Pharyngula

Posted by: Miki Z | February 11, 2010 9:42 AM

Oops, wrong story in #2 -- that is a response to this story.

If Palin were to, somehow, win a nomination and then the presidency, would she be a 3 year president or a 7 year president? (No point in serving out that final year when you know you won't be in the job next term.)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 9:45 AM

Whoa! Early portcullis on that one; took me by surprise.
Poor form there Marjanović. You know

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | February 11, 2010 9:52 AM

Continuing the discussion re the portrayal of unbelief in religious communities:

For some of the creationists, I'm not to sure this holds.

Fair enough. Or more than. Because I quite agree. I was thinking specifically of my experiences in said denominations specifically about just general unbelief, not so much creationism, and averaging, too.

And come to think of it, I'm probably being a bit too kind even in that context when I say that 'no one' just actively and consciously chooses to tell a huge howler. Some of them, depending on how much exposure they've actually had to unbelievers, or how hard they've thought about this stuff themselves, almost certainly do. In those cases, it probably just is a simple and very conscious copout, the easy thing to do under a form of peer pressure they live under. Because they know saying, honestly, 'actually, they've got some really quite excellent reasons' is as good as saying they're an unbeliever themselves. And in that sense, they might actually be, come to think of it. But still closeted, stuck in the social situation of it, for whichever complicated reasons of their own.

I'd add that thinking about this really does focus me on that attitude we hear so much that what's objectionable to people isn't unbelievers, but unbelievers who won't just remain politely silent about the whole deal. Because you'll note in this situation, the whole point of the deceptions that spread out (see again comments re the similiarity here to propaganda spread) is they're entirely a defensive strategy: it's not going to fool anyone who doesn't believe--these are deceptions passed around within the community of believers to prevent erosion by the existence of unbelievers and the actually quite good reasons they do have for rejecting the rather absurd claims the religion makes.

And that whole thing really does start to break down if too many people in the community have actually been exposed to people who really can present and have presented good reasons for rejecting the religion's overtures. It only works well in an environment where you can prevent that--or at least count on the exposure being isolated and rare enough that you can pass on the various lies and half-truths without them being too directly exposed as such. Just like that spreading propaganda, you need repetition, and an environment in which people can pass on those little lies themselves and not too obviously have to face the fact that that's what they are--and if they haven't met anyone who's a living contradiction to the claim--or at least haven't met too many, or not too recently--that's a lot easier. If unbelievers become too numerous and too visible, people are going to start to notice too much, the claims are going to start sounding way too much like the deceptions they are, and the spread may well start to break up.

So, shorter, no one should be too surprised there's a lot of pressure in that direction, and especially from relatively 'moderate', mainstream denominations, even. That's their modus operandi you're fucking with, when you're happy to live too out loud.

Posted by: nunnjosh | February 11, 2010 9:54 AM

Not sure how Palin got into this but since she is rather keen on leaving a lot of Americans to die I suppose remarking on the fact is always allowable.

Posted by: Sara | February 11, 2010 10:04 AM

"666 is the new magic number. When I see a thread reach that many comments, I close it and open a new one.
I KNEW IT! PZ has latent superstitious tendencies.
We need to get some one in to do a exorcism. Poor thing.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 11, 2010 10:06 AM

Ahh, it feels like a new day! Between a couple hair-on-fire busy days at work and then the Snowpocalypse That Wasn't©¹, I mostly missed the last subThread, and the thought of getting caught up was rather daunting. Nice to have a clean sheet of virtual paper!


¹ I recognize some folks got truly swacked by Wednesday's storm, but for most of CT other than the NY metro area and the shoreline, it was an exercise in headscratching and wondering why we closed all those schools and businesses. I did shovel my driveway, but what I was shoveling was so meager I honestly worried that my neighbors would think me daft.

Posted by: Frank b | February 11, 2010 10:08 AM

Even in a college town there is a baptist church. My daughter went to a youth group, and asked some pointed questions of the counselor. Some girls had some problem answering my daughter's questions, so I think there is some hope for some of baptist youth.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 10:14 AM

I'm done with them.

There you go!
Fuck 'em.

Speaking of Sgt. Z., btw, I keep thinking about her first comment on that trainwreck, which I asked about here when it first appeared.

Doesn't it suggest strongly that the Sarge, Laden's editor-in-another-context and indefatigable defender of his Honour and clarity, actually thought the post was about capital punishment?

Seriously, I can't parse it any other way. I think that's decent evidence for the complete opacity of his stupid, stupid metaphor.

Posted by: Dianne | February 11, 2010 10:16 AM

Day after the Snowpocalypse in lower Manhattan. It was a pretty good snow storm here. This AM the streets and sidewalks are almost all plowed/shoveled. I'm quite impressed with the sidewalks. They're clear in front of apartment buildings, abandoned construction sites, federal buildings, state institutions, buildings housing tiny businesses...in fact, everywhere except for the large, ostentatious church on the corner. It hasn't been shoveled at all. Perhaps they're waiting for god to do it.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 11, 2010 10:22 AM

...firsties posts...

Particularly contemptible if they actually appear first, too.

Meanwhile, in Flatland the ongoing attempt to understand the third dimension is proving even more futile (as though such a thing is possible):

...If you really think I need to understand your perspective on the things I've said, respect mine about the things others have said. If you really think I should pay some attention to how you feel about this situation, attend to the things you do that will shape how I feel about you.

I'm tired of your double standards, Paul..

...I think you finally got Stephanie mad. And, she's pretty much dead on with this comment. Well said, Stephanie.

Mad, you say?

1. Of an animal: abnormally aggressive; spec. (esp. of a dog) suffering from rabies, rabid.

2. Of a person, action, disposition, etc.: uncontrolled by reason or judgement; foolish, unwise. Subsequently only in stronger use (corresponding to the modern restricted application of sense 4a, from which it is now often indistinguishable): extravagantly or wildly foolish; ruinously imprudent.

3. a. Of a person: carried away by or filled with enthusiasm or desire; wildly excited; infatuated.

How is mad, good?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 11, 2010 10:25 AM

Theme for the next endless varietal: you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 10:28 AM

oy, the Eagles.
"Peaceful Easy Feeling" was my Class Song in high school. (Of course, we called them the Iggles, but that's a 'Burgh thing.)

Posted by: Dianne | February 11, 2010 10:32 AM

the endless open thread on Pharyngula, which is about nothing

Since the endless thread is about nothing, wouldn't posts early in a new sub-thread saying things like "first" technically be on topic and therefore not subject to deletion?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 11, 2010 10:34 AM

Feynmaniac (@25):

A thread about nothing.

Was there a link to Seinfeld¹ missing there?


¹ As usual when I post from work, that YouTube link is a blind posting; I hope it means what I think it means!

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 11, 2010 10:40 AM

Janine - but we're not allowed to dissent from each other! Hive mind! Hive mind!

Posted by: IanM | February 11, 2010 10:43 AM

The future is certain
Just give us time to work it out

Problem is, by the time we've worked it out, the future is past.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 11, 2010 10:48 AM

Fewer and fewer people laugh every year.

Come to think of it, this is true of a lot of my "jokes".

I almost cried the time I used a Monty Python reference in class and no one got it.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | February 11, 2010 10:50 AM

Hello all... just dropping in to say sorry I haven't been by much to comment... but I was involved in a serious accident... out of the hospital now but still recovering. I'll be keeping up but probably not posting much for a while. More details at my blog.

Cheers to all, and good health!

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | February 11, 2010 10:52 AM

CAB

The Dude, in the back seat of a taxicab that rocks and squeaks with every bump,is gingerly touching at sore spots on his face and scalp.
"Peaceful Easy Feeling" is on the radio.

DUDE'S POV

The back of the driver, a large black man with rasta dreds under a knit cap.

DUDE
Jesus, man, can you change the station?

DRIVER
Fuck you man! You don't like my fucking music, get your own fucking cab!

DUDE
I've had a--

DRIVER
I pull over and kick your ass out, man!

DUDE
--had a rough night, and I hate the
fucking Eagles, man--

DRIVER
That's it! Outta this fucking cab!

Aaaaaand FREEZE.

The Eagles, Sven? AND the Dead? What evil did rock and roll ever visit upon you to make you reject it so utterly?

Posted by: IanM | February 11, 2010 10:54 AM

I have a suggestion for eliminating firsties although I don't know if it is technically feasible. When the number of posts exceeds some predetermined number, in this case 666 (or my favorite 668 - the neighbour of the beast) start the new thread with the overflow.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 11, 2010 10:55 AM

marcelogreco (@37):

a dance marathon

Details, please.

Yah, I was wondering about that, too. I'm imagining some sort of Dancing With the Secular Humanist Stars.

Of course, it could've just been crafty misdirection on PZ's part.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | February 11, 2010 10:59 AM

CHIMPY!!!!!!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 11:04 AM

What evil did rock and roll ever visit upon you to make you reject it so utterly?

huh wha?
I'm with the Dude on this one. man (as on so much else). "Peaceful Easy Feeling" was my class song by vote. At the time I would have likely thrown away my vote to make an elitist statement like "A Love Supreme" or something. In fact, I did reject "rock" music along with "pop" almost completely for many years (always excepting teh Beatles, Santana and Steely Dan). It was the improvisation of the Dead that made me start listening, then I started appreciating the songs, and that started a process of opening up to everything from Radiohead to Nanci Griffith to Gregory Isaacs to sometimes even Counting Crows.

I still don't care for the Iggles, though they did not make my recent list of bands I white-hot burning hate. For the record.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | February 11, 2010 11:08 AM

C_U, trapped for an hour? That must have been scary. At least you are around to tell the story.

Yes... it was very scary... and yes, I am very lucky it wasn't much worse...

But I can think of no better place than here to state plainly, it was NO miracle. It was the wonderful effort and dedication and hard work of the medical and emergency professionals on the scene. I didn't need prayers nor help from on high, just the quick and professional response of the people who helped rescue me and get me safely to the hospital.

To them I give my highest thanks and gratitude...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 11:09 AM

CE, glad to hear you're going to be OK. That must have been a tough hour!
Heal up, now, here?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | February 11, 2010 11:14 AM

Wrong time of the year but it is a happy Star Wars themed song!

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | February 11, 2010 11:29 AM

CE:

Oi! I'm relieved you are feeling relatively chipper about that whole thing, and saddened you had to go through the whole ordeal.

Best wishes for healing up and getting on with your life.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 11, 2010 11:32 AM

To Cicely @636 on the previous thread. The first, and least expensive test, is well-covered, with money left over. Thank you to everyone. For the CT Angiography of my head, I have about half of that covered -- It's way too expensive if you ask me, $1302 for the CT, plus $93.75 for the contrast. That's almost $1400, and I'll have to ask Rorschach about this, but a little research online shows other countries doing the same test for about half that. I'm also having trouble getting the imaging company to agree to a discount -- however, I haven't given up on that route. Maybe they will offer the discount if I wave cash in their face -- you know, "Look, no paperwork for you! No follow-up bills? Now can I have a discount?"

I'll post the results of the first test, rescheduled now for February 16th as soon as I have them. AFAIK, my doctor has to interpret them before I get a result.

I'm sure everyone is dying to know what my carotid arteries look like.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 11, 2010 11:37 AM

Lynna,
Thanks for the updates. But I hope you don't feel like you have to: I don't think anyone who contributed to the diagnosis fund thinks they're owed any information about the results, if you're not comfortable sharing.

CE - rest up, and be kind to yourself. Glad everything worked out.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 11, 2010 11:47 AM

To Katrina @644 on the previous chapter of the endless thread. Yay! That was damned speedy for "media rate" mailing. With your mother living in Idaho, and your grandfather having been a park ranger, your family are ideal readers -- what luck to have an audience like that. Let's just hope they don't find any mistakes. I'll pass your comments on to my brother.

If you'd like to expand a little on "Your descriptions of the Idaho wilderness around the places that I remember took me right back to my own childhood" I'd love to add your review/blurb to the website.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 11, 2010 11:50 AM

Lynna (@58):

It's way too expensive if you ask me, $1302 for the CT, plus $93.75 for the contrast. That's almost $1400,...

I'm vastly relieved to see your ability to estimate simple sums remains unimpaired! ;^)

Also, let me second Carlie (@60): I'm sure none of us who contributed to Project Diagnose Lynna© feel our mite boxes entitle us to any of your private medical information. Just let us know if you're OK, and if/when you need more help. And be well!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 11, 2010 11:59 AM

Re the topic of Palin, here's my favorite quote: "We really do love our trees," Palin said. "I named my daughter Willow. Isn't that granola enough for them?" - Associated Press

Posted by: DLC | February 11, 2010 12:10 PM

I was living in the northeast for the big storms of 79 and 88. The talking head twits are all crowing that this somehow disproves "Global Warming", when anyone who's really spent some time studying the issue knows full well it does not.
Now.. global average temperatures decreasing over the next couple of decades -- that would go far toward disproving it. But how many of you think that's going to happen?

