist, but even I'm thinking that I might have to start double checking everything I type on here! Maybe I will spend most of my time on the more sedate sites, like Richarddawkins.net, and slowly summon up the courage to post here.

Okay, Petter may not have been the brightest spark (and, yes, it seems a bit of a crybaby), but that was pretty ruthless treatment it has to be said (nature red in tooth and claw anyone??). It makes me wonder how you guys would respond to somebody saying "Microevolution is a fact, but macroevolution is faith" or some such nonsense. Just for a point of reference, does anybody know how Christian fundamentalist sites respond when an Atheist pops up and starts asking a few inconvenient questions?

Posted by: rijkswaanvijand | June 22, 2009 4:44 PM

Just pictures?
Was looking forward to some serious reading and data comparison.

Damned lesbians!

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 22, 2009 4:44 PM

True, but mostly your thinking of Britain's dysfunctional understanding of libel, not a Europe wide phenomenon.

Yah, I was wondering to what extent the (IMHO wacky) British notion of libel was typical of the rest of Europe. I did know that Germany has some draconian (by U.S. standards) laws regarding pro-Nazi speech, but I wasn't sure to what extent the principles embodied in our own First Amendment are legally protected in various parts of Europe.

BTW, please don't take this as some sort of American-exceptionalist self-back-patting about free speech (that happened to me once long, long ago on an internet forum far, far, away); instead, this is me humbly admitting how little I know about European law, and asking to be educated.

Posted by: blf | June 22, 2009 4:49 PM

Dear Petter,

You're a Potatohead.

Sincerely yours.

P.S. Pffffft!

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 4:51 PM

@Alex.

Nah, I think I'm done now. Worst commenting system ever.

Posted by: rijkswaanvijand | June 22, 2009 4:51 PM

"Just for a point of reference, does anybody know how Christian fundamentalist sites respond when an Atheist pops up and starts asking a few inconvenient questions?"

Ever tried getting your questions posted AT ALL at an ID and/or C site?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 22, 2009 4:54 PM

It makes me wonder how you guys would respond to somebody saying "Microevolution is a fact, but macroevolution is faith" or some such nonsense.

Oh, no need to guess, just stick around for a few days. It's inevitable that some xian fundie troll will pop in with just such a claim, and you can watch as the sharks descend with sharp, pointy teeth. It's fun sport, if a little repetitive.

Just for a point of reference, does anybody know how Christian fundamentalist sites respond when an Atheist pops up and starts asking a few inconvenient questions?

no need to check the fundie sites, you can see the knee jerk irrationality to atheism even on any site that harbors the religious. Even Panda's Thumb.

Atheists are the most hated group in the world, dontchya know.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 22, 2009 4:59 PM

He's right about a certain subpopulation here, who probably would be that way with or without the encouragement of the occasional spasms of the owner of this site; that said, that doesn't help.

I've been accused of worse (not by PZ himself, to be sure) of worse, by people who usually don't engage in reading and/or critical thinking before opening their mouths and proving the vacuousness that they should have kept in hiding.

Given that Petter is European and probably isn't religious, the lie factor of epithets like "christofacist" is quite high. Another reason I delinked Pharyngula from my blog some time ago.

A lot of good things get posted here by the owner, but, sometimes, his "meat three days old" posts draw a lot of flies.

Posted by: Stu | June 22, 2009 5:02 PM

But Scandinavians are often very thin-skinned and whiny (I am one of them myself, and it's a pain sometimes).

I thought that was just me when I used to get in fights with Swedes ALL the time back in my MUDding days.

Of course, the Dutch are even worse. Trust me, I am one.

Posted by: Leanstrum | June 22, 2009 5:05 PM

Which thread is all this referring to? Sounds juicy...

Posted by: alextangent | June 22, 2009 5:08 PM

The comments wouldn't be considered libelous (not slander; that's spoken) in the UK. Petter has no public standing that could be defamed.

Posted by: Sili | June 22, 2009 5:09 PM

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to register a complaint:

In your latest missive from a WATB the wanker in question failed to use the customary salutation of "Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to register a complaint." and as such should never have been considered worthy of any attention.

Yours in palæe-Christ,
- Sili

--------------

Please tell me I was the only one who immediately went to check what comment #191 said? I was sorta disappointed.

Mmmmmh - bacon-candiru.

Posted by: raven | June 22, 2009 5:10 PM

Petter the whimpering moron troll:

A copy of this mail has been sent to my legal representative, in case further actions would be necessary.

OOOOOHHHHHHH!!!! SUE ME!!!! SUE ME!!!! PLEASE, SUE ME!!!!!

Petter, you are a utter failure. Real xians don't threaten to sue people. THEY THREATEN TO KILL THEM IN IMAGINATIVE AND HORRIBLE WAYS.. ALONG WITH THEIR CHILDREN AND PETS.

Kids these days are so clueless. Do sue though if it makes you feel good. And feel free to post more of your stupid nonsense so we can make fun of it.

But really, I think a good cry and some beer would be more likely to cheer you up.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 22, 2009 5:12 PM

It makes me wonder how you guys would respond to somebody saying "Microevolution is a fact, but macroevolution is faith"

yeah, 'cause that never happens around here *eyeroll*

p.s. Markus posted the same comment seven times!
Rev, is that a new record?

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | June 22, 2009 5:13 PM

Do we even have a fainting couch, here? Do we need to install one?

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 5:17 PM

@Nominal Egg
I have nothing to say sorry for. The system is badly designed when you get an error message and yet your comment is published. I surely can't be the only one not to read the full error message? Do you read the full legal-information when installing software on your computer or do you skip that when accustomed to the consequences?

Hopefully they make an effort and design a better system and better dialog.

Posted by: The Count | June 22, 2009 5:18 PM

Speaking of flensing, I think the Kalu'ak Traditional Flensing Knife is one of the best blue daggers around and can take you quite a long way until you find better. Plus, they're not unique so you can use two of them. The price is right too!

Posted by: QrazyQat | June 22, 2009 5:20 PM

Perhaps he might prefer "Petter you ignorant slut..."

And Petter, it's a joke, from SNL; go type SNL and the above phrase into Google before you clutch them pearls.

Then look up "pearl clutchers".

Posted by: Dutchdoc | June 22, 2009 5:21 PM

"The system is badly designed when you get an error message and yet your comment is published"

Oh LOOK, someone is trying to out-whine Petter! ;-)

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 5:24 PM

Holy shit, Markus! Are you really that dense?

I surely can't be the only one not to read the full error message?

Posted by: Larry | June 22, 2009 5:25 PM

Where's that bacon again?

Posted by: Sonic Screwdriver | June 22, 2009 5:29 PM

A large part of the reason I read this blog is to follow the often insightful, knowledgeable readers flame the living fuck outta a dissenter.

You guys kill me.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 22, 2009 5:33 PM

I love it when people on the internet talk about suing for defamation (or whatever). Obviously, they've got zero real experience with lawyers, or they'd have an approximate idea of what it costs to start a lawsuit - well - very few of us would consider our pride to be worth that kind of money. And, if it's international, the costs go orbital pretty quickly.

When someone posts flatulations about "consulting my counsel" or "Cc; my attorney" or whatever, you can mentally substitute a big picture of a red rubber stamp that reads "LAMER" over top of it.

Posted by: Richie P | June 22, 2009 5:33 PM

I think the comment system is okay. Just make sure that you give the screen some time to load and then read the text on the next page.

Posted by: blf | June 22, 2009 5:34 PM

[I]t's not even CALLED an 'error' message anywhere.

Not quite correct. The title of the page is “Submission error”.

What I found stupid about the fool's piss-poor excuse for not reading a single bold sentence was comparing it to a legal notice. It's more like ignoring the flashing “Brake” light on a car: You can do it, if you want to win the Darwin Award.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 5:42 PM

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 5:32 PM

I have a 'tab' open where I submitted a comment and several other 'tabs' open with other activities...My full focus isn't on the Pharanguyla tab when submitting takes three minutes. Sorry if I ruined your week.

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 5:50 PM

@Nominal Egg

I wasn't talking to you.

Posted by: Travis | June 22, 2009 5:56 PM

Markus, sure you are not the only one, lots of people have been double and triple posting, but that does not mean no one should criticize people for doing it. How much more clear can it be? I guess they could write the sentence asking people not to repost in 72 size font, but come on, it's bold, it is easy to see.

When you get an error read the damn thing.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 22, 2009 5:58 PM

You are only making this situation worse for yourself Mr. Myers Petter.

Posted by: Dutchdoc | June 22, 2009 6:00 PM

"You are only making this situation worse for yourself Mr. Myers."

Troll. Fake. Nobody can be THAT dense.

Posted by: maureen Brian | June 22, 2009 6:02 PM

Petter,

When you are a guest in someone's home do you threaten them and tell them how to behave? No?

Well, the same applies to someone's personal blog, which this one is though we sometimes forget that 'cos we're enjoying ouselves so much.

Think about it!

Posted by: SC, OM | June 22, 2009 6:04 PM

Of course, if someone starts harrassing me with futile legal documents, I can fill in those blanks.

I really hope you never would. That's not the same as threats of violence.

Posted by: Chalmer Wren | June 22, 2009 6:07 PM

"My name is Peter. I have the right not to be offended or insulted, and I demand you censor anyone who hurts my feelings becuase I have a fragile but inflated sense of self-worth"

Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 22, 2009 6:09 PM

@rijkswaanvijand

You don't need Dr. Myers to forward creamy, airbrushed skin to you. If you can find your way to Pharyngula, you can find lesbian porn on the Internet. Or so I hear...

Posted by: ZK | June 22, 2009 6:12 PM

#110 Petter Kw*k?

Na, he's not been by to humble us with details of the kindergarten he attended, the not-really-famous people that he knows the names of, the classical music concerts he attends, or threats of dissing PZ to his FB friends.

ZK

Posted by: Chalmer Wren | June 22, 2009 6:16 PM

Sorry, I meant Petter! Please don't sue me!

Posted by: Roger | June 22, 2009 6:21 PM

@Markus: stop being an obtuse douchebag. Actually, this goes for Petter as well.

Posted by: raven | June 22, 2009 6:26 PM

Petter the demented, whimpering, whining failed xian terrorist troll:

Posted by: Petter | June 22, 2009 5:53 PM

You are only making this situation worse for yourself Mr. Myers.

Petter stop lying. You are not even a graduate student. It is Dr. Myers, not Mr. Myers. Anyone who attended college would know that.

And stop with the wimp threats. No one gets excited around here until a xian terrorist threatens mass murder. Which they do often.

And where is my lawsuit? Cough it up!!!!

Need better trolls. This xian terrorist wannabe would probably fill a Molotov cocktail with water, light the fuse, and go "EEEEKKKKKK".

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 22, 2009 6:27 PM

Posted by: skyotter | June 22, 2009 4:07 PM

i've never been abused here! i feel so left out ...

Okay; here goes.

Your socks are too loose. You use your left things for purposes generally reserved for the right hand. Your marshmallows are stale and rat-bitten. Your tattoo has faded and looks like a flower instead of a hammer.

I would fart in your general direction, but the intertubes aren't really "tubes."

Posted by: bastion of sass | June 22, 2009 6:29 PM

Cicely wrote @ # 81:

Do we even have a fainting couch, here? Do we need to install one?

The only couch I'm aware of in Pharynguland is Patricia's spanking couch.

And, I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly hope that Patricia wouldn't invite some whining, wearisome, weak-kneed, whimpering, wishy-washy, whinger like Petter to share the spanking couch with the rest of us!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 22, 2009 6:34 PM

too late. already posted.

Damn, you have to be quick here.

Posted by: pdferguson | June 22, 2009 6:35 PM

Geez, this guy Petter is a real piece of work. You'd think someone had made a rude joke about A-Rod knockin' up his daughter...

Posted by: Scrabcake | June 22, 2009 6:36 PM

Oh, come on. This bloke needs his internet license revoked. I'm surprised the mean people online haven't driven him to suicide. Afterall, Pharyngula's one of the more civilized corners of the internet. He's lucky he hasn't landed in with the 4chan crowd yet.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 22, 2009 6:44 PM

You are only making this situation worse for yourself Mr. Myers.

LOL. Classic.

I don't know if that's the real "Petter", though...

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 22, 2009 6:46 PM

First that whiny dude reports you to the Richard Dawkins Foundation forums and the Internet Police, and now this guy COPIES HIS LAWYER on an email?

O, truly these are the end times for Pharyngula! Repent, PZ!

(And by "repent," I of course mean "laugh and crack open a beer.")

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 6:47 PM

Markus,
You really don't get it, do you?
All you have to do is say "Sorry about the multiple postings. I fucked up, it won't happen again."
But you can't do that, can you?
Instead you blame the system. The same system we all use, and have learned to deal with.

Maybe PZ:s way of communicating really does foster a certain attitude amongst the faithful.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 22, 2009 6:49 PM

*high-fives Nominal Egg*

Posted by: george.w | June 22, 2009 6:56 PM

@60 LinzeeBinzee: "I would really love to see this Petter (or anyone who has gotten their ass handed to them by PZ) come back here and say something like "I'm sorry, you're right, I've learned my lesson." That would be the day."

I'll say that. When I first discovered Pharyngula, I was new to blogging and still had delusions that Christians might be simply wrong but arguing in good faith. And said so, suggesting more moderate responses in hopes of dialog in good faith. And PZ handed me my ass.

Off I went in a huff, only to learn the hard way on my own blog that Christians weren't arguing in good faith, that what they deserved was ridicule, scorn, and a good flensing. Maybe Petter will figure this out too.

Anyway, I'm sorry, you're right. I've learned my lesson.

Posted by: sasqwatch | June 22, 2009 6:58 PM

#97: Dutchdoc

> PZ: can you have your post 'timeout' message changed into:
> "GOT IT! DO NOT NOT NOT NOT resubmit your comment .. EVER"

Bad idea... there are four "NOTs", making that statement a quadruple negative. The really nitpicky logicians could take that message to mean "resubmit your comment".