Posted by: David Marjanović | February 11, 2010 12:13 PM

But how many of you think that's going to happen?

Not me – just for the record.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 11, 2010 12:15 PM

DLC (@68):

The talking head twits are all crowing that this somehow disproves "Global Warming", when anyone who's really spent some time studying the issue knows full well it does not.

I can't hunt up the link from work, but Rachel Maddow had a most excellent smackdown on this point as part of last night's show (or maybe it was Tuesday's show; I listen by podcast, and sometimes the lag confuses me).

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | February 11, 2010 12:18 PM

I was amused by Colbert's bit about peek-a-boo-ologists.

Posted by: SteveM | February 11, 2010 12:28 PM

I was amused by Colbert's bit about peek-a-boo-ologists.

damn, beat me to it. Yes, "the only thing that can ever happen is what ever is happening, right now"

The Daily Show's take on it was pretty funny also. And Sunday's The Simpsons also presented the same point when Homer declared Global Warming a myth because Springfield had just been hit with a huge blizzard.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 11, 2010 12:34 PM

Janine:

If one of those Star Wars links-I-can't-follow isn't to Eddie Izzard's bit about Darth Vader in the Deathstar cafeteria, it should be!

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 11, 2010 12:38 PM

More Star Wars flotsam and jetsam.

Fader Gladiator - Battle of the Planets

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | February 11, 2010 12:40 PM

Not fun, not fun at all. The tree is probably fine.

I hope you have someone to look after you. Busted up like that, you'll have a hard time moving around without causing pain.

Thanks, Lynna (and of course all of you wishing me well. You guys are the best.)

The tree is apparently none the worse for wear.

And yes, I am being well looked after... don't know what I'd do if I weren't.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 11, 2010 12:43 PM

That's it, Paul W. for Molly.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | February 11, 2010 12:55 PM

Thanks to Bernard Bumner, I saw a Storm Trooper doing The Pelvic Thrust. I had to find a Star Wars/Rocky Horror crossover.

Kind of NSFW.

Posted by: Paul | February 11, 2010 1:02 PM

Not heddle. heddle doesn't believe for any rational reason; he literally believes it's a miracle that he believes, and completely ineffable why he believes and you or I don't.

He wasn't talking about heddle's religious beliefs, he was talking about heddle's way of discussing other Christians. If you ever describe a conversation where you, an atheist, describe stumping a Christian with your superior Biblical knowledge, he either calls you a liar or implies the Christian is of the No True variery. It's sickening to watch, and the main reason I don't reply to heddle anywhere he posts anymore.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | February 11, 2010 1:12 PM

"I named my daughter Willow. Isn't that granola enough for them?"

They named Bristol and Willow after places, not things. Back in the 70s or 80s, there was much talk of moving the state capital from Juneau to Willow, which is about 50 miles from Anchorage.

Palin being disingenuous? No! Say it ain't so!

Posted by: DLC | February 11, 2010 1:16 PM

Bill Dauphin, OM @ 72 : I saw the same segment, Wednesday night, with Bill Nye "the science guy."

SteveM @ 81:
Sorry for the confusion, I was just doing a bit of "Dammit, back in my day, we really had trouble!"
(and I walked to school, too... uphill, both ways... in the snow)
the latter part of my comment about AGW should have been a new paragraph. However, the first studies on global warming were published around 76-80. Google Scholar only goes back to 1991, but if you look in some of the papers you'll see references to works going back to 1976. Also, AGW gets mentioned in one episode of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, in Episode 4 "Heaven and Hell."
Not so much as today's AGW, but as a cautionary tale in the line of "this could happen to earth, if we allow it."
Or at least so my memory tells me.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | February 11, 2010 1:24 PM

People ain't no good!

Posted by: Paul W., OM | February 11, 2010 1:30 PM

Sven,

Yet another round with Sgt. Z in at Gregs... and I used the bit about her misunderstanding Greg's analogy and nattering about capital punishment.

The irony's pretty serious given how she and her ilk make Greg's post out to be so clear that we're stupid to think it's about us, when it explicitly is, but not just us, and not that way... and besides we deserve it and are in denial.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | February 11, 2010 1:35 PM

A new one?! But I haven't even read the old one yet! (Or the one before that, or the one before that, ...)

Thanks for the updates. But I hope you don't feel like you have to: I don't think anyone who contributed to the diagnosis fund thinks they're owed any information about the results, if you're not comfortable sharing.

Hope you have a happy reëvolution, Celtic.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | February 11, 2010 1:37 PM

Don't know if the CC can hear this, but give it try at about 44.00 in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qgsgc/PM_11_02_2010/

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 11, 2010 1:43 PM

It was the wonderful effort and dedication and hard work of the medical and emergency professionals on the scene, at least some of whom almost certainly worked for the ebil, socialist public sector. I didn't need prayers nor help from on high, just the quick and professional response of the people whosocialized EMS that helped rescue me and get me safely to the hospital.

Not "fixed," but enhanced!

Forgive me for piggybacking a political point onto your personal crisis, but it bears repeating, against the din of Reagan's "government is the problem" echoing down through the decades, that government fucking saves lives!

Bill, that's not a good argument. I don't think even the most dyed-in-the-wool libertarian would deny that people who work for government agencies can save lives. Of course government can save lives; it can also destroy them. Much the same could be said of corporations, and of virtually any other powerful entity you care to name.

I'm not saying that emergency medical services should not be a government function - indeed, I'd say they are a good example of something which the state can legitimately provide. I just don't think that you can make a categorical statement like "government saves lives", and imply from this that government intervention in general is a great thing. It would be as simplistic as me pointing to the war in Iraq, or the Farm Bill, and saying "government kills people".

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | February 11, 2010 1:49 PM

In keeping with the theme: Vader Sessions.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 11, 2010 2:02 PM

A Moment of Mormon Madness, courtesy of Steve Benson:

In an episode disturbingly reminiscient of life under the iron boot of facist control, I am aware of a case where a believing Mormon--lonely, burdened and unhappy in a small LDS-dominated town--struck up a long-distance internet correspondence with someone that was personally fulfilling to both of them but that remained properly platonic.
     One of this person's young children noticed their parent's time spent corresponding with this person across the country and secretly reported it to the bishop of the local ward.
     The bishop called this person in for a personal worthiness check and took away their temple recommend, pending repentance and review.
     The person privately regarded it as an improper use of authority by the bishop but obediently went along with the sanction without protest.
     Welcome to Mormonism's version of Germany under the SS.
     And no, I'm not talking Sunday School

For the Canadians, the National Geo channel aired "Inside Polygamy", with a focus on the FLDS community of Bountiful. It aired February 10, but should show up as a rerun soon. The FLDS community in Bountiful is connected to Warren Jeff's polygamist compound in Hilldale/Colorado City. The leader in Bountiful, Winston Blackmore, has 121 children... so far.

The documentary film that details the LDS Church's push to pass Proosition 8, "8: The Mormon Proposition", has been bought by a distributor. It was well-received at Sundance, and it's great to see that it will be getting wider distribution.

Posted by: Autumn | February 11, 2010 2:07 PM

@ Walton,
My thought is that certain goods/services (indeed, most of them) are fairly distributed by the market pricing model. Some goods/services, however, are so integral to the functioning of the community, state, or nation, that their disbursment simply by cost is inimical to society. In these cases (I would include primary education, utilities, health care, security, and some others) the government has an obligation to society to provide them. In many areas I think that governments should stay the hell away, but in others I think that the government is the only way to go.
In the US, this approach makes me a Communist, apparently.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 2:19 PM

We're in an ECO chamber?

Why, yes! Yes, we are!

Why, yes! Yes, we are!

Posted by: eshamlin | February 11, 2010 2:26 PM

@108

In these cases (I would include primary education, utilities, health care, security, and some others) the government has an obligation to society to provide them. In many areas I think that governments should stay the hell away, but in others I think that the government is the only way to go.
In the US, this approach makes me a Communist, apparently.

Amen & likewise.

Posted by: blf | February 11, 2010 2:28 PM

Afghanistan defeats USA!!


(at 20/20 cricket)

I recall reading several articles/blogs in The Grauniad that the Afghan cricket team is extremely good. For example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/cricket-afghanistan-world-cup (I don't know if they actually qualified for the World Cup or not?).

Posted by: negentropyeater | February 11, 2010 2:31 PM

We had a snowpocalypse here today.
Well what we might call a "snowpocalypse" on the French Riviera, 12 inches of snow that held all day.

Total chaos, this hadn't happened for the last 30 years. A normal year is no snow at all. We have nothing planned for this.

Most villages and towns have no equipement to deal with this amount of snow on the roads. There are cars parked all over the place along the roads in our very hilly country side : drivers who abandoned their cars because they couldn't go any further. Very few cars even had snow tires. Shops were sold out of wheel chains in a matter of a few hours. No public transports apart from the train are running.

And to make matters worse, the demand for electricity has been so immense (what do people do when they can't drive and go anywhere : they stay home, put the heater on, watch TV or the internet, take a warm bath, etc...), that the network had to be rationed : 1 hour shut down for each district, rotating. We expect more shut downs during the night (and my house is all electric).

Our local government and the electricity company don't budget their investments to cater for such a mess that happens only every thirty years. Most people just don't want more taxes but they get really pissed off when shit happens.

I have read that one of the predictions of climate change for our area is that winters are going to become shorter and colder and snowier, whilst summers are going to become longer, hotter and drier.
So far we've had two exceptionally cold and wet months preceeded by eight exceptionally warm and dry months.

I predict that most people here are going to continue resisting more taxes and government investments, whilst climate change will increase the chance of chaotic situations : we are going to be slow at reacting, at adapting to our new environement.

And I'm talking about here, the French Riviera, one of the most fortunate and temperate places on earth. It is going to get much worse elsewhere.

Posted by: blf | February 11, 2010 2:36 PM

Die Ostküste hat zu viel Schnee.

Und es kann halten Sie es! (Übersetzt mit Hilfe von Google Generalissimus.)

Posted by: windy | February 11, 2010 2:44 PM

I had a wife once who "hated the word 'bucket'"

Was her name Hyacinth, by any chance?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | February 11, 2010 2:47 PM

Und es kann halten Sie es! (Übersetzt mit Hilfe von Google Generalissimus.)

Muss die dritte Person der Dativ sein?

Posted by: blf | February 11, 2010 2:51 PM

Muss die dritte Person der Dativ sein?

Wenn ich mich erinnern konnte, dass ich nicht verwenden würden Generalissimus Google. Oder habe ich einen Tippfehler?

Posted by: heddle | February 11, 2010 2:56 PM

Owlmirror,

That's not how these "slam dunks" are described. Not that the loser is lost in contemplative silence, but that he is stunned and utterly and totally destroyed when the brilliant rhetorical trap is sprung.

As for the Gish Gallop--that's but an unpleasant memory. I tend not to argue with YECs anymore. Mostly I argue with atheists or with other Christians about theology, but not over creation. Generally in both cases (atheists and theology debates) people argue reasonably. But YECs are, by far, the most annoying people on the planet to argue with (over creation).

Posted by: blf | February 11, 2010 3:01 PM

negentropyeater, I'm very near La Ciotat (which is East of Cassis, West of Toulon, and South(-ish) of Aix-en-Provence). I'm about 100m from the Mediterranean Sea, at or just below sea level. It wasn't snowing up in the hills (at least on this side) today (up to c.6pm); I have no idea what it's doing now up there. I imagine (without checking) that it's snowing in Aix and maybe Marseille, since it seems to be the pattern that if there's a bit of snow here, there's a lot more snow there.

Posted by: blf | February 11, 2010 3:07 PM

Und es kann halten Sie es! (Übersetzt mit Hilfe von Google Generalissimus.)

What did you mean to say ?

Something like (I don't recall the exact words now) And it can keep it! (Translated with the help of Generalissimo Google.) In context, that was intended to mean the East Coast (of the USA, I presume) can keep its snow—We've now got our own…  ;-)

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 11, 2010 3:19 PM

Walton (@102):

Bill, that's not a good argument. I don't think even the most dyed-in-the-wool libertarian would deny that people who work for government agencies can save lives.

Spoken like someone who's never stood on a streetcorner in a U.S. town, holding a sign that begs people to vote for the town budget. While I'm sure the people you talk politics with at Oxford are thoughtful and intelligent (even those who come to conclusions with which I categorically disagree), that doesn't really reflect the street-level political dynamics here in the U.S.

I'm not talking about principled discussions of whether this or that social good is most appropriately supplied by the public sector; I'm talking about the pernicious meme — most conspicuously trumpeted by Reagan and carefully nurtured by movement conservatives ever since — that says government never effectively provides anything of real worth, and thus all taxes are waste (at best), if not outright theft.

The result of decades of this I got mine indoctrination is that many Americans — including even many who vote Democratic and think of themselves as liberals — thoughtlessly accept the notion that government can't do anything well, and the corollary belief that less government is always better.

As a consequence, when local government faces a revenue shortfall — as my town does at the moment, because of cuts in state aid and the generally crappy economy — we can't even talk about raising taxes to adequately fund vital public services... including the very sorts of services that rescued C_E, and possibly saved his life.... because the public has been carefully trained not to see any of the benefits government does provide.

The fact that government fucking saves lives is in no way contradicted by the fact that it sometimes kills people, too. I've put in my days protesting the Iraq war, and working to turn the people who jinned it up out of office, but the burr under my saddle on this particular day is the extent to which people fail to see or value all the good government, at all levels, does on a daily basis.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | February 11, 2010 3:25 PM

I spoke a magic sentence that left my opponent speechless and decomposed into a pile of quivering jello are bullshit.

Word. Especially when the opponent begins the argument in that state.

RBDC: I was just about to ask that very question.

Posted by: Stogoe | February 11, 2010 3:36 PM

In these cases (I would include primary education, utilities, health care, security, and some others) the government has an obligation to society to provide them. In many areas I think that governments should stay the hell away, but in others I think that the government is the only way to go. In the US, this approach makes me a Communist, apparently.

I would include access to the internet in 'utilities', myself, but that would probably make me a double secret uber-terroristic commienazi of the Splodey-Head Squadron.

Posted by: Epikt | February 11, 2010 3:45 PM

negentropyeater:

We had a snowpocalypse here today. (what do people do when they can't drive and go anywhere : they stay home, put the heater on, watch TV or the internet, take a warm bath, etc...),

You might check to see if there's a mini-baby-boom in nine months.

Posted by: Alan B | February 11, 2010 3:52 PM

So say something.

"Something full stop/period" (for US readers?)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 11, 2010 4:09 PM

Jadehawk (from the last thread):

your beliefs are abso-fucking-lutely irrelevant. we already had this conversation: you motivations for your political actions/positions are irrelevant. What matters are the effects of enacting certain policies in the here-and-now are real. Since you're allied to a group of people whose job it has been to make life harder on immigrants and poor people, and since the policies you imagine would help people would merely cause even more misery and poverty, you are an ally of Tancredo via the real-world effects and outcomes of your politics, even if not in motivation or desired/imagined outcomes.

In no way am I "allied to a group of people whose job it has been to make life harder on immigrants and poor people". I have no idea what you're talking about.

And which of my proposed policies would cause "more poverty and misery"? Ending agricultural subsidies and tariffs, and giving producers from the developing world a fair chance to compete? Closing the asylum "detention centres", and guaranteeing the basic civil rights of refugees and asylum-seekers? Open immigration policies? Decriminalising recreational drugs, and abolishing the insane practice of imprisoning non-violent drug users? Supporting gay marriage, gay and transgender rights, and abortion rights?

I hope you're not going to say what strange gods is saying, and accuse me of conspiring to hurt the poor and oppressed merely because I support the Conservative Party. The UK Conservative Party is not dominated by wingnuts. Someone like Tom Tancredo would be thrown out of the party on this side of the Atlantic (and would probably be relegated to one of the fringe far-right anti-immigration parties). We are a sane, modern, progressive, reality-based party. And good people, with a sincere desire to do good, can be found within all the major British political parties. Human decency and compassion is not a monopoly of the left.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | February 11, 2010 4:25 PM

The UK Conservative Party is not dominated by wingnuts.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | February 11, 2010 4:29 PM

We are a sane, modern, progressive, reality-based party. And good people, with a sincere desire to do good, can be found within all the major British political parties. Human decency and compassion is not a monopoly of the left.

and please, stop whining at me about the things you'd LIKE to see happening, but which won't happen, won't happen by allying yourself with conservatives, or could happen but only have the results you'd like them to have in your own mind. it all doesn't matter. really.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 11, 2010 4:39 PM

@#649 on NWSTNETN:

/steam geek

This is hella fun.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 11, 2010 4:56 PM

Jadehawk,

Maybe you're right. I'm not really sure. On the things I know a lot about (human rights, civil liberties, the criminal justice system, etc.), I seem to have become massively liberal in the last couple of years. These days, I'm really only a "conservative" on economic issues, and I'm conscious of the fact that I really don't know enough about economics to trust my own judgment.

For example, right-leaning economists tend to say that Thatcher's reforms in the 1980s saved the UK economy from disaster by eliminating unsustainable public enterprises, cutting taxes and creating an entrepreneur-friendly economy; equally, left-leaning economists tend to say that the same reforms stored up economic problems for the future by eliminating the manufacturing base and creating over-reliance on services and the financial sector, as well as creating mass unemployment in the short term. They both seem to have a point, but I just don't have enough knowledge of economics, or enough understanding of the facts and figures, to evaluate their claims and tell who's right. I just wish the right answers were more obvious.

Posted by: JBabs073 | February 11, 2010 5:22 PM

Lawlz.
Quality choice of video, P.Z.

And what of these dance marathons you speak of?
Surely there must be video footage of this?

Posted by: David Marjanović | February 11, 2010 5:36 PM

your next door neigbor's street address is yours ±2.

Oh, of course, thanks.

What did you mean to say ?

Und sie kann ihn (sich) behalten – "and she [the east coast] can keep him [the snow] (for third-person-self)".

You might check to see if there's a mini-baby-boom in nine months.

Didn't happen in the famous New York blackout. Apparently everyone used protection.

On the things I know a lot about (human rights, civil liberties, the criminal justice system, etc.), I seem to have become massively liberal in the last couple of years. These days, I'm really only a "conservative" on economic issues, and I'm conscious of the fact that I really don't know enough about economics to trust my own judgment.

Epic. :-)

Posted by: SC OM | February 11, 2010 5:51 PM

I just posted this:

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2010/02/indefensible.html

Posted by: thou 386sx | February 11, 2010 5:58 PM

Tried checking in on other thread. Was not allowed comment. (Now commenting this thread.)

Posted by: thou 386sx | February 11, 2010 6:04 PM

I do not like the smell of melons.

You are quite mistaken my friend. The casaba melon has no aroma.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | February 11, 2010 6:10 PM

Latest on the trainwreck at Greg's:

It got to the point of me telling Stephanie to fuck off, in so many words, and her saying she wouldn't waste any more time on me.

Let's hope it's true. What a mess.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 11, 2010 6:14 PM

Ban that Fucking Holiday! Ahem. Saudi Arabia bans Valentine's Day.

Each year, the religious police mobilize ahead of Feb. 14 and descend on gift and flower shops, confiscating all red items, including flowers.
     Attitudes toward Valentine's Day vary across the Arab world, with devout Muslims opposing the holiday as a Western celebration of romantic love that corrupts Muslim youth.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 11, 2010 6:30 PM

Paul W., I wish I could give you a giant sundae with three kinds of topping and plenty of whipped cream. Kudos to you for trying over there.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 11, 2010 6:38 PM

llewelly #159

Thanks. Now for some pictures of BIG steam locomotive:

The 4-6-6-4 Challenger was used to haul freight over the Rocky Mountains.

The Pennsy 6-4-4-6 Duplex was an oddball design.

This 6-6-6-2 Allegheny pulled heavy coal trains in the Allegheny mountains.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 11, 2010 6:45 PM

Get better soon, CE.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/KtrH9g4llpHui8s2.0ezzjBOheU0WpQaoHA-#ab4e8 | February 11, 2010 6:51 PM

Just for 'Tis Himself.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 11, 2010 6:56 PM

Greg's initial "people might get the idea" post was almost a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement. When challenged to support SC's supposed or apparent or possibly perceived or "whatever the hell Greg was referring to" anti-semitism, neither Greg nor his partisans could find actual anti-semitic remarks. Rather than admit to this failing, Greg et al went on the attack. Everyone questioning Greg were still beating their wives.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | February 11, 2010 7:05 PM

I am glad to see people are finally standing up to bad traffic habits in Cambodia.

The last time I was there, people still refused to stop on red. Of course, traffic rules are subjective.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 11, 2010 7:12 PM

#172

Thank you for that.

If you like articulated steam locomotives (and who doesn't?), here's a video for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUh-3k2-rEU&feature=related

Posted by: David Marjanović | February 11, 2010 7:30 PM

can be described as him seeming to want to both have his poo and fling it, too.

:-) :-) :-)

makes me wonder if he's not thinking about entering politics.

:-) :-) :-)

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 11, 2010 7:44 PM

- makes me wonder if he's not thinking about entering politics.

I walked by Greg on the street the other day, and saw him slip into a dark alley. He went to scratch his chin, which made his Greg Laden mask slip just a little bit. I could swear a caught a glimpse of Chris Mooney behind it. . .

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | February 11, 2010 7:58 PM

Thanks to all the well-wishers both here and over at my blog... I can't express enough how much it means to me, but really, after all the years I've been coming here I've learned to expect nothing less. And not a one of you offered to pray for me... brought a tear of joy to my eye. ;^)

Godless indeed!

Posted by: KillJoy | February 11, 2010 8:28 PM

most of THOSE guys, that is, and gals too.

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | February 11, 2010 9:11 PM

Josh (OSG) and 'Tis:

I grew up with a steam engine. My family actually owned one. It was slim gauge (2-foot scale) but nevertheless a real, steam-powered 4-4-0 locomotive. We actually converted it from coal to propane. The tanks were on the tender, and fire was "shot" into the firebox.

One of the best days I had in military officer training was the day we got to walk around inside the cut-out of a ship's boiler. Being able to see that stuff on a considerably larger scale was pretty exciting.

I'll see if I can find a link to anything resembling our family's train.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 11, 2010 9:30 PM

Oh, that's fantastic, Katrina! Please do try to find a pic of what yours looked like. I know little about gauges - is a two foot a real, life-sized loco?

Thanks for the linky, too, Kamaka.

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | February 11, 2010 9:36 PM

Josh, yes 2-foot, or slim gauge, was mainly used in areas where a standard sized train wouldn't fit. I may be getting some details wrong (I was probably about 10 years old the last time I read up on them) but I believe they were used for mining, especially. They were also handy because you could place a third rail in the center of a standard size track and run them, too.

We ran our train on a Christmas tree farm. The engine pulled three passenger cars and two flat cars loaded with trees. My uncle built a diesel "push" engine out of an old Jeep and some plywood. It looked a lot cooler than it sounds. Anyway the two engines were able to haul over 200 passengers and the two flat-cars loaded with trees on each trip.

Posted by: Kamaka | February 11, 2010 9:37 PM

Here's a better link:

http://www.milwaukeemomentum.com/21/cheap-flights-to-milwaukee/milwaukee-county-zoo-train/

Posted by: Kamaka | February 11, 2010 9:50 PM

When I had my 1975 Dodge Dart

Oh, that's cool! Back in the day, I drove a slant six Dodge Dart ('72?) as a taxicab...we got 400,000 miles out of that thing with just one rebuild. We finally had to take it off the road because it had been banged up so many times, we couldn't keep it in one piece anymore. But that engine was still clickin'!

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | February 11, 2010 10:05 PM

Josh, we had a '70 Pontiac LeMans with a 350 big block. That's what I learned to do tune-ups on.

It's been too many years since my parents closed the farm and sold the train for me to find any remnant of it on YouTube. I will see if I have any old photos and post links to them, if I can.

Posted by: Kamaka | February 11, 2010 10:14 PM

Yah, Josh, they had a convention of automotive engineers and I was taking one of them to the airport in said cab, he said the slant six was the best engine ever made. That would have been sometime around 1979.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | February 11, 2010 10:17 PM

thou 386sx @165 said "If Smoggy or one of the sock puppets are reading this, I hope they took no offense from the previous thread. It's just that the vile jokes are offensive to sensitive people who don't like the vulgar language. But yes, they are very funny."

Why would I take offense? I'm about as offensive to people who stray blindly into Pharyngula as it's possible to be. Poor Christian Mike (and no, he's not a sock puppet of mine, I've never had any sock puppets, there's just me and that prick Happy Kiwi, who thinks he has proprietorial rights over me)...as I was saying, poor Mike had no idea what hit him. Sure he believes stupid shit, but he's probably a nice guy, most likely a good father, and he got a hefty verbal assault for his pains.