But seriously... the mistake is made often enough that it is worth looking into. I third the motion, suggesting a first sentence saying that your message has been received, and a second saying do NOT resubmit (note the way NOT sticks out, when it is the only word in caps). That way, the message should register as a "SUCCESS" message, rather then an error or warning message. Maybe even a big fat word SUCCESS in caps at the top would help.

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 7:04 PM

@Falyne,FCD
How can you not read "Nah, I think I'm done now." As a self-deprecation referring to my own failed ability to grasp the error message? It's really a stretch to read it any other way. And following that with expressing my annoyance with the commenting system I feel is entirely justified.

It saddens me that the high fives seem to be what you are here for, not the communication.

Posted by: Stu | June 22, 2009 7:07 PM

while the thought that the person in question might not speak English natively doesn't appear to cross their minds.

Pardon me, but fuck that. I bothered to learn semi-functional English before venturing out into the Intertubes to comment on an English blog, and I'll be damned if I let this decrepit ESL excuse slip by. If you can't make yourself understood in English, stick to blogs in your native tongue until you do.

Fuck I hate that shit.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 22, 2009 7:18 PM

oh FFS Markus, we ALL get that message. and NOT reading even the first sentence of the error message is pathetic. especially after getting it 7 times

Posted by: ProfBlakehurst | June 22, 2009 7:19 PM

bastion of sass wrote @ #131 :

"The only couch I'm aware of in Pharynguland is Patricia's spanking couch."

There's a spanking couch ??

I just knew I'd like the crowd here...

Posted by: sasqwatch | June 22, 2009 7:20 PM

...oh. I forgot to post something on-topic to add to the heap.

Petter, you are indeed a paragon of limp-wristed Nancy-boyishness -- a huffy, spunky husk of a churl. I think that does it for now.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 22, 2009 7:24 PM

sasqwatch, they DID look into it. so now we have two alternating messages. one that says your comment has been submitted, and the old one as well :-p

Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 22, 2009 7:31 PM

Some of the comments seem to suggest that Petter is Scandinavian- either Swedish or Norwegian, insinuating that the two countries were equally whiny.

When I was in Norway, I was taught that the fundamental difference between the three Scandinavian countries could be summed up by their response to a child falling off a bicycle.

A Dane will pick the kid up, cuddle him, maybe give him a candy to make him stop crying, or kiss the scraped knee better.

A Swede will do the same, and then form a safety committee to make sure that such a thing never happens again.

A Norwegian will tell the kid to stop crying and get back on the bike.

Posted by: sasqwatch | June 22, 2009 7:34 PM

Well fuggit then, if that's the best they're going to do. An interface designer myself, I've learned the messages have to look, smell and taste like what they are (good, bad, indifferent) in addition to the actual prose saying what you want it to say. It's a tall order, to be sure. The timeout message, despite what it says, rubs me as an error message, probably due to the word "timeout" being the biggie that catches the eye. It's a design issue I'd address if it was my place to do so.

Posted by: truthspeaker | June 22, 2009 7:36 PM

Cyan: That was an excellent post, except you meant "led", not "lead".

If you are not a native English speaker I will forgive the error.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 7:48 PM

Markus,
Sarcasm will not help you swallow your pride. Why can't you just admit your mistake like an adult, and learn from it?

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 22, 2009 7:50 PM

This guest star, Petter, is simply delightful. I hope he becomes a recurring character on the blog :) And I'm so disappointed not to see anything substantive from him on this page! I don't think that "Petter" up there was actually him, because that was kind of painfully stupid.
In other news, Markus becomes more pathetic by the post, and I am embarrassed for him. :( Markus, seriously, maybe you should go cool off or something? You're getting pretty defensive and juvenile.

Posted by: JoeSchmoe | June 22, 2009 8:04 PM

@Markus
Just FYI - you might not want to post screenshots of your system containing personally identifiable information such as email addresses in them.

This might be especially important if you're planning on being really annoying and argumentative toward those to whom you're presenting the screenshot.

Just a suggestion...

Posted by: Hairhead | June 22, 2009 8:07 PM

Markus, your posts (all those after the unfortunate repetition, which actually had a point) ARE communicative. They are communicating that you are an insecure, pompous, careless, doofus (not a jerk, a doofus) whose inability to admit a mistake is a significant personality fault, and likely a career impediment.

And the other commenters are communicating to you their knowledge of these facts; and they are advising you well. If you don't change your tone you will likely be spitted and roasted every time you post.

Oh, and as for resubmitting. I did that, too. Once. Then I said I was sorry and didn't do it again.

Posted by: Petter | June 22, 2009 8:08 PM

This post and the comments should be required reading before anyone comments on this blog. Very informative, in a good way. A bit like the traitor's head on a pike at the medieval city gates.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 8:10 PM

@Nominal Egg Read what I write and communicate/argue. Your posts are more repetitive than mine ffs.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 22, 2009 8:13 PM

Dear Petter: Please address all future correspondence to my lawyers, Phuque, Auph and Dai.

I prefer the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 8:15 PM

Sounds like a lot of bullies trying to make themselves not feel bad about using a lot of ad hominem and otherwise ineffective arguments against someone. Publishing the letter for further ridicule is just even more childish.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 22, 2009 8:17 PM

Sal, my dear, do learn the difference between an ad hominem and an insult.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 22, 2009 8:21 PM

@Markus,
what you wrote immediately after posting the same post seven times was:

@Alex.

Nah, I think I'm done now. Worst commenting system ever.

Why is anybody else supposed to apologize to you, again?

Posted by: Hairhead | June 22, 2009 8:25 PM

Markus. I was civil. I didn't curse or accuse you of sexual improprieties. I don't know anything about you but what you have posted; and what you have posted, in my opinion, demonstrates the personality traits I listed. You're looking a bigger fool all the time. That you seem not to realize this only provides greater support for my characterization -- either that, or you are a troll employing the "disingenuous doofus" strategy.

Posted by: Markus | June 22, 2009 8:27 PM

@Brain Hertz,Nominal Egg
Until you actually try to engage with what I write instead of circle jerking I really don't know what to do. Looking for something that might fill your apology quota? try #151. Not good enough? Not my problem.
You guys are like pit bulls, after you bite you wont fucking quit. I wonder if this is the kind of community PZ is fostering. How sad.

Posted by: Brad Walters | June 22, 2009 8:30 PM

Don't get me wrong, this guy is obviously a whiny bee-otch, but I do think the comment about his poor grammar was a tad ignorant. I am guessing that English is not his first language, but it is a typical American assumption that everyone should speak (or type) fluently no matter where they come from. Valuable lessons learned: The US is not the center of the universe (well maybe if you're a flat earther) and nobody likes the grammar police.

Posted by: Jessa | June 22, 2009 8:33 PM

I would like to register a complaint:

My white wine isn't cold enough.

Posted by: Hairhead | June 22, 2009 8:39 PM

Markus, you're proving you're a troll, which I speculated upon in my last post. Proofs? Well . . .

In #191 you called commenters here a bunch of circle-jerkers. Oh, yes, really effective communication there.

In #191 you also did the Concern Troll thing, i.e. "I wonder if this is the kind of community PZ is fostering. How sad."

How sad that you are concerned for PZ. And us. The circle-jerkers.

And of course, referring to your snark of #151 as an "apology" when it was nothing of the kind . . .

You are what you are, Markus, and all of us here know it.

Except for you. Pardon, I just gotta laugh.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 22, 2009 8:42 PM

Markus,
[rolls eyes]

I ready your #151 the first time. And no, your first response doesn't read as any sort of self-depracating mea culpa. It reads as blaming the comment system, which is what you've done ever since.

Posting a screenshot of the timeout page and circling the parts saying "timeout" and "error" (and ignoring the bolded text saying "please do not submit your comment again") was a nice touch.

All the while you seem entirely oblivious to how you're coming across here.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 22, 2009 8:46 PM

PZ, could the comments by Petter on this thread have been made by Dr. K? Sounds like his MO.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2009 8:54 PM

Well, I don't think there is more for me to say in this community so I'll go somewhere else and make everybody happy. It sure was an adventure. I'm sorry I've wasted your time. That will have to do.

Be nice.

Should PZ be expecting an email?

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 22, 2009 8:54 PM

Oh no, Markus! Please don't go! How will we survive without your valuable and insightful commentary????

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 8:55 PM

Markus, your comment @ 61:

Nah, I think I'm done now. Worst commenting system ever.

I have nothing to say sorry for. The system is badly designed when you get an error message and yet your comment is published. I surely can't be the only one not to read the full error message? Do you read the full legal-information when installing software on your computer or do you skip that when accustomed to the consequences?
Hopefully they make an effort and design a better system and better dialog.

I have a 'tab' open where I submitted a comment and several other 'tabs' open with other activities. My subject line gives me an error message, I don't know where you are coming from with this (I don't use the TypeKey login)? My full focus isn't on the Pharanguyla tab when submitting takes three minutes.

So we come to #151:

How can you not read "Nah, I think I'm done now." As a self-deprecation referring to my own failed ability to grasp the error message? It's really a stretch to read it any other way. And following that with expressing my annoyance with the commenting system I feel is entirely justified.

Not good enough?

Posted by: Lynna | June 22, 2009 9:00 PM

@158: Where I live, they don't just ask me if I'm happy and if I have enough friends, they ask me if I'd like to meet some really nice Mormon men so that I would no longer have to be alone.

But I already have somebody. (This will come as a shock to Smoggy.) I have Floyd Rubber. This seems like a good time to confess that Floyd and I have been seeing each other (biblically) for some time.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 9:02 PM

Damn, Markus left?
What a coward.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 22, 2009 9:03 PM

But I already have somebody. (This will come as a shock to Smoggy.) I have Floyd Rubber. This seems like a good time to confess that Floyd and I have been seeing each other (biblically) for some time.

But...but...but...Lynna, Smoggy has been lusting after you since you were ten. Surely 23 years of unrequited lust should count for something.

Posted by: Lynna | June 22, 2009 9:10 PM

But...but...but...Lynna, Smoggy has been lusting after you since you were ten. Surely 23 years of unrequited lust should count for something.

Another confession: I was the one that arranged for Floyd and Smoggy to room together at the Big House. I've ached for Smoggy as long as he has lusted after me. I couldn't get to him, so I sent Floyd. All those vicarious love fests!

Oh, 'Tis, so nice of you to confirm that Smoggy loved my leggy coltish girlishness. But 23 years ... oh my -- too long to wait. I think I need a hit of chocolate, preferably melted.

Maybe it's not too late. Smoggy and Hypatia's Daughter have matrimonial plans, but Hypatia has already hinted at polygamy. Hope!

Posted by: Lynna | June 22, 2009 9:12 PM

I like the way the error message says, "Were you trying to submit a comment?" And then it doesn't let me answer the question.

Posted by: Lynna | June 22, 2009 9:15 PM

Does anyone know how old Petter is? Maybe his frontal lobes are not yet fully developed. I'd like to cut him some slack, but that's the only excuse I could come up with for him.

Posted by: Lynna | June 22, 2009 9:19 PM

@218: Right! So we gotta have the annoying submission window -- at least let us answer the fucking question. Damned Straight I was trying to submit a comment!

Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 9:22 PM

I don't want my opinions to be "equal" to that of every person in the world; I want them to be based on the best reasoning possible based on the best information available.

Here, when others think that you aren't in possession of the best information, they aprise you of the information they have. Here, when others think that you are not reasoning most logically, they are quick to tell you why.

Comparing those comments to your initial statements allows you either to adjust your thinking or to better articulate the thought processes that lead to your initial statements.

Either way, comments help you to refine and strengthen your thinking.

This is the internet, and above all else this represents choice on the part of the consumer. I know it sounds crass, but if you don't like it then go somewhere you do like. No-one is forcing you to be on here, and you can escape this environment with but a single click.

So if you want your opinions to be respected, go somewhere else. Here it only matters how well you can argue and justify your position, and if you don't add something then people are going to jump all over you. Yet in all that, I've learnt so much about science from being here. I've learnt how to better communicate and argue more effectively. That's because people aren't afraid to call me out if I'm talking shit. And that's regardless of whether I'm a Ph.D biologist or a high school drop-out. What matters is not your qualification, but your knowledge and ability to communicate.

To take the sentiments of a former New Scientist editor - "This place is interesting, and if you don't like it you can fuck off!"

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 9:32 PM

now THAT would be quite the poll to pharyngulate ;-)

Posted by: bam | June 22, 2009 9:37 PM

@86

Yep, I used mine to level Daggers so I could get the Master of Arms Achievement. Very nice little knife and I was farming that faction anyway to get the fishing pole which is teh Sweet.

Oh, wait... we are supposed to be deconstructing the crybaby, right?

Posted by: Lynna | June 22, 2009 9:44 PM

I thought it may cheer some people up, but my caffeine starved brain read that as "all of our bonobos will be kissed better". I was immensly cheered at the thought of all those happy bonobos.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | June 22, 2009 9:48 PM

Dear Petter,
It is a regret that you have opted for brevity. You are worth a thousand jokes.
Please don't deny me a few laughs.

Posted by: DLC | June 22, 2009 9:56 PM

Uh huh.
"Dear Sir/Madam: I demand an Apology for something you didn't do. Furthermore, I insist that you put yourself out on my behalf, because I wear my feelings on my wrist am a passive-aggressive manipulative jerk, and I'll cry to mommy/Daddy/My Lawyer/Wile E Coyote/Jesus if I don't get my way.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter
I'll pray for you.
signed Fuckhead."

Posted by: Last Hussar | June 22, 2009 9:58 PM

Welcome to another edition of

"Why the World hates the US." The Atheists and the left sound no different to the small minded wankers on the right. Thanks for giving the rest of us a bad name.

No where did Petter imply that the survival of the patient. In fact in the above post he made it quite clear that he was anti ID. Yet he was called a 'Christofacsist troll' for asking for a bit of tolerance towards those who prayed. He never said it did any good, he just said don't heap hate on those you have never met and who did no harm. They didn't refuse treatment, they just prayed along side.

We all know praying does no good, but in a time of trauma it made them feel better.

I look forward to any of you meeting your president and telling him he is a christofacist troll who is too stupid to hold office.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 22, 2009 10:09 PM

Last Hussar, your concern is noted. Do you want a cookie?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 22, 2009 10:15 PM

Last Hussar squealed:

Welcome to another edition of "Why the World hates the US." The Atheists and the left sound no different to the small minded wankers on the right. Thanks for giving the rest of us a bad name.

What does the US have to do with it? No small percentage of the posters here aren't from (or in) the US and yet plenty of us thought Petter was a vapid turd and many of us said so.

So, take your inane, poorly-thought-out concern trolling and cram it in your ass. With walnuts.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 22, 2009 10:22 PM

So, take your inane, poorly-thought-out concern trolling and cram it in your ass. With walnuts.

What a waste of walnuts.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 22, 2009 10:30 PM

Welcome to another edition of

"Why the World hates the US." The Atheists and the left sound no different to the small minded wankers on the right. Thanks for giving the rest of us a bad name.

Your concern is noted.

But why do you think we're all Americans?

Posted by: Eidolon | June 22, 2009 10:35 PM

For Markus - where ever he/she/it may be:

Submission Timeout

Were you trying to submit a comment?

If you were, please don't submit your comment again.

Poor sod...cannae read.

Posted by: articulett | June 22, 2009 10:38 PM

Can we ridicule people who spell ridicule wrong?

Petter's letter brings to mind Scientology's legal threats as well Uri Gellers threats to Randi, youtube's votbot-abuse censoring of atheists, and the Chiropractic abuse of libel laws to silence Simon Singh.

Petter, attempting to silence your critics just tends to make your critics louder, you know-- and more certain that you are quite deserving of the criticism. How about proving your critics wrong with things like integrity, honesty, facts, --oh, and while you are at it, why don't you try receiving criticisms of yourself in the same manner you expect your criticism of others to be received? It would make you sound much less like a whining hypocrite.

(Alas, I suspect my unasked for advice will be as unwelcome to you as yours is to PZ and others.)

Frankly, I've developed a rather thick skin and enjoy these verbal jousts... even when threatened... especially when threatened, perhaps, because it makes me committed to making sure I (and those who think as I do) have the same freedom of speech as their critics. Often the highlight of day comes from reading the pharyngulites responses to people like yourself. I especially love it when cuttlefish immortalizes the issue in biting comic verse.

Posted by: articulett | June 22, 2009 10:42 PM

Pharyngulites versus another Bozo Sapien-- can anything be more entertaining? All this plus lots-o-education-- for free!

Posted by: SC, OM | June 22, 2009 10:52 PM

...for asking for a bit of tolerance towards those who prayed. He never said it did any good, he just said don't heap hate on those you have never met and who did no harm. They didn't refuse treatment, they just prayed along side.

We all know praying does no good, but in a time of trauma it made them feel better.

Perhaps some people missed the first sentence of Petter's opening screed (even though PZ linked to it in the post above). Are these portions of comments invisible to you?

Perhaps they also missed that the central point of the post was not that the family prayed, but that the friggin' Catholic Church is sending someone to investigate the miraculousness of the guy's recovery (which required the hard work of numerous medical professionals who are being ignored - worse, they're going to be interviewed by this ridiculous representative) as part of the process of making some guy a saint, while the family basks in the glory of their "Miracle" and claims his survival is due in part to this dead guy.

Posted by: Monado | June 22, 2009 10:59 PM

I always liked the (probably apocryphal) tale of the American who sued for slander when someone called him a "24-karat bastard." The jury found that he was, in fact, a 24-karat bastard.

Anything that satisfying has to be made up.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | June 22, 2009 11:19 PM

Mewonders which type of furniture Petter resembles (as well as its level of sobriety)...

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 22, 2009 11:25 PM

Yeah, yeah, rc, but Markus already admitted that he didn't read the error message and even blessed us with a screenshot of it, so...

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 22, 2009 11:32 PM

Carlie, nominal egg and all you others who get so pissed at multiple postings here:

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 22, 2009 11:55 PM

Posted by: Carlie | June 22, 2009 8:57 PM

Oh, don't flounce, Markus.

Um, Carlie, you seem to be forgetting that some of we regulars are habitual flouncers and bouncers.

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | June 23, 2009 1:36 AM

It's one thing to be an assertive asshole. That probably describes a lot of proud people quite well, myself included. It's another thing to make stupid asshole arguments that don't actually address any points.

So be assholes. Just make sure you spew solids, not diarrhea.

Posted by: antistokes | June 23, 2009 2:24 AM

@153, re: "If you can't make yourself understood in English, stick to blogs in your native tongue
until you do."

It doesn't just happen online! I've read many a peer reviewed science article containing all kinds of
grammar errors (usually not spelling).

As the only english speaker in my current (German) department, I've been asked on multiple occasions to proof a manuscript that received the dreaded reviewer's comment,
"paper needs to be proofread by a native english paper".
It's a bigger problem in the weekly/daily publications like J. Chem. Phys. and Optical Letters, where they're just trying to push articles though, than in the biggies such as JMB and Science.

Posted by: antistokes | June 23, 2009 2:40 AM

er, that is, "native english SPEAKER". Gah. Me talk pretty one day...after i've had my caffeine....

Posted by: Pascalle | June 23, 2009 2:50 AM

When i first came here, i had a head full of thoughts and ideas. I was rather new to the whole evolution and science "thing". Not that i was a believer, i never was, but there is a big difference between "having some ideas about stuff" and "having read articles, websites, wikipedia and watched all the thunderf00t and other youtube videos on the subject."

First time i came here i said something rather stupid, and i got called out. Slapped to go read up on things. And i did and was thankful that i was slapped.

Now i do the same with my friends. I tell them to read up on things, and devide fact from fiction and "feel good sciency thoughts" (which i used to have myself.

I love it.
So personally i want to thank the people here for giving me that kick in the butt to start on this process :)

Posted by: Raiko | June 23, 2009 3:02 AM

...and guess what happened? I just got one of those "URL could not be retrieved *Zero Sized Reply" messages - on DSL this time!

Posted by: Dr. P | June 23, 2009 4:14 AM

Oh,and @ 212,

The "error message" is a TEST. Those who are bright enough to suss it out in a couple of attempts get to stay and play - that's beer, bacon, good music assorted, lesbians, mental stimulation and the spanking couch. Sometimes knitting hints, too.

Posted by: windy | June 23, 2009 5:36 AM

Come to think of it, it is probably typically Swedish to fail to deal appropriately with criticism.

The trick is to get them to criticize themselves!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 23, 2009 6:20 AM

People here can be rough, but it's a good learning experience. I consider myself to be on the "same side" as most here, but I've been corrected and have had my opinions challenged. I think I'm the better for it. Hell, even Richard fucking Dawkins was criticized after leaving this comment. Say what you want about Pharyngulites, but we aren't a bunch of sheep.

Posted by: Pascalle | June 23, 2009 6:31 AM

@277

I critisized Dr. Dawkins about something he alledgedly said about Harry Potter.
He answered and it turned out to be a mis quote from the journalist ;)

Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 6:45 AM

Sitakali,

It is possible to tell someone what you think and debate with them without being abrasive. Is it entirely necessary to call someone an ignorant rude jerk, or a fascist? I wouldn't even call a Republican a fascist if I were arguing with them (that's saying a lot btw).

It is possible to do so, yes.
It is not necessary to be abrasive, as you say.
You have the right (though it earns you no brownie points) to avoid offending those you address.

If someone is actually complaining about the way they are being treated, I believe they deserve to be taken more seriously than this.

Your opinion is noted. It would even have some merit, were it the case that commenting here was a right, rather than the privilege it is.

The responses I see right now are, "oh waaah, boohoo," and "go to your mommy."

Then, there're responses like yours, and non-responses too.
Please don't select a subset and claim it is the set.

Sometimes, I am impressed by the level of intellect and analytical reasoning on this blog. Other times, I am astounded by the level of immaturity here.

Strangely enough, the same commenters can exemplify both extremes. Have you considered there might be a reason for it?

If we wish to be perceived as adults here, perhaps we should try to be a good example.

If. Big, big if.
Perhaps this blog community cares more for content than for tone? Something for you to consider.

--
PS Be aware, there are a number of "in-jokes" that probably remain unperceived by non-regulars (e.g. buying someone a camera as recompense for hurt feelings).

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 23, 2009 6:50 AM

It definitely is unnecessary to riddicule him.. and his impending-- FSM, I can't even bring myself to mock him more. Surely, when one is complaining about insults to one's grammar and spelling, one would ask someone competent to proofread before making a mockery of oneself?

However, I must ask-- is there a language where Petter is a derivative of Peter, and an actual name, not a description of someone who really likes showing fondness to animals or loved ones?

Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 6:54 AM

Marc @282, I think you've misread Richie.
It wasn't a question, it was an ecphonesis — what it needed was an exclamation mark, not a question mark.

On a more serious note, I don't find this blog to be that aggressive or intimidating. Does any regular poster?

Hell yes! Well, I would, except after being savaged by truth machine and SC in the past, and once being dogpiled on, there's not much left for me to fear*.

--
* Maybe being savaged by PZ, that would hurt.

Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 7:00 AM

On a more serious note, I don't find this blog to be that aggressive or intimidating. Does any regular poster?

Posted by: Calie | June 23, 2009 7:35 AM

I don't mind double to triple posts, it was Markus' attitude about it that I thought was ripe for mocking (as nominal egg said). Sorry, Janine, your flounces are quite of a different type!

I've been getting the error message every single time I submit for at least the last month. If it's something I care about posting, I'll copy it first, then wait awhile and go back and reload. 99% of the time, it's there. There have only been a few times when the server gets sneaky and doesn't have it on two reloads, so I go ahead and resubmit, and then there they both are.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 23, 2009 7:54 AM

I don't mind double to triple posts, it was Markus' attitude about it that I thought was ripe for mocking (as nominal egg said). Sorry, Janine, your flounces are quite of a different type!

Yeah the proud statement of "I got the error message but didn't read it" like that was an excuse was what did it for me.

Had he said, "Ok, I got the error message and being lazy or impatient I failed to read it. Sorry"

It would have all turned out differently.

Posted by: Carlie | June 23, 2009 8:10 AM

And after saying "the only requirement is that you use your brain before you jump in", I managed to spell my own damned name wrong. That'll teach me to sign in instead of typing it every time.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 23, 2009 8:15 AM

True. Which is ironic, since Americans are amongst the worst (or is that 'best'?) abusers of their own language: they simply don't seem to care.

Guilty, though I do care.

Posted by: Reinis I. | June 23, 2009 8:18 AM

Oh man, the drama this blog generates…

Posted by: Carlie | June 23, 2009 8:25 AM

Not just once, but twice!

Good lord, and I didn't even notice the first time. I claim that there's a crumb under the R key occasionally keeping it from registering.

You haven't bleached you hair have you ?

No, it's natural. *sigh*

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 23, 2009 8:30 AM

But I have noticed that several of the commenters here have a propensity for cruelty, especially towards those who dare to voice any disagreement with them about the basic tenants of science. - Sitakali

You know, I'd never realised science was in business as a landlord. It's true, you learn something every day here on Pharyngula!

Posted by: MosesZD | June 23, 2009 8:33 AM

Peter, you crybaby fuck. You pansy. You douche-of-epic-proportions...

There, had to get that out of my system...

And, in the future, if you're still reading this far into the thread: DON'T MAKE LAWYER THREATS, YOU PONCE! They don't scare anyone.

And when you get ready to say "I'm in Mensa!" DO NOT!!!

There are some other things... But I'm busy so just make due with those two...

Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 8:41 AM

He writes beautiful proze, and still makes tons of typo's.

That was a joke, right?

But I have noticed that several of the commenters here have a propensity for cruelty, especially towards those who dare to voice any disagreement with them about the basic tenants of science.

Well, it gets me riled when people start talking smack about that nice Mrs. Pinkworth in 102 Selection.

Hell yes! Well, I would, except after being savaged by truth machine and SC in the past, and once being dogpiled on, there's not much left for me to fear*.

Ahem.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/a_real_true_american_woman.php#comment-1169530

OK, it was pretty merciless teasing, but still...

Posted by: windy | June 23, 2009 8:43 AM

He writes beautiful proze, and still makes tons of typo's.

Don't they have one of those ironic internet law thingies for this kind of thing?

Yet, despite the 50 million page hits, he doesn't bother to correct them. Clearly doesn't care. Which is a shame.

I haven't noticed PZ making tons of typos, and are they really that bothersome anyway? The only thing I mind is not correcting factual errors, especially after expressly asking for suggestions *cough* imprinting *cough*

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 23, 2009 8:47 AM

The word you want is ignorant rather than misguided, and the ignorance defence only goes so far.

Being called ignorant is not an insult unless you choose to remain that way.

Posted by: speedwell | June 23, 2009 9:11 AM

I've had my political opinions soundly beaten on this blog (perhaps a few people stuck me on their "blocked list" for it). Political differences are, like religious differences, not treated with especial care around here. But having examined the damage, I think a few of the dents actually served to knock a few things into shape. Thanks to those who addressed my comments with substantive, even if slightly overwrought, criticism. I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but you raised some important questions and made some insightful points. I learned from you.