Anyway, I didn't come here to bitch. The fact is the homicidal Happy Kiwi is the one who wants a word, so I'm going to leave him to it.
----------------------
Hello Pharyngulistas,
Some of you may recall me being around when Smoggy first invaded this blog (for which I take dubious responsibility). I'm amazed he has survived here this long--I thought people would get tired of him much more quickly than this (and that PZ would probably boot him off after while).

But Kel and thou were of a similar mind to me when they suggested on the last thread that Smoggy is getting a little tiresome. I'm finding him less original and more repetitive than when I first started doing Smoggy-riffs. As well, there seem to be less of the really obnoxious religiots around of the sort Smoggy enjoyed savaging. I guess most of them are in the dungeon now, and there's no satisfaction teasing the Mikes of this virtual world.

To cut a long peroration short, I think the time may have come to send Smoggy back to prison for importing powdered ram semen, and this time with no internet connection. I'm not surprised his humour doesn't appeal to SOME Nth Americans, with the exception of a late discovery of George Carlin, Smoggy's humour is purely British and antipodean: The Goons, Monty Python, Not the Nine O'Clock News, Billy Connolly, Rowan Atkinson (Blackadder and Baldric), Billy T. James, Fred Dagg, Kevin Bloody Wilson, Norman Gunston, Little Britain, Kenny Everett etc. etc.

I should also add that although I share Smoggy's views on the evils of dehumanizing religion, most of his attitudes and behaviours are completely fictional. I'm boringly straight, and many of the things Smoggy comes out with shock me (not least because of what they suggest about the roiling cesspit of my unconscious). The original Smoggy Batzrubble was actually a character in a children's fantasy novel I never got around to writing. I've enjoyed writing Smoggy's chats with Jesus and quite a bit of his smoggerel, even if it can't hold a candle to Cuttlefish. The poem I'm most pleased with is the little limerick he wrote on the rock thread about my girlfriend named'Gamina' who has laminar flows (although Floyd inserts a Shofar always makes me laugh).

I won't kill off Smoggy, he's a wonderful safety valve when the respectable everyday world gets too tedious, and I find I'm quite fond of him. But he won't be showing up that often, unless he has something really worth saying (or a poem worth offering). Thanks for putting up with him. If he's offended any of you deeply in any way, then although he's not sorry, I am.

Finally, sincere thanks to PZ for allowing me to indulge my penchant for fiction and satire on his blog.

Happy Kiwi

Posted by: Kamaka | February 11, 2010 10:18 PM

Here's a picture Josh, it's the blue 4-door.

http://www.valiant.org/dart/1972.html

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 11, 2010 10:22 PM

Here's a picture Josh, it's the blue 4-door.

And how pretty it is. Is that the model you drove for a cab?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 11, 2010 10:25 PM

The first car I owned was '68 Valiant with a slant 6. It got me through grad school and post-doc. The body was falling apart when I replaced it in late '79, but the engine was still good.

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | February 11, 2010 10:27 PM

'Tis, I remember the B-Girls. After OCS, I spent two years playing "Hunt for Red October" in Bermuda.

Josh, I'll keep looking for pictures. I suspect my mom has them all. We had the train from the mid-'70s, to the early '90s. Bought it from the Nebraska State Fairgrounds, if I recall correctly. There was another one, twin to ours, that ran for a while somewhere in California.

Posted by: Kamaka | February 11, 2010 10:29 PM

Is that the model you drove for a cab?

Yes, for sure. I spent much time in that thing...it was close to that color, too.

Posted by: thou 386sx | February 11, 2010 10:38 PM

Brother Smoggy, you stick around. I'm the one retiring, because, frankly I only weird myself out what with trying to interact with people and whatnot. It never works out very well. :D

I'll be over here trying to be a famous musician, never giving up, and if you ever hear a Smoggy Batzrubble song, well, that'll be me in my weird apologetic ways.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 11, 2010 10:47 PM

I officially re-christen you Nerd of SpokesGay (deference and apologies to the Redhead).

Posted by: Kamaka | February 11, 2010 10:57 PM

While I can understand wanting to ease back on Smoggy

Me, too. But there have been posters here who so richly deserve the kind ministrations of Smoggy, he just has to stop in every now and again. (Bwahaha, the guy who called you "just sick", I still chuckle about that.)

Dear god, Google Buzz is a clusterfuckastrophe

Thanks for the useful link. Their company motto is "Don't be evil". Oops, they come close this time.

The door is slammed.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 11:08 PM

Keeps Time to One Second in 3.7 Billion Years

close enough for jazz

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | February 11, 2010 11:15 PM

But Kel and thou were of a similar mind to me when they suggested on the last thread that Smoggy is getting a little tiresome.

Posted by: Kamaka | February 11, 2010 11:32 PM

Yes, I used Velveeta, which is trashy. But it's soooo good.

Velveeta? Yuck, that is soooo gay.

You all wish you were at my house right now. Mmm-hmm.

Oh, so you put bacon in it?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 11, 2010 11:38 PM

Kamaka, I took the best job I good, so you and your sister could eat, and have a place to sleep, and some clothes on your backs.

Aren't the tentacles enough? Do you have to degrade me?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 11, 2010 11:45 PM

Is that an invitation?

Yes, yes it is, my little pikachu. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 11, 2010 11:59 PM

hmm
'depilitated' or 'depilated'?

Posted by: Kamaka | February 12, 2010 12:10 AM

Josh links @ 226, 228

Gyeong Hwa Pak links @ 229

What is wrong with you people, how would you even know about such crap?

para lang sa iyo

Filipino, too, Pikachu?

Posted by: MrFire | February 12, 2010 12:13 AM

I must be the only one, then, who would like Smoggy to get even more deranged, if that is possible. Then again, I found Bob Saget's telling of the Aristocrats joke...well, tame.

Happy Kiwi, I would like to thank you for Smoggy. I also want you to know that you can expect to hear from my lawyer, on account of you having nearly killed me with laughter a number of times.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 12:20 AM

I also think that Smoggy should go into semi-retirement only if Smoggy himself tires of the commenting.

As for Google - gah. I'm angry enough that I'm about to switch entirely over to Yahoo. Even if you don't have a google profile and don't turn on Buzz, the followers/following are still there until you go in and manually delete them, then you can turn it off. And as Isis pointed out, in a lot of cases that's revealing real names of pseudonyms for people who comment on blogs under pseuds but using their real google account for the sake of the blogowner only. (Ex. - if I go by the name Smoggy but email PZ using my real name attached to my gmail, knowing that PZ won't give me away, buzz will put my real name in his list of contacts for everyone else to see if he has a public profile.)

Posted by: Kamaka | February 12, 2010 12:31 AM

Oh, that's a good link, GHP. I'm supposed to be learning to speak Tagalog, but damn, it's tough.

Posted by: Nick | February 12, 2010 12:40 AM

Thank God (or Allah) that someone is making sure that there are no evil red roses around on Valentines Day. Who knows the terror they could inflict on poor, unsuspecting Saudis.

From theage.com.au -

Saudi police launch Valentine's Day crackdown February 12, 2010 - 8:40AM

The Saudi religious police have launched a nationwide crackdown on shops selling items that are red or in any other way allude to the banned celebrations of Valentine's Day, a Saudi official says.

Members of the feared religious police have been inspecting shops for red roses, heart-shaped products or gifts wrapped in red, and ordering storeowners to get rid of them, the official says. He spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to reporters.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | February 12, 2010 1:04 AM

Smoggy, you can always change your name by clicking on your name on the commenting box.

goodbye my Smoggy

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 1:07 AM

So Greg has finally listed all of the comments SC made that he thought could be seen as antisemitic, and... none of them are, and I don't see how anyone could interpret any of them that way. I guess at least he laid it on the table.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | February 12, 2010 1:45 AM

I just like foreign music.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Zu4ffLIlI

A didgeridoo!

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | February 12, 2010 2:07 AM

Kel wrote:

Damn, I feel bad now.

Kel killed Smoggy!

Nah, I agree that Smoggy has had a good run and should now be used for the occasional impact comment rather than on an everyday basis. But, that being said, the keen insight of his puppeteer, Happy Kiwi, should appear more often!

Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM | February 12, 2010 2:43 AM

There is too much win on this thread . . . I can't keep up!

C_E, I'm sorry to hear you're so busted up. Your rib cage must have taken a hell of a lick. May your recovery be swift and your pain meds teh awesome. But I'm very glad you're here to tell the tale, thanks to those socialist commie nazi EMT's and firefighters and whatnot.

Happy Kiwi, I for one love Smoggy and hope to hear from him at suitable times in the future. And to see more from you in your own voice, too!

Owlmirror, Lovelace and Babbage are GREAT! I have a kid into steampunk now; can't wait to show it to her.

And speaking of steam, Josh, this one's for you; here is a picture of a locomotive used in harvesting Southern pine from East Texas in the thirties, now conserved at the Diboll History Museum (home of Temple-Inland Forest Products).

Josh, Mr. Science also makes incredible mac-n-cheese, also using the white-trash staple Velveeta, plus cream cheese and sour cream too. You can feel your arteries clogging as you eat. Velveeta's the only way to go, in my opinion (and yes, I've made it with white sauce, gruyère, and other fancy stuff -- Velveeta's better).

Walton:

On the things I know a lot about (human rights, civil liberties, the criminal justice system, etc.), I seem to have become massively liberal in the last couple of years.

Posted by: John Morales | February 12, 2010 3:09 AM

Leigh,

Somehow I haven't settled down to deliver the promised pink fluffy god theology lecture.

Leigh, please don't feel under pressure.

I want you at your best. <g>

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 3:21 AM

For all you train fans in the states: A trip worth taking!

BS

Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM | February 12, 2010 4:13 AM

Rorschach: "There's a surprise."

Hold the snark until after you read it. My brain has been working at half-speed, possibly because I've blown it all out my nose. Or maybe it was the massive amounts of decongestants and pain/fever relievers I've been ingesting all week. To put it bluntly, I've been feeling like warmed-over dog shit and sleeping 12 or more hours a day. Up until today, I've had the attention span of a fruit fly and the sunny disposition of a rabid warthog.

Posted by: John Morales | February 12, 2010 4:32 AM

Which reminded me (this is cross-threaded from the Video conference? post back in January).

--

To his credit, the Pastor has (sort of) acquiesced to repeated calls for his supporting his contention that "Theology is self-correcting, like science." here.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 12, 2010 4:35 AM

Hold the snark until after you read it.

Your brain caught a much worse virus then the current one in your body long ago, so I'm not holding my breath.

I've had the flu for over a week, possibly H1N1

Noone cares about that anymore, we don't test for it anymore either, unless you're pregnant, under 6 months old or have cancer or something.

I liked your link to that 2008 thread though, made me send Etha a message tonight, who is one of the people I really miss here, same with Mrs Tilton and Kseniya.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 12, 2010 5:05 AM

Leigh, on the ancient thread to which you linked, you said to me:

In a aside, I want to personally welcome you to the board and tell you how glad I am to hear a true and rational conservative voice. This is the most fun I've had in quite a while.

But perhaps you were too kind. Perhaps I wasn't a rational conservative voice, since I've completely changed my outlook since then. I was younger and more naive in those days; I was making an argument from legal-philosophical principle, without really understanding its social context or its actual consequences in the real world. I have since learnt much more about these issues, and have entirely changed my legal philosophy.

Over the last two years, I've changed from a raging right-wing conservative and vague (non-practising) Christian, into an outspoken atheist, secularist, civil libertarian and human rights advocate. This is not a transition I ever intended or expected to make. But, as Thomas Jefferson said, "the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds."

Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 12, 2010 5:20 AM

@Walton: you could become quite tolerable company one of these days if you'd just ditch the Tories :)

I had a thought which I hoped might illustrate to you why a lot of people are pretty down on Thatcher's policies. Do you recall the infamous statement that there's no such thing as society? Thatcher had a chemistry background. If she'd declared that there's no such thing as water, only molecules, how seriously would you have taken that?

Posted by: windy | February 12, 2010 5:50 AM

Brother Smoggy, you stick around. I'm the one retiring, because, frankly I only weird myself out what with trying to interact with people and whatnot. It never works out very well. :D

I like both Smoggy and 386sx, I'm never quite sure how to interact with you two though.

Greatest hits of 386sx:
-the "Jesus flying around like a birdie" meme
-Rebuttal of the "Augustine is just so freakin scientifical wonderful" meme
-I'm sure there are lots more but I'm too lazy to look them up

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 12, 2010 6:13 AM

'depilitated' or 'depilated'? - Sven DiMilo

Well it's "depilated" usually, but I think "depilitated" is a good word for what happened to Samson.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 12, 2010 6:30 AM

@269: seconded.

@268: if a pilus is a hair and depilation is loss of hair, isn't depilitation the act of being deprived of Pilates classes? :)

In Foucault's Pendulum, Eco's characters create an imaginary scholastic discipline of tetrapiloctomy; the art of splitting a hair into four.

Posted by: John Morales | February 12, 2010 6:56 AM

Walton, you might find current discussion on the “You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.” thread interesting.

Posted by: triskelethecat | February 12, 2010 7:02 AM

@Happy Kiwi: I, too, will miss Smoggy and hope that he breaks out of prison now and then. (BTW...what is the usual sentance length for his crime?) Not all Americans misunderstand him and Floyd.

@Leigh Williams: I hope you keep feeling better. I haven't had the flu, just a bad cold for 8 days, and that is draining enough, can't imagine how you are coping with your job! Hope your Texans are coping with the snow and ice on our East Coast roads.

@Celtic_Evolution: hope you, too, keep improving. Many kudos to the EMS people who got you out. You are in my thoughts.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | February 12, 2010 7:15 AM

OK, the new thread at Greg's is not quite such a trainwreck. This is progress, I think. And despite what Stephanie thinks.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/a_private_letter_to_salty_curr.php

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 7:37 AM

Happy Darwin Day, everybody!

Posted by: Rorschach | February 12, 2010 7:43 AM

Again, just because I can :

Donovan--Universal Soldier Live

Barry McGuire--Eve of destruction Live

And again, just for awesomeness :

Pogues--Maggie May

Posted by: Rorschach | February 12, 2010 8:16 AM

And a drunken tribute to Mary Travers, why not !

Where have all the flowers gone

The times are a'changing ! ( Given the upcoming anniversary of the Watchmen thread this song is more then appropriate !!)

Posted by: SC OM | February 12, 2010 8:47 AM

Greg's looking worse than ever, muddled, typo-ridden, nonpologizing, & holding up comments way longer than usual. (I wonder what's NOT getting through?)

My last hasn't appeared yet. It really makes it impossible to have an argument. Of course, this is also complicated by the fact that some of the commenters there are braying jackasses who seem incapable of coherent thought. They keep repeating the same dumb line without ever backing it up with anything.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | February 12, 2010 8:55 AM

I'm so with you in your sorrow, Rorschach.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 12, 2010 9:01 AM

@284: I think so far Irene[46] has the dumbest possible comment in the "private letter" thread, although StephanieZ's performance in "Am I wrong?/Yes you are wrong/ Don't tell me" is a close second. I thought Creationists were unbeatable in Logical Fallacy Bingo, but - wow.

Posted by: SC OM | February 12, 2010 9:08 AM

@284: I think so far Irene[46] has the dumbest possible comment in the "private letter" thread,

And now #53! I'm almost hoping Irene is some sort of stupidity troll. It's disturbing that anyone could be that dumb and commenting on Sb.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | February 12, 2010 9:15 AM

Lovely link, rat....:-)
I better retire for the nite lol

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 12, 2010 9:21 AM

Knockgoats and Stephen Wells: I still think you're caricaturing Thatcher's remarks.

No one denies that societies exist, to a given value of "exist". They exist in the same way that ecosystems exist, or that economies exist. Societies are systems created by the complex web of interactions between individual human beings. Like ecosystems and economies, they display certain features and patterns which it is important to study and understand.

But Thatcher was trying to make the point that societies are not entities in themselves; they consist of individual men and women. In and of themselves, societies don't produce anything or own anything; and it's simply nonsense to talk of someone "owing a debt" to society, or, conversely, to talk of society "owing someone" a living. Individuals produce things, and when you rely on society, you really rely on the efforts of other individuals. In short, she was trying to de-anthropomorphise society.

You can agree or disagree with her remarks. I personally think her comments were a little unfair, given that the structural economic changes of the 1980s inevitably created temporary mass unemployment. Those changes may well have been necessary, but it certainly wasn't legitimate to criticise the unemployed for their own predicament, and remarks of that nature only inflamed the perception of "class war" and the bitter (and largely unnecessary) social conflict that characterised the era. But it's important not to caricature her comments, or her motivations.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 12, 2010 9:31 AM

Looks like when I get off work tonight. I'll have to hoist a libation is memory of Mary Travers, to C-E's recovery, a salute to Smoggy so that he may reappear to confuse some godbots, and to Happy Kiwi.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | February 12, 2010 9:42 AM

Carlie,

Yeah, she backed the train up, added cattle cars full of Jews, and sent it full steam back into the trainwreck.

:-(

Posted by: llewelly | February 12, 2010 9:45 AM

Rorschach | February 12, 2010 8:48 AM:

Ok, I'm drunk, go easy on me please...:-)


Peter Paul and Mary--Puff the magic dragon

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 12, 2010 10:07 AM

Thanks for all the Rolling Stones links, Rorschach. It's not the evening of the day here, but the Stones are good with breakfast too.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 12, 2010 10:22 AM

Bleh. I am making Rev BDC-ish mistakes, as in #301, where "images" should not be plural. I think I'll go out and shovel snow as penance.

Posted by: Alan B | February 12, 2010 10:43 AM

Celtic_Evolution

I'm way behind on the thread but may I add my best wishes to all the others. The order is:

1) Survive - you seem to have managed that.

2) Get well - sounds like you are doing OK with that.

3) Get back to what you enjoy doing (like commenting on this thread!)

All the best from the English side of the pond.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 12, 2010 10:50 AM

It's okay, Sven (@305), when you're wrong, you're wrong in an entertaining manner.

Seems the mormons are moaning about their rights to be bigots, racists, and prejudiced far beyond reason. They are maundering on about how these precious rights may be abridged by the Gay Marriage battle. Oh, noes!

     ...
     Elder Wickman, an attorney for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, made the remarks Thursday as part of the 2010 J. Reuben Clark Law Society Conference at the University of Utah.
     "I believe that the greatest challenge faced by the church," Elder Wickman said, "is the challenge to religious liberty that is growing worldwide. … A battle is looming over the effort to acquire civil social rights at the expense of civil religious rights. ... Perry seeks a court declaration that, as a matter of law, religious views may not be used to justify the denial of a social civil right," he said....
     "These are serious allegations and represent an arrow directly at the heart not only of traditional marriage but at the place of religion and religious views in the political dialogue of this country."
     Elder Wickman quoted extensively from the speech Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve delivered at BYU-Idaho in 2009 about the legal ramifications of the same-sex marriage debate.."
     Perry seeks a court declaration that, as a matter of law, religious views may not be used to justify the denial of a social civil right," he said. "Stated differently, they essentially claim that the voters, from whom all authority in a democracy flows, may not consider religious views and values when deciding these alleged social and cultural civil rights.
     "These are serious allegations and represent an arrow directly at the heart not only of traditional marriage but at the place of religion and religious views in the political dialogue of this country."
     Elder Wickman quoted extensively from the speech Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve delivered at BYU-Idaho in 2009 about the legal ramifications of the same-sex marriage debate.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 12, 2010 10:54 AM

Oh, holy crap! More cut-paste errors. That's it. I'm fit for shoveling snow and nothing else this morning.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 12, 2010 11:04 AM

I bet I can beat Rorschach when it comes to posting good music. (And I'm not even drunk.)

Various versions of one of the best TV themes ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHr4ubuD64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCRae5mRoRE

Posted by: Aratina Cage | February 12, 2010 11:15 AM

The person who linked redliterocket4 to Matthew Segall would have been Rev. BigDumbChimp (link here).

Posted by: Miki Z | February 12, 2010 11:22 AM

Lynna,

This sentence here seems to be the crux of it all:

"These are serious allegations and represent an arrow directly at the heart not only of traditional marriage but at the place of religion and religious views in the political dialogue of this country."

The Mormons, having finally bought some clout, are loathe to do anything which might diminish it. If a new religion started which enshrined marriage equality as the highest good, would the LDS church support their right to religious freedom? I suspect they would claim it wasn't a "proper" religion.

(If someone who can speak for the Mormon church is here and knows that the LDS church would support religious freedom, please, consider that religion started! It's name is "Marriage Equalityism". Get to defending my religious liberties!)

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 12, 2010 11:23 AM

But Thatcher was trying to make the point that societies are not entities in themselves; they consist of individual men and women. - Walton

Absolutely, totally, unquestionably, wrong. Consider all the physical infrastructure, domesticated plants and animals, not to mention the natural environment, that are essential to their functioning. Methodological individualism is an egregious blunder, but one that is very useful to propagandists of the right.

remarks of that nature only inflamed the perception of "class war" and the bitter (and largely unnecessary) social conflict that characterised the era. But it's important not to caricature her comments, or her motivations.

It was perceived as a class war because that is what it was. The rich, led by Thatcher, looted the public coffers, trashed communities, and killed many people. Her motivations were hatred and contempt for everyone not "one of us".

Posted by: Vashti | February 12, 2010 11:31 AM

A message for Brother Smoggy Batzrubble, care of Happy Kiwi

Dearest Brother Batzrubble,

Please do not utterly abandon this horde of marauding atheists. Surely, it is Lucifer himself who tempts you to desert your post now, when you are so close to success. Only through great pain, perseverance, and suffering will you ever achieve the salvation of a single atheist soul.

As the daughter of missionaries, I know that the only thing more daunting than witnessing to primitive headhunters and cannibals is testifying the True Word™ to atheists. Let me express my deepest admiration for you and your work here amongst the truly depraved. If you cannot bear to carry out your work in the venomous pit of Pharyngula any longer, I am certain that Wycliffe Bible Translators (also know as the disarming Summer Institute of Linguistics or SIL) could find a harmless group of cannibals for you to minister to. Remember the saga of Operation Auca and the ultimate triumph of the saintly Rachel Saint and Elizabeth Elliot and remain stalwart in The Faith™. (I know, the original missionaries to the Huaorani ended up dead, but sometimes one must make sacrifices in the name of Truth™ and Big Oil...)

If you feel the need to ease back a little, please take the customary missionary furlough (and do remember that you are supposed to spend this furlough fund-raising) so that you can return to us refreshed and renewed in The Spirit™ (and flush with cash). I have always found your humour quite enjoyable and it has even caused me to break my New England reserve and chuckle out loud on occasion (though I admit to being a little intimidated by Floyd).

Yours (but no longer His) Truly,
Vasti

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | February 12, 2010 11:35 AM

Depilitating, from a debilitating depilation?

Happy Kiwi, don't incarcerate Smoggy, just send him on a vacation.

davem, sorry to hear about your sternum, glad it's recovering.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | February 12, 2010 11:51 AM

It is my personal opinion this thread is suffering from dangerously low levels of Sparklehorse and Tom Waits collaborations...

(/Fixed now.)

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 11:55 AM

I just left a post on Greg's latest trainwreck thread. I've rarely seen anyone act in such an ethically scummy way, and that's saying a lot considering some of the crap that's occurred on Scienceblogs over the years. That it comes from Greg Laden - who I never would have thought capable of it - is genuinely shocking.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 12:07 PM

Happy Monkey!

(new! improved! now with better image!)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 12:23 PM

*tentacle-bumps Tulse for #102 at GL*

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 12:25 PM

Guys, you're just teaching Greg that if he shits on the carpet he gets attention and blog hits. Not a good way to potty train.

I know, but if everyone ignores him, then the shit just sits there and causes a walking hazard.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 12:31 PM

SC, I'm sorry that you ended up somehow being the whipping post in all of this. I think there are a lot more readers there who do get it than there are the ones agreeing with G/S, and I don't know that they could reason their way out of a paper bag in the first place.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 12, 2010 12:35 PM

Walton (@I_Forgot_the_Number):

No one denies that societies exist, to a given value of "exist". They exist in the same way that ecosystems exist, or that economies exist.

One of the problems I always encounter in discussing politics and political philosophy with people who are basically rational and well intentioned is that they habitually underestimate the existence and impact of people who are not rational or are (worse yet) rational but not well intentioned.

As has been noted (and as we've just been reminded by Leigh's invocation of the wayback machine), your thinking has evolved in ways that I consider distinctly positive, but even before most of that evolution, you were clearly an intelligent person trying to deal honestly and rationally with the issues in front of you. This just in: Not everyone is like you!