As far as the hectoring tone of some of the criticism... hey, you know what? I don't see how anyone can be any more intimidated, ruffled, scared, or insulted by an Internet discussion than they are by their television. If you find yourself becoming upset, do the same thing you would do to your TV... grow up and realize it's behind a screen where it can't jump out and GET you, or watch something different, or turn it off.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 23, 2009 9:38 AM

It is possible to tell someone what you think and debate with them without being abrasive. Is it entirely necessary to call someone an ignorant rude jerk, or a fascist? I wouldn't even call a Republican a fascist if I were arguing with them (that's saying a lot btw).

When the same tired argument is used over and over, and always refuted yet they keep bringing it up? When simple lurking for a little while would show what's already been shown? Damn straight.

Your concern is noted.

Posted by: James Sweet | June 23, 2009 9:54 AM

I'll agree with one thing: The commenters on this blog are complete and total shitfucking assholes. No offense... I'm pretty thick-skinned, I think -- at least, thick-skinned enough to handle just about anything dished out at me over at Orac's blog, and thick-skinned enough to have taken on a room full of anti-vaxers single-handedly... But I mostly steer clear of the comments section on PZ's blog, because you guys are fucking pricks. :D Seriously! hahaha...

Posted by: Lily | June 23, 2009 10:06 AM

Oh no, I didn't realize the waters here were candiru infested. I'll have to be careful not to pee while I'm leaving comments.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 23, 2009 10:09 AM

Folks here are assholes iff you do or say something silly. Granted, the definition of 'silly' is subjective, but I'd guesstimate that around 90% of the group pounces are due to a pretty obvious social faux pas (like godbotting, or concern trolling, or being an asshat). It's not THAT hard to avoid.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 10:12 AM

SC, regarding ourselves, I was thinking of a different occasion, when I made an admission on a separate thread, and you and I clashed because of it.

Ahhh...Remember the days when your comments just went through easily? When the information at the top of the posts was big and legible? When blockquotes in the darker background were set off in a nice white box? Those were the days.

Thanks so much for linking to Falling Out #2, John. No painful memories there (OTOH, it did bring to mind a lovely vacation). And for reminding me of your disturbing admission, which I had put out of my mind.

:)

Anyway, I don't think you were "savaged" at all there. We argued. Well, more like I brought up something that had bothered me earlier and which I thought reflected upon your decision-making because you had taken sides against me (with the person who had attacked you on the earlier thread, no less!). I could continue to argue it, though I don't want to, but you made some good points.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 23, 2009 10:23 AM

I mean, there may be individuals here who are assholes, permanent or temporary*. But again, the solution is simply to LURK MOAR, and you'll figure out a.) community taboos and b.) who to avoid engaging.

* I'm usually pretty even-tempered, but I've been known to venture onto the internets when I have a hangover and my neighbor's playing the same song on his guitar over and over and... yeah.

Posted by: druidbros | June 23, 2009 10:32 AM

As an infrequent commenter and everyday reader here I would note that I always learn from the regulars. Stupid and illogical are not tolerated here nor should they be. If you cannot take the heat generated here then stay out. I hate it when some Xian dufus drops by and try out their lazy,illogical,uninformed arguments then starts whining when after being asked specific pointed questions (several times usually) they are insulted and made a target of ridicule.

And Mr Sweet it appears you fall in this category of being a whiner.

Posted by: Carlie | June 23, 2009 10:38 AM

Why not just link to the comments themselves?

Now see, here's a good example. I almost posted a question asking how to do this, because I've tried and searched and never quite figured out how to link to a specific comment, even though I can see how the url works in other people's links. Then I stopped and thought that this was really something I ought to be able to figure out myself, tried a few more things, and voilà. No muss, no fuss, no posting a simplistic question that might lead someone to call me an imbecile who no can codez. See how easy thinking can be? And if I had, and anyone had been rude about it, they still probably would have told me how to do it whilst justifiably calling me ignorant. It's flaunting obtuseness (?), being too lazy to find information yourself, and ignoring it when other people do try to educate you that gets one mocked around here.

(For anyone else who never figured it out, clicking on the time/date stamp of the comment brings up the right url in the toolbar.)

Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 10:53 AM

Why not right-click, copy shortcut?

Posted by: Carlie | June 23, 2009 10:55 AM

Stu - good point. Same idea - I just never realized where the comment url was physically located before, even though now it seems obvious.

Posted by: truthspeaker | June 23, 2009 11:10 AM

Posted by: Sitakali Author Profile Page | June 23, 2009 6:51 AM

I understand the value of learning, and find myself most able and willing to learn when people treat me with respect. I do not respond well to being treated like an idiot, and am more likely to ignore what is being said and just be defensive.

You would rather protect your fragile feelings than learn something new? Sounds like a personal failing on your part.

Posted by: Sili | June 23, 2009 11:41 AM

Looking back, I can see that I should be happy that I was not similarly 'savaged' - I made much the same admission. I just didn't stick around to defend it.

Or perhaps people just don't expect all that much from me.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 23, 2009 11:46 AM

I'd like to point out that I have particularly fragile little feelings (yeah, yeah, I know, I should fix that, I'm working on it) and have rarely had them scraped up on this blog, despite occasionally posting in defense of libertarian positions and arguing with some of the regulars. I've noticed that if you (you being the Fragile New Poster) keep your end of the conversation civil, and show some humility and willingness to learn more in areas in which you happen to be ignorant, the folks here tend to be fairly accommodating. Maybe it's just that I haven't had the good fortune to interact with the scarier posters (like Truth Machine), but I actually think that this place isn't so savage, if you take the time to post sensibly. *shrug*

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 23, 2009 11:52 AM

Sitakali @ # 276

It is possible to tell someone what you think and debate with them without being abrasive. Is it entirely necessary to call someone an ignorant rude jerk, or a fascist? I wouldn't even call a Republican a fascist if I were arguing with them (that's saying a lot btw).

but then, go to the thread in question, and search for the phrase "ignorant jerk" or "rude jerk", starting from the top. You'll find both phrases appear first in the opening comment from Petter. Here (it's the comment linked to in the OP, btw):

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/a_miracle.php#comment-1725035

following which, he gets called an "ignorant rude jerk" by other people, presumably in reference to his own opening comment. So when he comes back complaining about it (referencing one of those comments specifically) and threatening to sic his lawyer on PZ if the comments aren't taken down, whan sort of reaction should he expect?

If someone is actually complaining about the way they are being treated, I believe they deserve to be taken more seriously than this. The responses I see right now are, "oh waaah, boohoo," and "go to your mommy."

Yep. That would be it.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | June 23, 2009 12:03 PM

Success! (And the choir sings Hallelujah!)

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 23, 2009 12:27 PM

Actually, Hairhead, that post is great. It is quite obvious that many new posters have little idea about what will happen here, especially when that person makes a judgment and offers no evidence for said judgment. It is useful to stop and think about what that person is getting into. Particularly when it is a judgment that has been made and dismissed dozens of times before.

Perhaps a modified form of #344 needs to be on the front page in order to serve as a warning.

And Hairhead, please post more often.

Posted by: llewelly | June 23, 2009 12:42 PM

The Complaints Department is open

The site hosting your blog is dreadfully slow. It times out often, gives frequent submission errors, has dreadful bugs in the preview ...

Posted by: Hairhead | June 23, 2009 12:48 PM

To Janine,

(blushes shyly, casts eyes down, scrapes the dirt with his foot)

Aw, thanks. I do try to think when I post; trouble is, the level of intelligence and education on this blog is so high that more often than not, someone else says the same thing quicker and better than I would.

Maybe I will post more often.

Posted by: Hairhead | June 23, 2009 1:11 PM

Okay, proposed FAQ for commenters:

1) When you post, even if you intend to reply only to PZ or to one other comment on the thread, up to 200 people (or more) will read, and possibly respond to you. Keep this in mind.

2) As this is a science blog, a greater proportion of the readers and commenters here well-educated, and, if not scientists, are reasonably well-versed in logic, observation, empiricism, debate, and rationality. As such, their responses will likely be pointed, eloquent, articulate, and highly opinionated.

3) Any comments you make will be judged, and often judged harshly for grammar, intellectual consistency, knowledge of the subject addressed, and openness of tone. Get used it; this is the deep end, not a wading pool.

4) Commenters who wish to make religious, spiritual, or other arguments are welcome to do so, provided they are willing to respond to the observations and criticisms of other posters, many of whom are experts in their fields. Commenters who argue without insulting other commenters personally or in whole, and who actually respond to counter-arguments will have a stimulating time.

5) Comments who begin their interaction on this blog with insults (you're a bunch of jerks), threats (you're all going to hell) or other poltroonery (atheists have no morals) will be responded to in kind by persons who generally have far more experience and education, and certainly a greater vocabulary in both insult and invective.

Have a good time!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 23, 2009 1:22 PM

Enjoying the metathread.
In that spirit, please feel free old and new to contribute to Pharyngula's longest-running comment thread and collaborative performance-art piece, the Thread Everlasting. Every comment sets a new record!
Currently running here, with historical context available here.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 23, 2009 1:39 PM

I have a complaint. I think I requested that Kwok's $5000 photo equipment blackmail money be spent on me for a couple of reasons. One the millions of clicks I am personally responsible for and two because it would twist a facebook sized knot in Kwok's panties.

I'm still waiting. Don't make me sick my facebook horde on you.

Also, the up-tick in subscription notices and website sign-ups in my spam folder is increasing. May I make a suggestion to whoever is signing me up? Better spam please. This stuff is lame.

Posted by: Lilith | June 23, 2009 2:05 PM

This thread has had moments of comedy gold which have had me laughing out loud. I thank you all.

I always assume that internet cry-babies are fairly young because if they had been through some of the old Usenet flamewars of a decade or so ago they would either have built up a hide like a rhinoceros, or pulled the plug on their PC and been found later in a corner, sucking their thumb and whimpering, never to post again.

Incidentally, I rarely get the submission error message, I usually get a DNS error message instead. Same effect, though.

Oh, well, back to lurking and kissing bonobos boobs...ooh, did I say that out loud?

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 23, 2009 2:17 PM

Posted by: Hairhead | June 23, 2009 12:48 PM

Aw, thanks. I do try to think when I post; trouble is, the level of intelligence and education on this blog is so high that more often than not, someone else says the same thing quicker and better than I would.

Sili already addressed this already. It took me a long time to gather the courage to post regularly. I just take my lumps when I make a mistake. (Josh really got me a couple of times.) I do not take it personally because it is not meant to be personal.

I have to figure out how to bookmarks #351 on my computer so that I can link to it in the future.

Posted by: Travis | June 23, 2009 3:43 PM

Lilith, I have been wondering about their ages as well. I am not so sure they are young, though perhaps you meant young when it comes to internet use.
I think it is likely most of these people have not been using the internet for a long time. I have been around the internet since the early 90's, used to use usenet and IRC a lot and I think I am pretty thick skinned. But I do find a lot of my contemporaries who started using the internet later on in the 90's are much more fragile, they often have no idea what IRC or usenet is, let alone gopher or something like that. They see something like this blog, or something really sarcastic and horrible like Encyclopedia Dramatica and freak out.

Posted by: SteveM | June 23, 2009 3:55 PM

click on the date field of the postcomment you want to bookmark, then save to bookmarks (or favorites).

Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 23, 2009 5:17 PM

RE: Lynna @ 364:

And accompany that with one of Pete Rooke's bizarre fantasies about diseased mailmen and books bound in human skin, by way of ilustration.

Posted by: frog | June 23, 2009 6:34 PM

DSAG: When I was in Norway, I was taught that the fundamental difference between the three Scandinavian countries could be summed up by their response to a child falling off a bicycle.

I think I understand Americans now.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 6:49 PM

Sheesh, first SC called me on my understatemt ("under immediate duress"),

I think that's where we left off in November. If it was an understatement and I didn't appreciate that (which makes perfect sense as when I posted about it I wasn't exactly looking charitably upon your comments), I apologize.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 23, 2009 7:01 PM

Hairhead #351,
looks good... I also propose:

6) People often say stuff on the Internets that they would never say to your face. You are strongly urged to get over it.

(I see several other comments along these lines. Just my own wording of the same thoughts...)

Posted by: articulett | June 23, 2009 7:07 PM

I think I'd say the same thing to peoples' face as I say here except for the fact that I'm afraid of irrational people and fear the actual physical objects they might throw at me. (I'm a strong materialist, you see.)

Posted by: bastion of sass | June 23, 2009 8:35 PM

Carlie @ 329:

I almost posted a question asking how to do this, because I've tried and searched and never quite figured out how to link to a specific comment, even though I can see how the url works in other people's links. Then I stopped and thought that this was really something I ought to be able to figure out myself, tried a few more things, and voilà. No muss, no fuss, no posting a simplistic question that might lead someone to call me an imbecile who no can codez. See how easy thinking can be? And if I had, and anyone had been rude about it, they still probably would have told me how to do it whilst justifiably calling me ignorant.

Other commenters here aren't always brutal.

I learned the secret of linking to a specific post when another commenter asked how it was done, and second commenter briefly posted an explanation--without any name calling, insults, or rudeness.

I've seen commenters answering the same formatting questions, again without insults, over and over.

And, I've seen commenters here explain what a "Poe" is many times, again without insults.

I guess to some extent, it may depend on who bothers to respond to a question, and whether or not they've just had a cup of good coffee and wonderful sex.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 23, 2009 8:56 PM

What do Americans do when a child falls off a bicycle?

Pray they get better, go shopping, sue the bicycle company, and then invade the house of one of the neighbors that had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 9:13 PM

What do Americans do when a child falls off a bicycle?

Oh, all 304,059,724+ of us do precisely the same thing, whatever that is.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 23, 2009 9:24 PM

Feyny @ 377 wins the thread..:-)

Reading this beautiful metathread from the airport on my way back home.

Maybe it's just that I haven't had the good fortune to interact with the scarier posters (like Truth Machine)

Well,I have had the good fortune many times,and while I sometimes wanted to rip his head off,most of the time what he said was right,or he was right in pointing out flawed reasoning on my part.
See that's what this place is so good for,if you make weak/flawed/uninformed agruments,there is always someone(and btw,i doubt that it is only 200 at a time,probably more than 2000 given the blog gets 45 hits per minute)around to call you out,some do it nicer than others,but it's the net,if you can't stand a bit of heat,you shouldn't be here in the first place !