Some people are stupid, or have been seduced by irrational dogma, or just fucking selfish... and plenty of those people really do deny the very existence of "society," at least as that term is used to indicate a collective of people with needs, and capabilities to act, that are distinct from those of individuals or individual families. I could name some such people who have been regulars here during your tenure... but I'm afraid naming them "aloud" would summon them from hell.

My wonderful wife is a passionate advocate for the public schools, and hates attempts to cut schools' funding or otherwise undermine them... but because she herself is a rational being, whose opinions are honestly held with the most generous-spirited of intentions, she finds it impossible to believe me when I tell her that some segments of the political population are deliberately trying to bankrupt the public schools by advocating things like vouchers, charter schools, and homeschooling advocacy, and by attacking teachers and their unions. To her, that seems evil, and because she has a hard time imagining people that evil, she just assumes I'm being hyperbolic.

Sometimes I feel the same way with you: You're not evil, I'm quite sure, but some of the people who hold views you have in the past at least partially identified with are evil, in ways you apparently have a hard time recognizing.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | February 12, 2010 12:51 PM

I have just been given a bottle of Bruichladdich (along with a very warm letter of recommendation).

Comments? (And how the fsck is it pronounced? I think I know just enough Dutch spelling for it to ruin any idea I might have about Scots.)

Posted by: David Marjanović | February 12, 2010 1:09 PM

Scienceblogs doesn't require an intelligence test before people are allowed to comment. :-)

:-D

Sometimes I feel the same way with you: You're not evil, I'm quite sure, but some of the people who hold views you have in the past at least partially identified with are evil, in ways you apparently have a hard time recognizing.

Reminds me of when a top-level Social Democratic politician in Austria said during a TV debate that she was sure all parents want the best for their children.

Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2010 1:12 PM

Mooney's first PoI guest will be Paul Offit, a doctor who has been demonized by the anti-vax types for writing a book telling the truth about the whole autism/vaccine brouhaha.

I would have expected him to have on Jenny McCarthy or Kim Stagliano. You know, I note a decided lack of bridge building on Mooney's part.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | February 12, 2010 1:20 PM

Josh #199

I'm home from another day in the money mines so I can post this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F9AoKJGWis

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 12, 2010 1:24 PM

Well, I got bored really quickly while trying to find out how many lawyers currently reign in the LDS Church's top leadership. But here's a sampling of Mormon Lawyers:
     Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge, Lawyer, shareholder and senior attorney at a Salt Lake City law firm. Married Jacquelyn Gayle Shamo, five children.
     Elder James J. Hamula, 50, Employed as an attorney at an Arizona law firm. Married Joyce Anderson, six children.
     Elder W. Eugene Hansen, received juris doctorate from the University of Utah; former trial lawyer, president of the Utah State Bar Association. Wife, Jeanine Showell Hansen, parents of six children.
     Elder Earl C. Tingey, Formerly corporate attorney for Kennecott Copper Corp. [only 4 children, he must be slacking off]
     Elder D. Todd Christofferson, [earned] his law degree from Duke University. He practiced law in Washington, D.C. and has been a senior vice president and associate general counsel for major banking institutions.
     Elder L. Whitney Clayton, His professional career was in law where he was a business litigation attorney with a California law firm. [Wife] Kathy Ann Kipp … parents of seven children.
     Dallin Harris Oaks is an American attorney, jurist and religious leader. Since 1984, he has been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). He is a former professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, a former president of Brigham Young University, and a former justice of the Utah Supreme Court.
     Elder Tad R. Callister, Worked as an attorney with a firm in California. Married Kathryn Louise Saporiti, six children.

And here's a good example of an old white dude who is not a lawyer:
Elder F. Michael Watson, Temple Sealer. Secretary to the First Presidency of the Church. Married Jolene Mann, 12 children.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 1:28 PM

Guys, you're just teaching Greg that if he shits on the carpet he gets attention and blog hits. Not a good way to potty train.

BS

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | February 12, 2010 1:33 PM

I'm very pleased to report that (some) 'ordinary' Americans seem to fully comprehend the issues surrounding climate change. It's very easy to forget that there might be hope, when the blogs I follow all focus on reporting on the denialist nutcases.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 1:40 PM

The Kw*k is strong in this one.

Oh and btw that was pretty funny.

Posted by: A. Noyd | February 12, 2010 1:42 PM

Walton (#262)

Perhaps I wasn't a rational conservative voice, since I've completely changed my outlook since then.

Well, isn't the definition of a rational conservative one who eventually changes into a liberal? Mwahaha!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Paul W. (#276)

OK, the new thread at Greg's is not quite such a trainwreck.

The people spewing the "yes, that's totally anti-Semitism or could be if the person reading was a naive little puppy-wuppy (unlike me!) and how dare you stomp the puppy-wuppies, SC!!!, you would-be maybe-accidental Nazi" bullshit kind of made me rage. Made me rage enough to call them all out. For all the good it will do. *sigh*

Posted by: Tulse | February 12, 2010 1:48 PM

I have just been given a bottle of Bruichladdich [...] how the fsck is it pronounced?

I typically see it represented as "brook-laddie", although you have to sound like you're swallowing your tonsils on the first syllable.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 2:03 PM

Back again from Hammond.*

Just curious as to whether anyone has ever encountered 'Elaine', 'Irene', or 'Dunnigan' previous to these thread?

*[look, Sarge, I'm speakin' metaphor!]

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 2:08 PM

[Incidentally, in real-live meatspace I have been to Hammond many times in my life, though all before 1985, because my father grew up there. My grandfather was a railroad man on the Nickel Plate line. Yet I never heard the story of that wreck until somebody (Owl? Wow?) linked it here.]

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 2:29 PM

by way of mashing up several current Thread themes, uh:
Nickel Plate railroad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJdCpEPIWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzqVXvwMHCU

Posted by: SC OM | February 12, 2010 2:31 PM

Just curious as to whether anyone has ever encountered 'Elaine', 'Irene', or 'Dunnigan' previous to these thread?

I actually looked up "Elaine" earlier. Found a couple of hits, but didn't bother to click on them. I wouldn't put it past them at all. (Though I can't imagine anyone being strange enough to create a clueless buffoon like Irene as a sockpuppet.)

Isn't time to just withdraw? It just seems to be a lot of frustration and getting nothing in return.

I withdrew a few hours ago. I don't know if he realizes the damage he's done, out of vanity it seems more than anything else. I hope he does eventually. Of course it's already too late to undo a lot of it - the false seed is planted in people's minds.

I've said what I had to say. And when the ones speaking out against what he's doing are people I respect like you guys and Russell Blackford - whom I very much admire even though I've disagreed with him in the past (never did tell him how cute I thought his "Mark my words...I told you so" posts concerning the Yoko Ono lawsuit were...) - and those mindlessly supporting it are people like Irene, Elaine, and Dunnigan, I'm pretty comfortable with the long-term prospects.

Posted by: SC OM | February 12, 2010 2:38 PM

Wow...just when I think I've seen it all heddle comes to the defense of SC!

Now I really am speechless.

Posted by: blf | February 12, 2010 2:48 PM

We must ever be vigilant to the dangers of allowing the decadent, non-apple-pie-loving European rot to establish itself!

You mean like the poopyhead himself going to, oh, I dunno, Ireland?

Posted by: David Marjanović | February 12, 2010 2:52 PM

windy, my stomach tries to rotate and presses most painfully against the liver and the pancreas. :-}

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | February 12, 2010 3:00 PM

I smell Godwin!

Posted by: Paul W., OM | February 12, 2010 3:07 PM

Kudos to Heddle.

I gotta say, I'm surprised and pleased, and it's bizarre in a way... but it doesn't actually seem out of character for Heddle to do that, IMHO.

I find his religious views to be bizarre and... well... wrong, wrong, wrong, but he isn't just an adversarial troll who wouldn't stand up for somebody he disagrees with about something else.

(Then again, I'm not a Heddle expert. I generally ignore most conversations he's in. YMMV)

Ah... I see Tulse just posted a similar sentiment.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | February 12, 2010 3:36 PM

You know who else had stomach problems? ;)

Posted by: fermata | February 12, 2010 4:22 PM

Hello! I'm new here (from Europe), just recently interested in this great blog because of a long term debate with a creationist friend, would you someone recommend some other great atheist pages also on the net? You know FAQ-style, like how to argue with creationists, or info about evolutionary origins of religion.. :)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | February 12, 2010 4:27 PM

You know FAQ-style, like how to argue with creationists

Posted by: fermata | February 12, 2010 4:46 PM

Thanks Kel, looks good :)

Posted by: Kamaka | February 12, 2010 4:49 PM

Does anyone here have the knowhow to cut 'highball'/'Collins' glasses down?

Bandsaw.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 12, 2010 5:03 PM

StephanieZ posted this gem at me: "Stephen, I see no evidence that you're actually happy that Greg posted the language he was referring to. I do see quite a bit of evidence that you're invested in me being wrong about...whatever. Given all that, I conclude that you're less than sincere."

Blink. Blink.

She said I no happy. I said I happy. She say I lying and I not happy.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 12, 2010 6:32 PM

Pygmy Loris (@387):

The sad thing, as I argued way upthread, is that the I've got mine; fuck you attitude isn't limited to the evil people: We've been so steeped in the Reagan-era mantra of government sucks, so look out for No. 1 that by now, even people who are well intentioned and think they're liberals often end up going along with tax-cut/budget-cut ideology that passes for "moderate" here in the U.S., however right-wing it looks from the vantage point of the rest of the developed world.

llewelly linked to an article that discussed the defunding of local government in Colorado Springs, and it included the line "There are two kinds of conservatives: millionaires and suckers." My response was that the suckers are really just people who think they might be millionaires someday, and are therefore willing to vote against their own current interests in order to preserve their hope of "pie in the sky by and by."

The thing is, those suckers aren't necessarily evil; they're just hopeful... and that makes them easy to seduce into supporting evil policies. Frankly, I'm somewhat stumped as to how to even start changing this situation.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 6:43 PM

We've been so steeped in the Reagan-era mantra of government sucks, so look out for No. 1 that by now, even people who are well intentioned and think they're liberals often end up going along with tax-cut/budget-cut ideology that passes for "moderate" here in the U.S., however right-wing it looks from the vantage point of the rest of the developed world.

That's such a true, concise statement, Bill. It's truly amazing how out of touch most US people are. As you said, they have no idea how extreme and right-wing these ideas are - they actually think they're "centrist" or "liberal." The rest of the world scratches its head.

Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2010 6:49 PM

Knockgoats, you've posted the same thing on Laden's blog four times now. Are you not seeing your previous posts?

Posted by: SEF | February 12, 2010 6:55 PM

Some C of E people, who are also union members, whinge that freezing their pay is not "Christian behaviour". It's clear that what they're demanding there is a pay rise. It doesn't even seem to occur to them that taking a pay cut would be more consistent with story-book Christianity (though not the real-world, greedy, evil version).

(Either that or they should have taken their religious "talents" and made extra money out of them themselves, eg by inventing their own religion and investing in their own religious scams, in order to qualify for being given more.)

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 12, 2010 7:22 PM

Paul (@391):

I agree with llewelly, Bill.

First, let me be clear: The quote about millionaires and suckers was from an article llewelly linked to; I didn't mean to put words in his/her mouth.

Next, it was admittedly careless of me to suggest that my characterizaton was valid for all the "suckers."

Still further, I didn't mean to suggest that people consciously make the calculation, "I know this is bad for me, but it's good for millionaires, and I'm going to be a millionaire someday, so I'll vote for it anyway." Rather, I meant to suggest that people internalize the aspirational aspects of the "American dream," and therefore (mostly unconsciously) vote as if they were already members of the privileged class they aspire to join... without realizing that the policies they're voting for are not in their best interests in the meantime.

I actually don't think we're in much disagreement here.

Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2010 7:29 PM

I wasn't sure, Bill, but it did seem you were equivocating directly between "suckers" and "people who hope (subconsciously or no) to be millionaires" (which is actually why I didn't want to say I disagree with you, as I wasn't sure :-) ). With the addendum, I don't think there is any disagreement. I've had similar thoughts myself in the past.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 7:39 PM

Paul, I thought so too. I can't believe it. For clarification, I did write "that's rich, Laden." I accidentally deleted that in my post above. The moron portion is entirely Laden's, though. And no, you can't tell that he wrote it. . .he left it in the same typeface and line-structure as my original post.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 7:46 PM

*stomps in*
Damn, but I'm mad at NBC. They just showed the luge accident video THREE TIMES. God. And I get CBC but not CTV, so I can't switch to Canadian coverage of the Olympics this time. NBC, snuff film central.
Oh, and now they're showing a video helpfully telling us Mericans what Canadians are like. Argh. I need a drink.

*looks around*
Oh, sorry. Let the Laden bashing continue.

Posted by: John Morales | February 12, 2010 7:51 PM

Josh, WTF?!

<checks> Yup.

Despicable.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 7:55 PM

Carlie,

ugh. I had no idea there had been an accident (I don't watch the news until 9:00 CST). It's really sad that the man died, but why does NBC have to show the video over and over. That's just creepy voyeurism.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 8:10 PM

It was a biology faculty who had just been denied tenure that day and went into the afternoon faculty meeting.

HOLY SHIT GET OUT OF HERE

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | February 12, 2010 8:14 PM

I don't have TV either, but since Carlie mentioned it, I checked out the news. He was clocked at 88mph/142kph just before he lost control of his luge and hit that metal support head first.

I don't miss TV. At all.

If I can't see it on hulu or netflix, I probably didn't want to watch it anyway.

Posted by: A. Noyd | February 12, 2010 8:17 PM

Oh yeah, he's lost it well and truly: 160-164.

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | February 12, 2010 8:18 PM

In other news: A former Blackwater employee claims Blackwater charged the government for prostitutes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/12/blackwater.suit/index.html

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 8:22 PM

'Cause of course in a chaotic situation like someone opening fire in a lecture hall, she would have the presence of mind and accuracy to take out the shooter without hurting anyone else.

Of course. And if you don't immediately assent to that impervious logic, you hate America. And you're a feminazi bitch. And a faggot. And stuff.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 12, 2010 8:35 PM

Since Laden is doing that sort of editing, it'll be a very long time before I go back to his blog.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 8:39 PM

Watch your posts, Paul. They're likely to come out with words inserted by Greg, word that look like you wrote them.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 8:44 PM

That's just, like, the worst blogbehavior I have ever heard of. Beyond buffoon, Laden is a dick, as I previously publicly suspected. *shrug* Lotta guys are.
Who can police the thread-police?
We are lucky that teh CO is not really so E.

I noticed, btw, that dendy received the banhammer. Anybody have a link?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 8:46 PM

Sven, the most frustrating part is that I'm unable to let anyone else there know that I didn't write that. Laden won't let any of my comments through now. That's the most douchebaggy behavior I've ever, ever seen.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | February 12, 2010 8:47 PM

Josh, Official SpokesGay (and I still love your nick), Laden adding words to your post and not identifying them as his addition is ... well, unbelievable. Can you imagine PZ ever doing that? No, you can't, because to do something like that says, "I have no personal integrity."

I've admired and enjoyed some of Laden's past posts, so I can only assume that he's lost perspective through some emotional or even physical problem. I was trying to think up an excuse for his attributing words to you that you didn't post, and the only thing I can come up with is that he intended to identify the addition as his snide comment, but he messed up the formatting and failed to do so. Seems highly unlikely -- he could have posted the snide comment without including it in your post.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 8:50 PM

Josh,

He just gets sleazier and sleazier. That's horribly dishonest behavior.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 12, 2010 9:07 PM

Jadehawk has left me alone on the "Religion: adaptation or byproduct?" thread to deal with both Frankosaurus and Hyperon! :-( They're so clueless! So ignorant! Have they never known any babies personally?!?

Sorry, David, but you're on your own. I killfiled both those cretins some time ago.

Posted by: John Morales | February 12, 2010 9:10 PM

David,

Jadehawk has left me alone on the "Religion: adaptation or byproduct?" thread to deal with both Frankosaurus and Hyperon!

Yeah, I saw. I couldn't muster the will to confront them, in particular the egregious Hyperon, but they're clearly clueless about women.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | February 12, 2010 9:15 PM

Ronald Reagan said Government was the problem, and he and his successors have spent the last 30 years trying to make it so. I was in college in 1980, and I saw the man speak. He was utterly incoherent.

But there were a lot of boarded up shops all over the US, we had people held hostage in Iran and Jimmy Carter was telling us we had a bad case of malaise.

Ronald Reagan may have been the worst President we ever had--mainly because he systematically dismantled the civil service, which was the mechansim by which we'd survived all the other crappy presidents we'd had. Now government has no autopilot, so when Junior got the keys to the country in 2000, I knew it was going to be bad. Sure enough, Junior crashed the country, just like he crashed Arbusto petroleum and every other thing he'd touched. And damned if in ten years you don't have Republican Congressmen trying to pull the same crap with Bush they did with Reagan. Mark my words, I expect to see both these bastards up on Mt. Rushmore someday, even if they have to chisel them out of Thomas Jefferson's forehead.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | February 12, 2010 9:24 PM

Carlie, thanks for the update, sad to hear about that.

Concealed carry was recently an issue here at UT Austin. I wonder how many of those who advocate for concealed carry, or even open carry for that matter, would actually prove to be cool heads in a firefight. I know there are numerous people who handle firearms with the caution, expertise, and proficiency that makes for safe ownership. I'm personally conflicted over the firearms issues that we have in the states, as I own one and come from a family that has long owned them and used them safely.

Ggranted, the rifle I own is a muzzle loader, so it's not likely to do me much good in a surprise personal defense situation as anything other than a club: "Pardon me, intruder in my domicile, will you allow me the 30-seconds-to-1-minute I require to pour powder, seat and ram patch and ball [IYKWIMAITYD], pull the cocking trigger, set the hammer on half-cock, fish out and afix a percussion cap, pull the hammer to full-cock, raise, aim, and fire, in my defense? Perhaps we could adjourn outside and settle this at 10 paces?" To say nothing of whether I'd have the psychological fortitude to actually use a firearm to shoot at someone, and here's hoping I never have to find out.

But I worry that for everyone who took firearm safety seriously, and diligently attended to it, there'd be one or more who were just looking to "get strapped," and in the event of some disgruntled lunatic bent on solving a job/relationship/philosophical issue with gunplay, would do far more harm than good. Firefights are crazy, with noise, confusion, adrenaline, and panic. Every year there are hunters who fail to adequately assess what's behind the animal they're stalking, and someone gets hurt. Suddenly that situation is transported into a busy classroom, and with the potential for numerous firearms available? It's sobering to say the least.

I don't have an answer on this. But I worry that many people imagine that in a desperate situation they'd be Wyatt Earp at the O.K. Corral, when the reality is it takes a lot of time, practice, and careful attention to get there (to say nothing of the role pure chance plays in those circumstances.

Total information overload aside, but I'm also sad to hear about the luge accident. Need to get some dinner, and probably sign off. Long day, long week, I'm tired. Anyway, thanks for the updates, y'all.

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: RMM Barrie | February 12, 2010 9:30 PM

Pygmy Loris @ 435

The Star Spangled Banner is just so much more awesome than O Canada

What, because there are no bombs bursting instead of just standing on guard?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 12, 2010 9:34 PM

Carlie:

Damn, but I'm mad at NBC.

I dunno.... Maybe showing it three times was a bit much, but I thought generally they handled it like a straight-ahead news story, with reasonable dignity. And they did warn viewers before showing the video. I don't really have much of a beef with them.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 9:38 PM

He deleted my post. He's lost it completely.

BS

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 9:39 PM

RMM Barrie,

What, because there are no bombs bursting instead of just standing on guard?

Actually it's the last two lines of the first verse "Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

It actually brings tears every time I sing it. Maybe I should specify that I like the first two verses of my national anthem. The third is just gross and the final has that god crap in it. This is why I oppose changing the national anthem to God Bless America or America the Beautiful. We don't need god in our anthem.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 9:44 PM

The Georgian delegation was so sad. I read a news report about the accident and they said the track in Vancouver is one of the most dangerous in the world. Athletes are calling it the 50-50. It must be terribly frightening to be competing on that thing.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 9:49 PM

Bill,

TRAITOR!!! Liberal, commie bastard!!!! If you love Canada so much why don't you go there!!1!!!!

Okay, that actually hurt to write. :)

The SSB pwns everyone on difficulty to sing. That's why no one ever sings it properly. I've got news for all these pop stars they hire to do it at sporting events and such: the song has actual notes in it. I know when you're hitting the wrong ones or making it up as you go along.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 12, 2010 9:53 PM

a_ray_in_dilbert_space #434

Ronald Reagan may have been the worst President we ever had--mainly because he systematically dismantled the civil service, which was the mechansim by which we'd survived all the other crappy presidents we'd had.

Working for the Treasury Department under Reagan was strange. Before him, while the appointed political leadership might posture and spin facts to meet ideology, the civil service wonks would just keep working, giving our political masters factual data for them to fold, spindle and mutilate. But when Reagan became Maximum Leader and Don Regan became Secretary of the Treasury, that changed.

Regan was a strong proponent of "Reagonomics" and wanted everyone to support it. He would get position papers from underlings and, if they weren't ideologically pure, would write "unsatisfactory" in red marker across the title page and kick them back to the originator. Often he wouldn't tell us the unsatisfactory particulars. He was not liked nor highly regarded by the civil service or even the other Treasury political appointees.

Regan's replacement, James Baker, suffered from the same problem. Political purity was more important to him than reality. Fortunately he would listen to his Deputy Secretary, Dick Darman, who was a genuine economist and who would listen to us staff economists. Baker was a much more effective SecTreas than Regan, as shown by the Plaza Accord and the basic idea for the Baker Plan which was implemented in his successor's Brady Plan

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 9:55 PM

@ Blind Squirrel:

Personal note: I don't have a TV either. I'm rather pleased to learn I am not alone in this matter.

I haven't had TV since I could no longer steal (with her permission) my neighbors' cable and split the bill with her. I quickly found I didn't miss it. And, when I'm subjected to it now in bars and airports, I actively resent being yelled at and condescended to by the idiots on "news" shows and by the fucking commercials. Once you're weaned off it, you literally can't stand watching it.

This isn't some smug "I don't watch TV, and I look down on those who do" thing. Not at all. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it. But I doubt I could ever go back to it. in my own house.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 9:59 PM

My comment was: "Greg, are you really adding words to peoples posts with out attribution?" I think he has closed the thread. There has been no new posts for 20 minutes. I picture him trembling, cowering behind his sofa.

BS

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 10:00 PM

'nother TV-free domicile

One good Clenched Tentacle Salute deserves another!

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 10:04 PM

I'm going to go against the grain and say I love TV! The bf has the fancy TV (i.e. cable) and I watch it all the time. My house is essentially TVless ever since the digital transition. I don't pick up enough signal to even watch broadcast TV anymore and I refuse to pay for it.

Posted by: RMM Barrie | February 12, 2010 10:06 PM

Pygmy Loris @ 444

Agreed is the best two lines. The problem is the violence in the rest of it, and can get somewhat reflected with news events of this evening in the U.S.

The Canadian anthem is boring, just like us in many ways, but is reflective of the country after we got away from singing God Save the Queen (King). Sorry Walton et al., but when we phoned and said we were leaving, that was it, no revolution to lose again.

For those not familiar, since it is short, am pasting the English version:

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

As can be seen, the god parts are a mutual problem. At least our appeal is to a non existent entity, instead of war.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 10:08 PM

I think that inserting language into a comment without self-attribution, and then deleting comments that ask about it, should be grounds for getting kicked out of ScienceBlogs altogether.

I'd go over and ask about it, but at this point I'm skeeved out just thinking of him having my email address as filled out on the comment form.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 10:10 PM

@Rorschach:

Laden did, indeed, insert words into my post so as to make it seem I said things that I didn't. I know, it's really unbelievable. Read up in this thread for the details.

Posted by: Greg Laden | February 12, 2010 10:12 PM

449 Josh, Official SpokesGay

What is the URL for your blog. I want access, and I want to say whatever comes to mind in the comments on your blog and I want you to like it. Would that be fair?

Oh,wait, you don't have a blog. You're just some asshole who likes to temporarily own other people's blogs.

Do correct me if I'm wrong. But here, not on my blog. I just threw out the trash and I don't like to do that too often.

Any further comments on this issue that show up on my site will result in ... me having my way with you.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 10:15 PM

Greg Laden:

You put words in my mouth, and you made it seem as if I'd said them. That's not fair play. You don't have to allow me to comment on your blog. You have every right to ban me if you want, and you have every right to mock me or any comment I make on your blog.

But you don't have the ethical right to edit my comments to make it seem like I said things I didn't say. That's dirty pool. I wouldn't do that to anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with what they said.

Posted by: SC OM | February 12, 2010 10:17 PM

BS,

How do I do that?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 10:18 PM

RMM Barrie,

It's violent, but it's about our first victory after the Revolutionary War. The British may have burned Washington, but we beat 'em and our anthem exists just to rub it in.