Posted by: frog | June 23, 2009 10:00 PM

SC: Oh, all 304,059,724+ of us do precisely the same thing, whatever that is.

Yes, all 300 millions do the same thing. That's exactly what we're saying. Every last one of you is basically a carbon copy of each other, indistinguishable if you weren't carrying your social security card. With your little American flags, your blue jeans, and your camaros.

SC, you're outta your time zone, it appears. Go to bed.

Posted by: frog | June 23, 2009 10:26 PM

SC: No, neither. That comment was offensive. Again...?

Crackalackin' Looks like you're offended for the world -- it ain't gonna thank you for it, you know.

Or is everything to be spoken in the most serious of tones, without allegory or metaphor to lighten the load? We'll sit at the high table, stiff upper lip, clear diction, reviewed and diverted? Exact, correct, and dry as dust? A husk, a grammatical tree, stripped of simile, simulitude or juice?

Time for night, night -- subtitle, STOP DIGGIN'.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 10:37 PM

Crackalackin' Looks like you're offended for the world -- it ain't gonna thank you for it, you know.

Y'know, I used to think you were intelligent, frog, but clearly you're an idiot. I was responding to: "Or do you think it's OK to stereotype Scandinavians, but not Americans?" It's not OK to stereotype anyone, but I knew Scandinavians were here and could answer for themselves. Had the situation become more serious, or had no one answered, I would've joined in. Simple as pie.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 23, 2009 10:48 PM

uh...seems to me that folks were just kidding around...Feynmaniac (#377) and frog (#378) both.

Posted by: frog | June 23, 2009 10:51 PM

Sven: seems to me that folks were just kidding around

Oh no -- I'm terribly serious. Southerners do have three legs.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 11:30 PM

Or USians. (Don't know why my comments on this thread keep getting eaten.)

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 23, 2009 11:56 PM

Frog, #391

That's not a leg.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 12:19 AM

Who is this 'he'?

Darren @ #163.

Oh really - nobody, Scandinavian or otherwise, has objected to #163 yet!

I did, @ #384.

Other people wanted to use it as an excuse to insult people from the US for some reason.

Posted by: Sitakali | June 24, 2009 12:51 AM

Knockgoats: Your correction of my single typo has proven to everyone on this site that I am indeed an idiot and you are wise and extremely mature.

If you ever decide to respond to the subject of my comment as opposed to its grammar, I am all ears. Or eyes, I suppose.

Thank you for showing me that I should stop having high or even moderate expectations for the many of the commenters here. Perhaps you can find a place where I forgot to put a comma, or entered too many apostraphes. Though if it's the latter, I have to say that has more to do with my nationality. Most New Zealanders use far too many apostraphes, so...we must be a nation of idiots!

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 1:01 AM

For the record, I am American*

Yes, I'm aware of that.

and wasn't trying to stereotype in 377, but was simply criticizing certain aspects of the culture. Specifically, for it being too religious, too materialistic, overly litigious, and militaristic.

I get it. I just don't know why a comment featuring stereotypes about Scandinavians led to a series of comments - joking or not - containing stereotypes about people from the US.

As I said above, I'm not in a good mood, and I'm fucking tired of off-the-cuff takes on people from the US or regions within. I'm none of those things you listed, nor is my local culture. The US is extremely diverse. There is no single "culture."

But, again, how this thread came to be about US stereotypes I have no idea. People could have addressed the Scandinavian stereotypes while ignoring any reference to the US.

Posted by: Sitakali | June 24, 2009 1:26 AM

I've noticed that if you (you being the Fragile New Poster) keep your end of the conversation civil, and show some humility and willingness to learn more in areas in which you happen to be ignorant, the folks here tend to be fairly accommodating.

I have to say that hasn't been my experience. I have even made a silly joke here and someone was deeply offended and decided to insult me. I have had several polite responses to my polite comments here. However, I have also had a couple completely ignoring my point so that they could make fun of a typo. I do not consider this polite. Still others have simply told me to "get over it" and said that I had "fragile feelings."

I wish to point out that if I truly had fragile feelings I wouldn't post comments here EVER. Seriously. I was not defending myself in my previous comments, but defending those who wish to speak openly without being treated like they're less than human.

I'd also like to point out, in response to one of PZ's pieces of advice for new commenters, that internet forums and blogs are very different from talking to a room of 200 people. People in that room are a million times more likely to be respectful. It is the anonymity here that allows people to not even think about what they say, or how they affect others. This is the epitome of living-in-a-bubble individualism, and it is not healthy.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 1:43 AM

SC, I think it all began with #7, but you know how topic drift goes...

Really? I see Bill Dauphin's response to that, but no connection to this discussion. Looks like you're reaching in a big way. This stems from a later comment.

I'm no sociologist, but it seems to me that, in general, this is one of those cases where taking the piss about one's grouping is acceptable from (and to) someone within an in-group, but not so the other way around.

Um, I'm in the US "in-group" (or some in-groups within it), and stereotypes are not acceptable to me (nor are the Scandinavian ones, and in that case I'm not in the in-group), so there goes that. They're also totally fucking irrelevant, as is Petter's ethnic/national background, for that matter.

stereotypes = not OK

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 2:09 AM

2) frog somewhat enigmatically responded that she [?] now understands Americans, and 3) this prompted me to wonder what the joke would be like if it was told about Americans.

It seemed like a rather natural association to make

So someone responding "somewhat enigmatically" leading to a series of posts about Americans is "a rather natural association." Well, fry my McNugget and call me Sandra Dee.

Please.

I did, @ #384.

Oh, come on! That was after I asked you about it, so it hardly counts as a spontaneous objection.

How ridiculous. You made a claim. You were wrong. Admit it. (And, as I said above, I found it objectionable when I read it but thought the Scandinavians here would take the twit to task. I swear on my life. Don't question my honor.)

No shit? Next you'll be telling us that not every single commenter here is acerbic and rude and loud, contrary to what PZ says in the post?? It's rhetoric, it's obviously not meant literally!

Ah, "rhetoric" - the last refuge of those with no argument.

Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 2:35 AM

SC,

Looks like you're reaching in a big way. This stems from a later comment.

Maybe so. You're worth some effort, so I shall invest some of my time showing how I came upon my opinion based on a thematic sequence (I might be wrong, but it's not ad-hoc):

The post features an email "with only the slyest of implications of legal action".

#7 "He says he's European, and many of them seem to have a very different notion of what constitutes free speech than we Americans."

#28 "Though in general Europe does take a slightly different stance on free speech than the US but in a different way."

#30 "The name and rather idiosyncratic grammar places him in Scandinavia (Norway or Sweden). [...] But Scandinavians are often very thin-skinned and whiny (I am one of them myself, and it's a pain sometimes)."

#69 "Of course, the Dutch are even worse. Trust me, I am one."

@163 "Some of the comments seem to suggest that Petter is Scandinavian- either Swedish or Norwegian, insinuating that the two countries were equally whiny.
[...] When I was in Norway, I was taught that the fundamental difference between the three Scandinavian countries could be summed up by their response to a child falling off a bicycle. [anecdotal joke featuring a Dane, a Swede and a Norwegian featuring stereotypes of nationals' attitude]"

[allusive segue]
@376 [to I think I understand Americans now.] "What do Americans do when a child falls off a bicycle?"

Of course, there were other comments stereotyping Americans/USAians, such as #144, #193, #250 etc., but it was your original complaint @379 which I was addressing.

Posted by: windy | June 24, 2009 3:10 AM

So someone responding "somewhat enigmatically" leading to a series of posts about Americans is "a rather natural association."

Jesus H. FSM!
If someone tells a joke about "what would a member of group X do if a child falls off a bicycle", and someone in response mentions group Y, yes it does seem bloody natural to substitute Y for X!

How ridiculous. You made a claim. You were wrong. Admit it.

Nonsense. I said that in the context of your claim that you 'would have' objected to the Scandinavian joke, "had no one answered". That implies that someone BESIDES you HAD already answered, which was not true (to be precise, no one else had objected to the joke).

(And, as I said above, I found it objectionable when I read it but thought the Scandinavians here would take the twit to task. I swear on my life. Don't question my honor.)

Why should they call Darren a twit for something that is practically an art form in Scandinavia? And that most Scandinavians and Scandinavophiles understand as good natured ribbing? It looks like you misunderstood the original exchange, which led you to attribute an overly sinister intent to the follow-up joke.

But maybe it's time to move on -- can anyone help me with these?
*what do Finns do when a child falls off a bicycle?
*what do Pharyngulites do when a child falls off a bicycle?

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 3:13 AM

#69 "Of course, the Dutch are even worse. Trust me, I am one."

And of course the Netherlands isn't part of Scandinavia. Read that too quickly.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 3:38 AM

Jesus H. FSM! If someone tells a joke about "what would a member of group X do if a child falls off a bicycle", and someone in response mentions group Y, yes it does seem bloody natural to substitute Y for X!

You're neglecting the "enigmatic" transitional comment. Why did the US come up at all?

Nonsense. I said that in the context of your claim that you 'would have' objected to the Scandinavian joke, "had no one answered". That implies that someone BESIDES you HAD already answered, which was not true (to be precise, no one else had objected to the joke).

To be precise? Your "precision" is totally dishonest. I said answered - not objected. You yourself had answered, windy.

Why should they call Darren a twit for something that is practically an art form in Scandinavia? And that most Scandinavians and Scandinavophiles understand as good natured ribbing?

Why should who call him that? I'm calling him that. I don't like those jokes when put forth by those who aren't of the "in-group" in question; but if you saw it as "good-natured ribbing" then I was prepared to accept that, which is why I said nothing at the time. This has fuck-all to do with the speedy transition to US stereotypes, for which you've provided no reasonable explanation.

It looks like you misunderstood the original exchange, which led you to attribute an overly sinister intent to the follow-up joke.

Sinister intent? *eyeroll* I found it annoying in the broader context of anti-USian statements of late (including on this thread), and saw no cause for it. I expressed my annoyance.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 24, 2009 3:48 AM

Rorschach,

Maybe it is time to let it rest?

That's probably a good suggestion.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 4:01 AM

SC, perhaps I was engaging in a post-hoc rationalisation of a vague impression.

I think so.

Maybe I'm wrong about the topical genesis about which I thought you complained being litigiousness

Yes, but thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Posted by: windy | June 24, 2009 4:46 AM

You're neglecting the "enigmatic" transitional comment. Why did the US come up at all?

Like so (I added one word that may clarify my thought processes):

When I was in Norway, I was taught that the fundamental difference between the three Scandinavian countries could be summed up by their response to a child falling off a bicycle.

I think I understand Americans now.

Why? What do Americans do when a child falls off a bicycle?

I wasn't sure what frog had in mind, but I thought it had something to do with the gist of the joke, and was playing along.

To be precise? Your "precision" is totally dishonest. I said answered - not objected. You yourself had answered, windy.

This is just stupid. I used the word objected from the start.

I don't like those jokes when put forth by those who aren't of the "in-group" in question; but if you saw it as "good-natured ribbing" then I was prepared to accept that, which is why I said nothing at the time.

First, I'm not Scandinavian, so I'm not a member of the "in group" (well, maybe a 'hangaroud'?) And second, my "good natured ribbing" comment only came rather late in the game, so it can't have been the reason why you didn't say anything at the time!

Sinister intent? *eyeroll* I found it annoying in the broader context of anti-USian statements of late (including on this thread), and saw no cause for it. I expressed my annoyance.

What I find curious is that you immediately objected to me simply asking the question about Americans, not just to the stereotypes that came in response! But you didn't object to the joke about Scandinavians except as an afterthought, when I had asked about it. So it does seem a tad hypocritical.

I wonder, will you be voicing your objections to the new Mr Deity video - it unfairly implies that every (non-black) Christian has bad hair and can't dance?

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | June 24, 2009 5:14 AM

If the real reason for people's vitriol on this site is to provide a learning experience for the person they're attacking, I'm pretty sure it's not working.

Aside from the occasional misaimed flame, the people who are targeted by our vitriol are those who are inflated egotists who are proudly impervious to learning new things. That is, in fact, why they receive such vitriol; therefore, nothing is lost. People who are humbly and earnestly seeking to learn are not treated that way.

The people here who are patient, on the other hand, will find that they can have a lot of positive influences on others.

Only on those who are open to it. It's a two-way street, and my only responsibility it to give a person the benefit of the doubt, not to coddle his or her ego.

Posted by: windy | June 24, 2009 5:41 AM

I dunno - these humans. Incorrigible stereotypers, all of them!

It's been said that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into two groups, and those who don't. But some of us just go one group further.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 5:51 AM

So what is more important to me: reading this blog efficiently, or waving my handpaws in the air and getting the attention I so desperately need by posting inane comments?

Both would be nice,you know !

*Waves hands furiously at SB IT department*

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 6:59 AM

Like so (I added one word that may clarify my thought processes):

I asked why, not how.

I wasn't sure what frog had in mind, but I thought it had something to do with the gist of the joke, and was playing along.

Yes, that's a rather natural association. Sure. And playing along with the stereotype joke is objectionable regardless of which national group you're stereotyping.

This is just stupid. I used the word objected from the start.

Who the fuck cares? You quoted me and then argued that you were being "precise" by mischaracterizing my words.

First, I'm not Scandinavian, so I'm not a member of the "in group" (well, maybe a 'hangaroud'?)

My error. So you're just kind of a jerk when you contribute to stereotypes and then talk about what "most Scandinavians...understand" it as on their behalf.

And second, my "good natured ribbing" comment only came rather late in the game,

My error. I was thinking your #275 had been in response to that one, when in fact it was building on Fedor's stereotype. Same thing.

so it can't have been the reason why you didn't say anything at the time!

I told you why I didn't respond at the time.

What I find curious is that you immediately objected to me simply asking the question about Americans, not just to the stereotypes that came in response!

I don't know why you would find that curious, given that it was a question designed to elicit stereotypes, coming in response to a comment that at least contained hints of being anti-US. But in fact I didn't. My #379 just tried to head that off. Then I objected to the stereotypes it had already elicited.

But you didn't object to the joke about Scandinavians except as an afterthought, when I had asked about it.

OK. I've now explained that I thought your earlier comment in response to Fedor had been in response to that one (it amounts to the same thing, but it does make a difference for our specific purposes here). Do you get it now, or are you going to call me a liar?

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 7:12 AM

But you didn't object to the joke about Scandinavians except as an afterthought, when I had asked about it.

Actually, I had said "I found it objectionable when I read it but thought the Scandinavians here would take the twit to task. I swear on my life. Don't question my honor." So when you say I objected as an "afterthought" you're already calling me a liar. Go to hell.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 7:19 AM

I deeply apologise for offending anyone's sensibilities by bringing to light the fact that many regulars on this blog have absolutely no respect for other human beings unless they agree completely with them

Your sarcastic pseudo-apology is noted as such.
The strawman is,too.

The thing is,actually,that opposed to many other blogs,Pharyngula commenters IMO do have respect for all sorts of views,but if you are called out on a flawed/unbacked argument,it is not your right to be offended or feel prosecuted or hard done by,and thats a lesson you do seem to have to learn.
We get a lot of people here who,when after being called out on fallacious arguments,play the persecution card.
But it doesnt fly here.

Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 7:29 AM

Sitakali @430:

I have learned a valuable lesson here folks.
[...]
I deeply apologise for offending anyone's sensibilities by [self-righteous strawman blah]
[...]
Such is the psychology of bullies.

Apparently you didn't learn, O sarcastic, hypocritical one.

You think snide insults don't count?

Get thee hence to Nisbet's blog; you should like it there.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | June 24, 2009 8:11 AM

I have learned a valuable lesson here folks.

A blatant lie from a hypocrite.

Enjoy your little masturbatory "victory". You'll continue to be a liar and a hypocrite, out there fuming over blog, long after we've all forgotten you later today.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 8:26 AM

I would like to thank you for reminding us of your humanity.

Alan,
I think you should mind your own humanity.We dont need insults disguised as snarky comments.
People have bad days here,me,you and everyone else included.

Posted by: James Sweet | June 24, 2009 9:15 AM

Oh man, now I'm getting called out by PZ!

Mr Sweet: you come in here and call people rude names because they call other people rude names?

Wait, I thought people here were supposed to have think skin? :p

Anyway, there's two parts to this: First, as Lynna seems to be the only one to have successfully detected, I was being somewhat ironic in my post there. I mean, I was leaving a comment on the blog saying why I don't comment here anymore... DERP!!

Secondly, the one serious point I was making is that it isn't just the name-calling here, as many have pointed out there's name-calling everywhere on teh interwubz... but getting taken down by someone who is not a complete idiot is a lot more depressing than having some dumb youtuber call you a fuckface.

It's also interesting that you have to invent an imaginary conversation to indict people here. Why not just link to the comments themselves?

(sigh) Is it really that important? The thread in question is really long and there were probably a dozen-plus comments involved. Okay, fine, here's some of it:

Here, Nerd of Redhead refers to Mormonism as "my religion" (fuck you once again, NoR, BTW) and accuses me of "self-serving sophistry" for defending baptism for the dead.

Why did NoR say this??? Maybe it was because of when I previously referred to Mormon missionaries as soul-peddling pigfuckers? Or maybe it was here, again in an earlier comment, when I said that baptism for the dead was "insulting" and that "the Church used boatloads of tithing money to campaign for a hate cause"? Or the dozen or so other comments critical of Mormonism I had made prior in that thread?

I don't much want to keep digging up links, but if you continue to read the thread you will see that even after I clarified my position, Nerd of Redhead continued to accuse me of being a Mormon apologist. That was a really shitty thing to do, because basically I was raised in a cult and I got out of the cult, and now because I am not sufficiently outraged by one of the cult's insulting-but-ultimately-silly practices (preferring instead to reserve my outrage for the cult's brainwashing, political manipulation, and psychological abuse) I am being called an apologist for this cult that I escaped. That's pretty offensive.

It's also a lot more hurtful than having some braindead youtuber lobbing poorly-spelled profanity at me, and that was kindof the point I was trying to make about how people might perceive this blog to be a rough place.

Anyway, why so reactionary when I say, "Yeah actually you guys are kinda pricks"? Is that a problem? Own it, fellas!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 24, 2009 9:38 AM

James Sweet, it appeared to me you were not condemning the activities of the church, but rather defending them. I sometimes follow several threads and can loose track on one. If you are not a mormon and I called you one, I apologize.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | June 24, 2009 9:47 AM

...Is it really that important? The thread in question is really long and there were probably a dozen-plus comments involved. Okay, fine, here's some of it...

It is important, because otherwise nobody has any idea of the particular instance you're referring to. It is also important, because you may be generalising unfairly from a single incident. As it was, I can easily imagine that PZ took you for one of those, all too common, troll-types who runs in here just to call everyone a prick.

If Nerd of Redhead insulted you, then that is pretty much a problem between the two of you - PZ generally only comments to intervene when someone directly addresses a comment to him, or when somebody is being disruptive. If Nerd. was wrong, then it says nothing about the other regular commenters here. (And, I note you've just been offered an apology; hopefully, this is the kind of self-correcting behaviour which should prevail when the group is given such freedom.)

Does anybody want anodyne, censored commentary? If not, then disagreement, even to the point of verbal abuse, is inevitable.

Posted by: James Sweet | June 24, 2009 10:58 AM

@John Morales: Crap, they don't work for me either. I must have botched the HTML.

@Nerd of Redhead: Apology accepted. I do want to mention, I initially had assumed you were just confused, and at the time I tried to clarify my position, but at that time you didn't seem to want to listen. Anyway, that thread had gotten pretty heated so I'll just assume my clarifications got lost in all the noise. Thanks for the apology, and I suppose I apologize for using you as the posterboy for hostility on Pharyngula ;)

@Bernard Bumner:

Does anybody want anodyne, censored commentary?

Uh... I don't think I said that?

Kinda seems to me like the truly over-sensitive people are the ones who can't take it when somebody points out that this can be a rough place to comment. (Well, okay, the really really over-sensitive people are the ones who threaten legal action because they got in an anonymous flamewar, but I think we all agree Petter is a big tool and that's not really under discussion) I'm just saying, I for one find Pharyngula a particularly rough place to comment, so I don't do it that often (even though I read the blog "religiously", ba-dump!). Is that such a terrible thing to say?

I do think you're on to something though:

one of those, all too common, troll-types who runs in here just to call everyone a prick.

Hmmm, indeed. Thinking about it some more, pretty much 100% of the time when I have felt that either myself or someone else was being unfairly attacked in the comments here, it was because the person under attack was being mistaken for one of the archetypal trolls/godpushers/etc. that show up here from time to time.

I do think the issue between Nerd of Redhead and myself is illustrative of this... whenever there is a thread about Mormonism, the Mormon apologists come out of the wood work and say some really dumb stuff. I had a couple of posts that contained a phrase somewhere along the lines of "I don't think the baptism for the dead thing is that big of a deal." Even though later in the same comment I harshly criticized LD$ Inc. for other things, what presumably happened is that NoR just read the one sentence and red flags went up.

So maybe that explains why sometimes the regulars here come across as assholes. Trolls are dealt with swiftly and harshly on this blog... so when some innocent person gets mistaken for a troll, they get dealt with before there is a chance to clarify? (shrug) I dunno, whatever...

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 24, 2009 11:40 AM

Rorschach, #439

I find your consistency to be the most disappointing thing about you.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | June 24, 2009 11:53 AM

Uh... I don't think I said that?

No, and I certainly wasn't trying to imply it.

...when some innocent person gets mistaken for a troll, they get dealt with before there is a chance to clarify?

That happens.

The only advice I would ever offer in that situation, is either to argue your point as strongly as possible (directly confront someone who is being unfair, and tell them you aren't a troll - as you've done here), or else to ignore the accusation entirely.

If people want to accuse somebody of trolling, or of anything else, they should be able to provide evidence for it. Calling someone a Troll is an easy way to spoil a thread, so the term shouldn't be abused.

Equally, behaviour verging on trollishness is something to avoid; in this instance you'd have better made your point by giving specific examples and avoiding insulting the regulars in your first post to the thread.

Posted by: Sili | June 24, 2009 12:01 PM

*what do Finns do when a child falls off a bicycle?

*what do Pharyngulites do when a child falls off a bicycle?

SC,
You did take me to task - however maternally.

I am very casual about my cowardice, for sure, but I can't say I'm not disturbed by it.

Still, this weekend I had the opportunity to do good in the small scale at little risk to myself. Yet I stayed out of any trouble. I have little doubt that I'll do exactly the same thing if life or limbs were at stake. And, yes, I'd hurt others to save myself. Or so I believe.

Specifically a drunk guy and his girlfriend on the train nicked a coupla bears from the service cart, and when the salesman noticed, he wanted them back. Extraordinarily politely at that. The drunks grew insistant that they'd brought along the bears from a wedding they'd been to, yet the bottles were still cold.

It would have cost me nothing to step in, but I didn't.

Posted by: ArchangelChuck | June 24, 2009 12:13 PM

What do Americans do when a child falls off a bicycle?

Hire a lawyer to sue the bicycle company for the medical costs and damages from emotional distress.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 12:35 PM

ArchangelChuck...
I'm kind of assuming you didn't read the whole thread.
For that reason, that comment made me laugh really hard, despite its lack of internal humor and its use of extremely overplayed stereotypes that got old sometime in the 5th century BCE. ^.^

And I think a lot of us (not to say all) are more accommodating to religious views and people in everyday life. I don't think that's because we're anonymous cowards on Pharyngula - I think it's because on Pharyngula, we're for once surrounded by like-minded people, at least on the topic of religion. And while that isn't necessarily a good thing all the time, it's important for an extremely marginalized community to have this kind of uncensored space to vent and recharge. If a few religious/accommodationist feelings get bruised in the process, that's the not-really-regrettable cost of them blundering into a space that isn't meant for them.

Sorry if that was rambling and redundant. I am just thinking about why it seems so stupid to me for people to complain about being insulted here when their views differ from those of the Pharyngulites, and why it's so obnoxious for people to make accusations of Internet Cowardice.

Posted by: Stu | June 24, 2009 1:01 PM

The US is extremely diverse. There is no single "culture."

Some would say there's none.

*Ducks and runs*

Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 3:48 PM

Sven: Stereotypes are can be funny.

When they are used to highlight cultural realities that are often difficult to directly discuss, they are terribly funny and useful. When they are being used to reduced a group of people into a straight-jacket to bully them no.

It's true that America, as a society, is litigious. You wouldn't be shocked to hear that your American neighbor sued a coffee company because she drank hot coffee without checking the temperature first; you would be shocked if your Argentinian neighbor did so. It's trivially true as well that not all Americans, or American sub-cultures, are litigious -- it's primarily confined to English-speaking "white" Americans, particularly of the middle-class who belong to a particular mid-western subgrouping. But that's awfully long to preface every discussion with that!

Now, how can an American feel bullied for being an American? It's hard for me to fathom -- it's been two hundred years since the US was dominated in any sense by foreigners, so it seems to me mildly paranoiac for an American to worry about anti-USaian comments.

I understand why an African-American would reasonably feel that even a well-meaning parable involving stereotypes of African-Americans was an attempt at bullying and domination rather than a way of discussing her culture. But an American as an American?

That's just whiny. That's like a German taking offense at a Jewish joke about Germans, or a Han Chinese being insulted by stereotype-statement from a Mya-speaker. Some things just ain't symmetrical.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 4:26 PM

When they are used to highlight cultural realities that are often difficult to directly discuss, they are terribly funny and useful. When they are being used to reduced a group of people into a straight-jacket to bully them no.

There are numerous ways in which they're used and received, and people should err on the side of caution, especially when talking about groups to which they don't belong.

It's true that America, as a society, is litigious. You wouldn't be shocked to hear that your American neighbor sued a coffee company because she drank hot coffee without checking the temperature first;

Yes, I would. Any of my neighbors, in fact. But since this was about the litigious behavior of a European, which USians were questioning and mocking, I fail to see the relevance. Seems rather gratuitous.

Now, how can an American feel bullied for being an American?

I said annoyed, not bullied or worried. Try to read. "For being an American"? What's that supposed to mean? But no, it didn't feel great when I would be in restaurants in Europe where big groups of people were ranting about how insular/uneducated/ignorant/horrible/whatever USians were while I was working my ass off to learn their language and study their history. Or when I would look up and see on the cash register or the wall a sticker with an American flag with a circle and line through it. And yeah, I'm annoyed when people are making claims about me for which they have no basis and which aren't true.

That's just whiny.

Well, by the "reasoning" exhibited here I must be part Swedish. That would totally explain it.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 24, 2009 4:43 PM

Americans have culture. We enjoy both kinds of music, country and western.

Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 5:07 PM

SC:

It's true that America, as a society, is litigious. You wouldn't be shocked to hear that your American neighbor sued a coffee company because she drank hot coffee without checking the temperature first;

Yes, I would. Any of my neighbors, in fact.

Then let me suggest that your cohort is disconnect from the greater reality of American society. Incidents like that have happened -- don't you recall the kerfuffle over the McDonald's suit because a woman placed a hot coffee cup between her legs, drove off, and then spilled it over herself?

The case wasn't laughed out of court -- but it was a media sensation for months. Worrying about the litigiousness of others is a common neurosis among USaians (is that ideological or a typing thing?), and fairly rare in some other countries. It's part of the cultural landscape, irrespective of the actual rate of actual suits. US TV is filled with lawyer and court shows -- which isn't universally common around the world. Almost all politicians in the US are lawyers or at least trained as lawyers -- another not-universal.

Bravo to you and your's if you've managed not to get sucked into the concensus reality of American society at large -- but don't pretend that somehow you're not a marginal case. American society is diverse, compared to most European countries -- but it's much less diverse than European society as a whole. There is a common drama that most Americans are part of -- the fact that you've decided to stay off that stage doesn't affect the reality of that play to the vast majority of Americans.

And who am I? I've made it clear that I'm literally nobody. Just an AI on the net, with a little extra computational power as long as the Iranian networking demand is down.

Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 5:17 PM

SC: I said annoyed, not bullied or worried.

No, you said offended. Now, the only reasonable basis where others should respect your feeling of offense is because you are being bullied in some sense -- because it's part of a campaign. Otherwise, it's just you're damn feelings, and we have no more need to consider it than we do Petter's (see, it's even relevant!)

I'd agree that you do have a right to feel offended and demand respect of it, if you're in a group of Europeans say at a workplace and had to endure constant anti-Americanism. That's reasonable -- it's part of an exclusionary campaign, no different in substance from men at a workplace putting up posters of chix, or a white "jokingly" putting up a noose in a club.

I just don't see how any of that is in effect here.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 5:43 PM

Then let me suggest that your cohort is disconnect from the greater reality of American society. Incidents like that have happened -- don't you recall the kerfuffle over the McDonald's suit because a woman placed a hot coffee cup between her legs, drove off, and then spilled it over herself?

The case wasn't laughed out of court -- but it was a media sensation for months.

A lot of people laughed at it, including many who had no knowledge of the case.

Worrying about the litigiousness of others is a common neurosis among USaians (is that ideological or a typing thing?)...It's part of the cultural landscape,

If you mean a stereotyping thing, yes, pretty much. You've come up with it on the basis of of little or no actual knowledge - just a vague impression from anecdotal experience or TV or something. Citation needed.

irrespective of the actual rate of actual suits.

Interesting addition.

US TV is filled with lawyer and court shows -- which isn't universally common around the world.

So? How is this connected to anything we're talking about? I'll note that I don't see this as a bad thing at all. In fact, I was a jury forewoman a few years ago and I appreciated the knowledge of the court system I had gained from some of these shows. Some are very good, in fact. So is much litigation.*

It would be interesting to know more than I do about people's and the media's relationship to the legal system in other countries, but this not being universal says nothing relevant to this discussion.

Almost all politicians in the US are lawyers or at least trained as lawyers -- another not-universal.

Again, even if true, so what? Even if you provide social-scientific evidence (which was obviously not the basis for your original claim) about worries about litigiousness and these being significantly higher in all parts of the US than elsewhere, you still haven't answered the question about what this has to do with a European threatening to sue a USian, especially when those here have been expressing their concern over this sort of litigiousness both in this case and the chiropracty case discussed a couple of weeks ago. Why aren't you putting forward stereotypes about Europeans and libel suits to explain it to the Americans?

Bravo to you and your's if you've managed not to get sucked into the concensus reality of American society at large -- but don't pretend that somehow you're not a marginal case.

You've simply made a series of unfounded assertions about this alleged "consensus reality," whatever the hell that means; I don't have to pretend anything. And again, it's totally irrelevant to the discussion of Petter's actions, and strange to raise in that context.

American society is diverse, compared to most European countries -- but it's much less diverse than European society as a whole. There is a common drama that most Americans are part of -- the fact that you've decided to stay off that stage doesn't affect the reality of that play to the vast majority of Americans.

Absurd. Get back to me when you have something other than silly, unsubstantiated assertions and metaphors.

*BTW, I've been posting about Wiwa v. Shell for a few weeks. There was a settlement recently:

http://wiwavshell.org/

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 5:55 PM

No, you said offended.

Point to the actual comment you're talking about.

Now, the only reasonable basis where others should respect your feeling of offense

Again.

is because you are being bullied in some sense -- because it's part of a campaign. Otherwise, it's just you're damn feelings, and we have no more need to consider it than we do Petter's (see, it's even relevant!)

Nonsense. Stereotypes of national groups, just like stereotypes of racial or ethnic groups or genders, are stupid, non-constructive, and can (especially negative ones) have all manner of negative effects.

I'd agree that you do have a right to feel offended and demand respect of it, if you're in a group of Europeans say at a workplace and had to endure constant anti-Americanism. That's reasonable -- it's part of an exclusionary campaign, no different in substance from men at a workplace putting up posters of chix, or a white "jokingly" putting up a noose in a club.

I just don't see how any of that is in effect here.

Because ideas never spill over from the internet into real life. What people who have limited experience of Americans read here and elsewhere about us has no effect on how we're perceived and the sorts of relationships we can develop with people from other countries.

I've never demanded anything, either, so don't put fucking words in my mouth.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 6:04 PM

I will, as you appear to be speaking for yourself. It's a free intertubes.

I love it when people miss a joke that's on them.

Yup, me and my daft postdoc in daftly trying to diagnosis pre-cancerous tissues.

You can still be totally daft concerning social issues, which appears to be the case.

Realizing why they are there in the first place DOES.

They're there because people construct them. There needn't be any basis in reality, and very often isn't. You evidently don't even understand what a stereotype is.

Sorry if I'm trolling, or hijacking.

Don't apologize - just stop doing it. And sober up and stop typing such jackassery. You don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 6:18 PM

And who said it was a bad thing? Who even said that litigiousness is a bad thing? You're projecting massively here, out of some bad experience that you had on a trip to Europe.

I never said you or anyone else said that. I introduced that with "I'll note that" because I was tangentially presenting my viewpoint, in case people thought that I was viewing this as "defending" Americans from an inherently negative charge of litigiousness or legal interest rather than challenging stereotyping in general.

Look, we're talking cultural analysis here. Sociological data does squat here,

Quoted for sheer stupidity and ignorance.

any more than a statistical analysis of word usage tells you crap about literature. Collecting statistics is a very minor part of any ethnology (even if it takes the most time) -- you have to mostly talk about (and in) metaphors. It's like literary criticism -- the system is way to complex, without any a priori probability distributions for the statistics too mean much more than as a tool to point out where you may have missed something.

Asking for "sociological data" when discussing whether a stereotype is illuminating or not is just damn silly. No sociological data will properly ascertain how a people, as a community, think --

Oh, no - so much more reasonable to make up your own notions based on anecdote or television viewing. Or nothing whatsoever. Empirical support for your claims about people be damned. You're seriously ignorant and dumb, frog, and I'm done talking to you.

Your very interest in litigation shows exactly that.

What fucking interest in litigation? You're the one who keeps bringing up all this litigation=related bullshit, for what reason I can't imagine. When Morales asked way back if this was central to my objections, I said no. This is simply a bizarre claim.

Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 6:53 PM

James Sweet, I apologise for over-reacting @442, now I have reviewed this thread in the cold light of morning.

You didn't merit being quoted in Comic Sans, and I now think I misconstrued your comment.

So, sorry about that.

Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 7:02 PM

Regarding Americans/USAians, though the latter is an inelegant neologism, the former (ahem) privileges USAians.

Why is it that 'America' is considered synonymous with 'USA' in general, when it occupies only a portion of the Americas? Seems to me to be another case of (cough) hegemonic privilege embedded in the language.

(Son norteamericanos en Español)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 7:13 PM

if not is

Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 7:21 PM

morales: Son norteamericanos en Español

¿Y que quiere decir eso? Hay tres paises en norteamerica, o mas dependiendo en la definition del continente.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 7:29 PM

¿Y que quiere decir eso? Hay tres paises en norteamerica, o mas dependiendo en la definition del continente.

He didn't say that was preferable or perfect. He just mentioned it.

No es facil escapar las implicaciones que se incrustan en un idioma.

Or our stereotyped notions. But we can try.

Posted by: Watchman | June 24, 2009 7:40 PM

Why is it that 'America' is considered synonymous with 'USA' in general, when it occupies only a portion of the Americas? Seems to me to be another case of (cough) hegemonic privilege embedded in the language.

It's because the USA is the United States of America.

The continents of North and South America are collectively known as The Americas, yes, but for better or for worse, only citizens of the United State of America are called Americans. Nobody else is. I agree that America is not the most precise or accurately descriptive abbreviation, but the United States of America is the only country in the Americas that actually has the word "America" in its name, therefore the USA is the only country in The Americas commonly known as "America".

I'd argue that parsimony favors this explanation over the more politically sexy "hegemony" argument.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 7:56 PM

Which was my damn point, Your Denseness. Anything that fits in a comment is too little for a "serious" statement -- which is why holding a comment to "serious" standards is only a sign of your own cluelessness about what's going on here. Remember, this goes back to your own overkill on some fairly light parables.

I guess you're the kinda person who complains about the physics of Star Trek.

My point was that you're ignorant of social science and believe you can make claims about people without evidentiary support. I asked for a citation in support of even one of your assertions (the relevance of which, in any case, you still have not shown). I guess we should stop asking the theists and creationists to support their arguments, and just accept that these questions, like those about culture, are too complex to be formulated or analyzed scientifically, so anyone can make any claims they want in that area based on their subjective notions. It's just a blog, after all, with no room for anything serious. Total copout on your part.

Anyway, you're pathetically sputtering out. It's kind of sad to watch.

That's the 3rd time you've said that.

My name is SC, and I'm a compulsive arguer.

You started a flame-war -- and now you're pretending to walk away, and then you add that insults are somehow "irrelevant". Weak, terribly, terribly weak. It's almost creotard worthy in it's transparency and lack of sophistication. Did someone steal your ID?

I really will leave it here (I'll try; it should help that you're boring). Anyone who reads the thread can see that you failed to respond to my substantive arguments.

Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:11 PM

SC: Anyone who reads the thread can see that you failed to respond to my substantive arguments.

What substantive arguments? That you were offended? That's your thesis, your argument, your evidence and your conclusion! The rest of it is you whining about how other's arguments don't reach your high level of substance.

The saddest thing is that final reach out to external judgment, as if this forum was some kind of peer review. Anyone not involved in this fight either a) doesn't give a damn or b) is sitting back, eating popcorn and being entertained. But there's no knowledge to be gleaned from you claiming offense arbitrarily, and then whining when folks point out that it's just wankery on your part, that the minimal honest perusal of communities says that jokes have something to say about the communities that are involved -- otherwise no one would find it funny.

I really will leave it here (I'll try; it should help that you're boring).

Wow, your level of self awareness is atrocious. What could possibly be more boring than someone repetitively complaining that they don't want to talk anymore, then talking? The only thing, possibly, is someone else pointing it out repetitively!

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 8:13 PM

SC (OM), #450

Didn't think you were capable of learning.

I'd ask you to explain what the fuck you're talking about, but my previous expression of confusion concerning your meaning met with silence.

Posted by: Carlie | June 24, 2009 8:21 PM

I've really had trouble following this, so I'm staying out. However, as a brief intermission that is partially relevant to one of the side discussions, here is a song by the (Canadian) Arrogant Worms about what an American is and isn't.

Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:32 PM

Yeah, AK -- butt out of my flamefest! It's distracting. Find your own humorless agents to hash and hex.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 8:50 PM

Speaking of the Americas, Rev. BDC's governor appears to have been doing some visiting down south.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 24, 2009 9:57 PM

I am Canadian

Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 11:27 PM

Apropos of nothing, there was I time when I ridiculed political correctness (particularly in language).

Somewhere along the line, I recognised how it insidiously shaped my perceptions (e.g. 'mankind' vs. 'humankind'; 'profanity' vs. 'vulgarity'), and I accepted the concept, and I consider that merely by being aware of it I changed my thinking*.

Perhaps this issue of American is not in that category, but there's whiff of something there...

--
* No, I don't subscribe to the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis in its strong formulation, or entirely buy into Orwell's 1984 'Newspeak' implications. However, I think there's some merit to these concepts.

But what the hell do I know, I'm an autodidactic dabbler, not all that smart. And this is not false modesty, either.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | June 24, 2009 11:44 PM

@Feynmaniac [#503],
I am a better commercial.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 11:59 PM

And even a bit more clear: Because I think stereotypical thinking (and the intellectual shortcuts and laziness it involves) is the problem, it's always a problem regardless of the specific target of the stereotype. So people who object that USians or Scandinavians, as nonsubordinate or oppressed groups, should just accept it aren't understanding that accepting it in any case makes it easier to accept it in others - like the Iranian one - when it might have more serious consequences. I'm not trying to make the little jokes told here sound more serious or dramatic than they were - just trying to make a larger point.

Posted by: antistokes | June 25, 2009 12:21 AM

", especially how so many people seem so easily to start making them, "

Why do you think that is, actually...why do so many people indulge, and why is it so easy to do so? Laziness in general? Not wanting to see The Other's point of view?

Just curious...

Posted by: SC, OM | June 25, 2009 12:46 AM

Why do you think that is, actually...why do so many people indulge, and why is it so easy to do so? Laziness in general? Not wanting to see The Other's point of view?

That's a really good question. I think possibly all of that, and just habit, some emotional benefit or perceived emotional benefit perhaps, and a general lack of recognition that we're even doing it (often resulting from not having taken a good sociology course ;)). Have to look into it more in specific contexts - what encourages or discourages it, what sorts of groups are more likely to be targeted,...

Me, I appreciate doggedness (I tend towards that, myself), but I think there comes a time when you should know you've made (and consider you've sustained) your point(s), after which further elaboration functionally becomes self-justification.

There's no hard-and-fast rule here that I know of, but surely it's not a concession at that point to say "enough! — I've said my piece, and I've addressed responses to it".

I agree, and did this above - um, eventually - with frog (after a few tries; I said I'm a compulsive arguer = often continue arguments, with others' and my own points, in my head long after the actual debate is over). My point there was more about raising the issue initially, though. It's a good thing other people are here who point out other examples, or my blood pressure would be very high by now. Often when you do, even in truly egregious cases, it's met with derision and calls to lighten up from some, and it's hard not to address them in some way.

Sigh.

Posted by: windy | June 25, 2009 12:54 AM

If you think my saying your misleading presentation of my word was dishonest (which it was, regardless of whether I was confusing that comment with Fedor's - it wasn't more precise to suggest that I had been talking about objecting when I said simply answered) is anywhere near in the same league as your suggesting I hadn't thought something after I had sworn on my life that I had

Fucking yes! What kind of ridiculous hyperbole is this anyway, swearing your life on a blog comment? It's not some sort of get out of criticism free card. And I had no way of knowing which comment you were referring to, because you kept changing your story. I wasn't trying to describe your words, I was describing what happened in the thread, so spare me your indignation. It's noted, and STUPID.

*And just to be even more clear: I don't like stereotypes or stereotypical thinking and I don't like to see it promoted - it's stupid and pernicious. I pointed to other examples that I also found problematic @ #418, which included one (Iranians) in which I very recently spoke out very clearly.

Well so did I, and I thought it was kind of a no-brainer to do so. It's kind of pathetic to keep congratulating yourself over noticing it.

I'm not trying to make the little jokes told here sound more serious or dramatic than they were

But obviously you are, by bringing up the indefensible comment about Iran, and hinting about consequences. This is a ridiculous slippery slope argument.

Oh look! More pernicious stereotyping of Americans! It's everywhere!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231547&title=jason-jones-behind-the-veil

Posted by: rob | June 25, 2009 1:09 AM

On the question of why so many people tend toward stereotyping...

I seem to remember from my long ago undergrad days that there were some theories relating to the fact that our brains, looked at as organic computers (which admittedly may or may not be warranted), deal with the overwhelming level of input of daily life largely through categorization and generalization. I think this was further put forth (by some) to be a possible explanation for stereotypes. I guess it might qualify as a bit of a cop-out, but I think they were suggesting that we are pre-wired to think in stereotypes and that it might actually take a great deal of effort to rise above that in everyday thinking in order to consider each new experience (or encounter with a new person) as unique and not to be interpreted through our pre-conceptions.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 25, 2009 1:25 AM

Fucking yes! What kind of ridiculous hyperbole is this anyway, swearing your life on a blog comment? It's not some sort of get out of criticism free card.

It was in response to your repeated insinuations that I was being a a hypocrite here and hadn't cared about what was being said about Scandinavians, which were extremely insulting and WRONG. I can see you're not going to apologize, so I'll just tell you again to go to hell and leave it at that.

And I had no way of knowing which comment you were referring to, because you kept changing your story.

Bullshit - both the first part and the second.

I wasn't trying to describe your words, I was describing what happened in the thread, so spare me your indignation. It's noted, and STUPID.

I said I would have said something had it escalated or had no one else answered. (Again in response to your snotty insinuations about me). That was the context. You responded saying no one had answered - or to be more precise, objected. That's one category of answer, and one which dishonestly changes my meaning: "That implies that someone BESIDES you HAD already answered, which was not true (to be precise, no one else had objected to the joke)." I've already said that I thought you were Swedish. Given the grief I and others get for pointing these things out, I wasn't about to take on this case when the person I thought was the only Swede commenting here at the time was happily participating. But you're not really interested in my thinking - only in gleefully challenging my integrity. Well, I now have serious doubts about yours.

Well so did I, and I thought it was kind of a no-brainer to do so. It's kind of pathetic to keep congratulating yourself over noticing it.

When did I fucking congratulate myself for that? It was yet another instance of responding to your repeated allegations of selective annoyance or offense or double standards. And your constantly trying to make this about me and my motives, real or imagined, while avoiding any of the issues raised (especially later in the thread), is another reason to stop communicating with you.

This is a ridiculous slippery slope argument.

It's not a slippery-slope argument at all.

Oh look! More pernicious stereotyping of Americans! It's everywhere!

I've seen it.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 25, 2009 2:01 AM

I've seen it.

By which I mean, I've seen it and had - as a sociologist and educator - a fairly involved and complicated response to it beyond the basic humor. Could possibly contribute to a worthwhile discussion. But I'll keep that to myself for now, especially as some here have worked to create an environment that isn't conducive to intellectual or productive discussion and want to make it about jokes at others' expense. And because my integrity has been called into question here, I take that very seriously, and I don't feel like continuing under those circumstances.

Anyway, enjoy.

Posted by: windy | June 25, 2009 3:07 AM

It was in response to your repeated insinuations that I was being a a hypocrite here and hadn't cared about what was being said about Scandinavians, which were extremely insulting and WRONG.

The timing of your response created the unfortunate impression that you only think Americans are diverse and have variable cultures, therefore I made a sarcastic response to that effect.

And your constantly trying to make this about me and my motives, real or imagined

You have some fucking nerve to complain about this, after starting that inquisition into the motives of people who made a harmless joke! And you even claimed to know what those motives were:

Other people wanted to use it as an excuse to insult people from the US for some reason.

Posted by: Carlie | June 25, 2009 6:00 AM

Alan, you're being deliberately patronizing. Do you think SC has no idea of the concept of affectionate teasing? SC just pointed out that the particular instances were being used as examples in service of a larger point about stereotyping.

John Morales - as for "political correctness", my personal paradigm shift on the matter came when I realized the people who coined that phrase and used it so sneeringly were saying "I want to be able to broadly and stereotypically insult large swaths of people at once and not have anyone criticize me for it, dammit."

Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 7:06 AM

Carlie, good point re 'political correctness'.

After reading your comment I checked the Wikipedia entry, and want to clarify I meant it specifically in its linguistic sense (i.e. when I wrote "particularly in language" I intended to mean both in expressed language and in my internal dialogue), but not in its original political/ideological sense.

It's a bit of a misnomer for that, but I don't know of a better term. 'Neutral language' seems a bit limp, and 'inoffensive language' a little too saintly (and it's not particularly my intent).

As I've intimated, I've incorporated the concept primarily to help free my thinking, not to constrain it; I've done a similar thing (though I use it more judiciously) with the concept behind E-prime.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 25, 2009 7:39 AM

Two other things:

In response to suggestions of hypocrisy, I could have explained that I'm more attuned to stereotypes of group(s) to which I belong than to stereotypes of other groups. This is to be expected, and was one of the points sgbm was getting at on an earlier thread in the discussion of privilege (I'm making a conceptual link - not claiming Americans are subordinated or oppressed). The Rev., who is in the southern US, points out when people stereotype southerners; Emmet chafes at the unsubstantiated claims about engineers. Neither is being hypocritical for noting these particular instances, and both have challenged other stereotypes as well - indeed, I think doing so in one or a few cases leads people to be more likely to do so in others.

So it's understandable to be more sensitive to stereotypes of your own group, but that wasn't the case for me here, as I said. The earlier comments about USians caused me to roll my eyes, while I was very much bothered by the "explanations" of Petter's behavior in terms of Swedish or Scandinavian whininess (complicated by the fact that some of the people offering them were of the in-group in question).

Also, I objected elsewhere, and I believe here, too, when Ken Miller last year started spewing that stuff about the US excelling in science because we're so pioneering and rebellious and independent as a people. Aside from his offensive "welfare queen" remarks, and aside from the fact that I thought he he was misrepresenting creationism and how science works, I was annoyed by his triumphalist stereotypes. These sorts of "national character" arguments are silly, get us nowhere, and contribute to stereotypical thinking.

***

As I've intimated, I've incorporated the concept primarily to help free my thinking, not to constrain it; I've done a similar thing (though I use it more judiciously) with the concept behind E-prime.

That's really cool, John. And thank you! I was talking about a similar idea months ago and E.V. had linked to that entry on E-prime, but I had forgotten the name and it was bothering me!

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 25, 2009 9:07 AM

Carlie, #525

How did you get my memos? Gosh, I thought I'd securely shredded them. Read me like a first grade essay you did. Pity your bigotry ruined your take.

SC (OM), #526

You don't like being called a prissy little git, stop being a prissy little git.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 25, 2009 9:17 AM

I have another complaint:

A condescending ass with no argument or comprehension of others' points is leaving droppings across the thread. Patricia probably won't be here with her shovel until the evening, and it's hard to work in these conditions.

Posted by: frog | June 25, 2009 11:35 AM

Carlie: SC just pointed out that the particular instances were being used as examples in service of a larger point about stereotyping.

Bullshit. That's rationalization after the fact. If SC had started that way, actually using the parable as a commentary on stereotyping in general, I would have been interested. But look at the thread -- SC started by whining about being "offended", that the mean Europeans were picking on the poor Americans.

What can you expect after that? Why should SC get treated any better than anyone else who groans about their feeling being hurt, about being "annoyed"? Finally, at the end of a long conversation, SC starts muttering about the slippery slope and how this is an example of some other (unknown to me) pattern of stereotyping about Iranians.

As I said, that bullshit rationalization of an emotional reaction. SC had a bad time on some trip to Europe and is now projecting that everywhere and pretending that it's an ideological position, rather than a psychological position.

That's the same crap you get from Goddist all the time, trying to wrap reason around their emotional attachments rather than the other way around. It's fundamentally dishonest, creating a moving target since all that matters is defending the emotional position, rather than really getting at the truth of the matter.

That deserves parody and mocking, not stroking and soothing.

Posted by: Watchman | June 25, 2009 1:49 PM

Stroke this, asshole.

Thank god for commas.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 25, 2009 2:34 PM

And I thought you were done talking to my idiotic and ignorant self? What was it now, 5 times you whined and whimpered that you were going to give me the silent treatment? What, are you three years old?

You've got the introspective capability of a mirror, the denseness of the galactic singularity, the impulse control of a teenage snake-handler.

And frog, behind the wheel of Desperado, spins out, smashing into the wall. Get out of there before it catches fire!

All you had to do was drop the personal aspect of this ("offended" -- oh my!)

That's several times now that you've told that lie, implying that I started this discussion claiming to be offended by comments about USians. What I called "offensive," in response to windy's question, was the comment about whiny Swedish people - not those about Americans. You used the word offended there. You. And you recognized at the time that I hadn't been referring to the comments about Americans when you dully chirped - "Looks like you're offended for the world -- it ain't gonna thank you for it, you know." Do you think if you keep saying it people are going to believe you? Anyone can do a search for the word "offended" on the thread.

and actual make it a substantive conversation early on. But no, whine, whine, whine.

Like I said, keep riding that false claim till it breaks. No one will notice your evasiveness, stupidity, or lack of solid substantive replies.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 26, 2009 9:13 AM

Exciting information about Free Lesbian Porn and Lesbian Porn Pics. Watch lesbian movies with us. I just had to get free Sample movies and share it with everyone. Watch this site and enjoy it. Thanks

Thanks mrs. lesbomovie person. That was very helpful!

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 26, 2009 9:27 AM

Stroke this, asshole.

Stroke It Noel

Posted by: SC, OM | June 26, 2009 9:39 AM

Anyone who posts this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLHc-yIAPbg

after Janine's link gets it.

oh

oops

Posted by: SC, OM | July 1, 2009 7:52 PM

No, I didn't think you were consciously lying. I think you were rationalizing your initial reaction and casting about for something to pin on your opponents.

And since I've explained myself and my conscious motives several times now, you're saying that was a lie. So, again, go to hell. Moreover, I've offered evidence - which I shouldn't have had to do on a blog where I've been commenting regularly for a year and a half - of objecting to stereotypes of numerous groups. I could also point out that in a context of thousands of comments promoting stereotypes of people in my country, aside from this one I've raised objections on IIRC only two occasions, and one was what I saw as a critical moment in a discussion with negentropyeater about working in unison with Europeans for social change; moreover, I've made many comments that have been called "anti-American" by various US triumphalists. But really my word on this should have been enough.

You have already admitted that you were mistaken about some things that were going on in this thread, so how can you be so sure that you aren't still misinterpreting some of my comments that you are in such a huff over?

I said in the initial exchange that I may be overreacting due to my condition at the moment. But in fact, given frog's subsequent comments, I don't believe I was. frog has defended that stereotype and put forth even more elaborate ones,* argued that stereotypes are valid sociological concepts, claimed that no evidence is needed to support such claims and that jokes themselves are evidence of their "truth," contended that they are harmless unless in a very specific context and form of relationship, and continued to make collective claims about what USians believe on at least one other thread (equally unrelated to such questions).

I would have let this discussion slip, but I had to say that find this strategy of trying to browbeat me into agreement - that because you have 'sworn on your honor', I must have been wrong and/or dishonest - ridiculous and unworthy of you.

That is not my "strategy" or what I've been saying here. (Well, yes - I am saying you were wrong to continue to question my motives after I had told you what they were - that is calling me dishonest, and I take it very seriously.) I've been defending myself from your insinuations about my motives in this specific instance while trying to have a more general discussion about stereotypes. That's it.

It is equivalent to "You say that God doesn't exist, but I have experienced Him, so how dare you call me a liar!"

Speaking of unworthy of someone, surely you can see what's wrong with that analogy. This has never concerned the objective existence of anything, but has been about subjective motives. A more appropriate analogy would be if I were claiming to have an experience I considered spiritual** and you claimed that I really didn't but was lying about it in order to get rich (or claiming to have or even convincing myself I had to justify asking for money to continue my mission); I then provided evidence that I was in fact living in poverty and that I had been having such experiences since early childhood, and you continued to insinuate that all was based on pecuniary motives. Can you appreciate the difference?

*I'll note once again how out of place this was on a thread (the second in a few weeks) in which people from the US were expressing confusion over litigiousness related to libel.

**Whether or not there was in fact a supernatural basis for the experience or I was completely mistaken is completely immaterial. The question concerns my integrity - whether I had such experiences and really interpreted them in the way I had related.