Some things bring out irrational patriotism in me, reading the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, watching the Olympics, singing the national anthem.

Of course I'm normally a "blame America first" liberal ;)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 10:20 PM

Cute.
Laden's ethical breaches multiply. He just published my private e-mail address here. I had entered my real initials in the 'Name' slot and he put up the e-mail instead.
He also added the words "Me. And you are next." to my comment, without attribution, for the record. Is there a record?

I'm actually starting to feel bad for the guy, though also royally pissed off.

Posted by: Greg Laden | February 12, 2010 10:22 PM

There is no limit to what I will do to abusive commenters. None. You can imagine whatever rules you like. You can imagine that you have some sort of right to tell me what the rules are. But that is no more real than unicorns and leprechauns.

If you are unsure of my policies, read my about page. But do be aware that I have the right to arbitrarily change them if it amuses me to do so.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 10:23 PM

Laden,

You're being a dishonorable person and you're acting in bad faith. Your sycophants may not mind, but the rest of us are watching.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 10:24 PM

Carlie: That jibes with my impression.

BS

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 10:25 PM

abusive

delusional

Posted by: Greg Laden | February 12, 2010 10:27 PM

OMG THE PYGMY LORIS IS WATCHING ME.

Oh, were you aware of the fact that we are trying to avoid using the word "pygmy" even when it fits into an existing animal name because it is considered insensitive and inappropriate?

It's a little tricky when it comes to animal names because they are somewhat standardized. But certainly, to use such a term as your handle is unnecessary. You really should be fucking ashamed of yourself, either for your racism or your abject ignorance.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 10:30 PM

Holy crap. Does he somehow think that he is tagging them as blogowner comments? Because that's the only thing that even makes the remotest bit of sense, that he's replying to you by saying "me" as the author. But then the threat of "you're next", and publishing your email address with an obvious name on it - that's even a worse ethical breach in my mind than adding comments, because exposing someone's nym and real name and address is violating an expectation of privacy that everyone on ScienceBlogs has adhered to up until this point.

Fuck, people have reasons for using pseudonyms. And it's none of anyone else's fucking business to judge why they use them. Some people might do it just for fun, others might have serious repercussions to worry about from their job, their family, scary stalker exes, etc. It isn't anyone's business to question them, and it sure as hell isn't ever anyone's prerogative to decide to expose them.

That makes me entirely speechless with rage. There is really no lower place to sink from here, in my opinion.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 10:32 PM

SC:
1. Press the Print Screen key on your keyboard. It may be labeled [PrtScn].

2. Open an image editing program, such as Microsoft Paint.

3. Go to the Edit menu and choose Paste.

4. If prompted to enlarge the image, choose Yes.

5. Optional: Use your image editor's crop tool to crop out unnecessary portions of the screen shot.

6. Go to the File Menu and choose Save As.

7. Navigate to the folder where you want to save the image.

8. Type a file name for the image.

9. Select a file type.

10. Click the Save button.

Tips:

1. Hold the Alt key down while pressing Print Screen to capture only the active window.

2. Generally the GIF format works best when saving screen shots of application windows. The JPEG format usually makes screen shots (especially those with text) blurry, blotchy and discolored.

3. See related resources below for more screen shot tips and listings of screen capture software that offers many more options for capturing screens and portions of screens on Windows and Macintosh computers.

4. The Windows "clipboard" is a term used to describe the temporary storage space in memory where an item is placed when you copy or cut. When you paste, the item is transferred to the program you're working in. If you copy something else, the old item is replaced with the new. You can't manipulate the clipboard directly; it's only used for copy and paste operations.

5. If you have windows Vista, you can capture screen shots much more easily using the Snipping Tool included with Vista.

or install this: http://www.etrusoft.com/

BS

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 10:34 PM

Josh,

Do you think it's not Laden? This person just outright called me a racist. I'm literally shaking with rage right now.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 12, 2010 10:36 PM

Do we know if the recent commenter is actually Greg Laden?

No, we don't.We also don't know if he is indeed editing comments, because no screen dump pre and posts of this have been shown.
At this point, all I would like to say if Greg is reading this is, please step away from the computer and from blogging for 48 hours, because nothing good can come out of this mess at this point.I'll glady do my part and not comment about it in here anymore.

Posted by: RMM Barrie | February 12, 2010 10:37 PM

Pygmy Loris @ 472

There is indeed a lot to be proud of, so understand your sentiments.

Actually it was us who came to Washington and burned (a little bit)the house of the President. At the time it was blue, so you guys overnight whitewashed it, and in the morning nothing was said about any fire. The origins of The White House.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 10:40 PM

Josh: good point.
I too use a garbage email address. Everyone should since it seems like we can't trust the people we thought we could trust. I don't believe I have ever seen someone who styles them self a professional melt down so completely. It's actually creepy.

BS

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 10:41 PM

We also don't know if he is indeed editing comments, because no screen dump pre and posts of this have been shown.

Shouldn't the SciBorg overlords be able to tell, though? I would imagine that there are digital records of all submissions/comments/edits/and such on backup.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 10:43 PM

1. I don't know definitively if the person posting here on Pharyngula is, in fact, Greg Laden.

2. I do know definitively that whoever moderates comments on Greg Laden's blog did alter my post by adding words I didn't say

I'm fed the fuck up with this shit. No one wants to be the tattle who goes to the principal, but Laden's behavior is way, way beyond the pale.

Cut the shit Greg, or I'll play dirty too.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | February 12, 2010 10:44 PM

This is getting very weird, and it was already pretty weird.

It's down the fucking rabbit hole, and creepy to boot.

*shudder*

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: Rawnaeris | February 12, 2010 10:46 PM

This is getting ridiculous. Altering posts and displaying peoples e-mails is...unfathomable. I looked around on SciBlogs site, but I can't find any way to report account abuse. Does anyone else know how?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 10:48 PM

Josh,

I, for one, do not doubt your truthfulness. If it really is Laden who just called me a racist for using an animal's name as my pseudonym, he's lost his shit. My original comment about us watching him merely meant that other people are aware of his dishonest behavior and it lowers our opinions of him. I didn't intend anything more sinister than that.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 12, 2010 10:52 PM

Sven, I can't seem to find any comments made by you on the "private letter" thread ?
And no email addresses are published anymore afaict.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 10:53 PM

Sven, I just sent you an email. If you didn't get it, please write to me at spokesgay at gmail.com. I promise you I won't pull a Laden and divulge your ID.

Grrr.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 10:54 PM

Yeah, he's changed it back now, and I didn't grab a screencap. Did anyone?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 10:55 PM

@ Pygmy Loris:

My original comment about us watching him merely meant that other people are aware of his dishonest behavior and it lowers our opinions of him. I didn't intend anything more sinister than that.

I know, I know (hug). No worries at all babe.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 12, 2010 10:57 PM

Shit, I just closed the window with Sven's email address published in it. I'm sorry.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 12, 2010 10:58 PM

Sven, he did, he changed it back.

Might just have been a SB software glitch, who would know !
I'd ask him on FB right now, but this mightn't be a good time LOL.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 10:59 PM

I saw the window with Sven's email address published for all the world to see, even if Greg changed it. That's how I was able to send an email to Sven (which I shouldn't have been able to do). If he claims he didn't publish it, he's a liar, and I'll say so.

Oooh, I'm fucking furious.

Posted by: A. Noyd | February 12, 2010 11:02 PM

Now #169 says "And, and thanks for your understanding" where it used to say "And you are next." WTF?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 11:03 PM

Oh, and SC, you are not responsible for any of this. It's all at Greg's feet. You were wronged, we stepped in to try to correct that wrong, and he went batshit.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 11:05 PM

Holy fuck, now Sven's already-edited comment has been changed again, and says "Me, but thanks for your understanding."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 11:08 PM

I finally got my act together and did a screencap of what's there now for Sven's comment, and cut the window big enough to include the current date/time from my toolbar if you need it, Sven.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 12, 2010 11:10 PM

Holy fuck, now Sven's already-edited comment has been changed again, and says "Me, but thanks for your understanding."

Ehm, yeah, indeed it has.Creepy.

Posted by: RMM Barrie | February 12, 2010 11:14 PM

A. Noyd @511

Wrong

Will paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith here, which went something like: when faced that one is wrong or proving one is right, most people get to work on the proof. Will go off and search, as read it somewhere reliable, could be wrong.

Refer often to Snopes but also point out that they originally said bisphenol A (BPA)was safe where now it is hedged. Wrote them several times.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 11:16 PM

Josh - is there an email address you've published already to send to, or is there some roundabout way to get it to you? I've never been savvy at how people contact each other without going HERE'S MY EMAIL SPAMMERS out on the thread.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 11:18 PM

Never mind there it is right there it's late and I'm tired.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 12, 2010 11:21 PM

@ Carlie:

Josh - is there an email address you've published already to send to

Sure. Email me at spokesgay at gmail.com. Any Pharyngulite can use that, but assholes will be dealt with most severely:)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | February 12, 2010 11:25 PM

Josh @ 537:

It sure is. As is the fact that he altered my post and put words in my mouth to make readers think I said something I didn't say.

Sorry to keep harping on that, but I'm as fucking mad as I've ever been.

You have every right to be fucking furious. That's a despicable thing to do, especially where words are all and a lot of readers aren't familiar with you. It doesn't just cross the line, it stomps on it and erases it entirely. Someone who can't be bothered with ethics shouldn't have the power to fuck people around in such a way.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 11:27 PM

No, just that I couldn't read where you put your email RIGHT THERE in that first comment asking for the screencap.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | February 12, 2010 11:31 PM

this clusterfuck has officially jumped the shark :-/

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 12, 2010 11:36 PM

Wonder what is going through Sgt. Stephanie's mind right now. This is going to be tough to defend.

BS

Posted by: A. Noyd | February 12, 2010 11:39 PM

RMM Barrie (#532)

Will go off and search, as read it somewhere reliable, could be wrong.

Well, the way I heard it, the house was originally green. Being curious, I tried looking up on wikipedia which color it started out as and the article mentioned the story as a legend. A bit more digging got me the Snopes article. Oh, and the majority the info I can find says it was originally unpainted sandstone.

Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2010 11:43 PM

btw, Laden's privacy policy:

1) The "private" data I collect from you... your IP address, etc. is no longer private. I never promised you that it was private, but I prefer to keep such things private. But now, starting today, your email address, any private communications you send to me, all of it, is mine to use as I wish, if you do not start to behave. You can avoid this situation by behaving or going away quietly.

This comes into effect if he considers you "annoying". At least Myers requires physical threats before any info will be shared.

Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2010 11:45 PM

I forgot to note that he doesn't say he'll edit your posts to say whatever the fuck he wants without proper attribution. That's fucking inexcusable, even if he did say he reserves the right though.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 12, 2010 11:51 PM

Thing is, Sven didn't really do anything, as far as I could tell. Certainly he wasn't as strident or argumentative or outright as some other commenters were, so why was he suddenly the one picked on like that? It's so random.

Paul - that must be his new privacy policy? The one he started using before telling anyone what it was?

Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2010 11:54 PM

There isn't a timestamp, Carlie. He specifically cites racists, though, which I know have been a problem for the last month (that said, he's been baiting people with very vague race related postings, and assuming anyone who disagrees is a racist).

I'm with you Josh. I just wanted to provide the information for those who might be interested. Whatever his policy is, his behavior is inexcusable.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2010 11:59 PM

Hey, look, is that a music vid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G861C3J9ms

Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2010 12:04 AM

So it's disagreeing with him that makes you a racist? 'Cause my pseudonym apparently makes me one.

Well, it's hard to describe without context. Greg likes to equivocate between racist referring to anything implicitly affected by race (as a neutral term) and using it as a derogatory term, though, so obviously a lot of people get confused or offended. I don't want to talk much abou it though since I'm really not interested in having the discussion at this point. He likely only lashed at you because he's completely fucking off his rocker right now.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 13, 2010 12:08 AM

Another comment mentioning Laden's editing of Josh's comment has appeared on his blog. Will it stand?

BS

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 13, 2010 12:10 AM

Paul,

Thanks for the info.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | February 13, 2010 12:15 AM

Hm, he also states in his privacy policy that he declares himself free to out email addresses AFTER he notifies the commenter that he will do so if they continue commenting in that way, so if he didn't send a warning email to Sven, he's still violating his own policy.
I'm off to bed, having watched the sadly malfunctioned Olympic cauldron lighting.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 13, 2010 12:19 AM

Thank you to whoever pointed out, on Greg's blog, that he dishonestly altered my comment. I appreciate that. It's one thing to disagree with a commenter, and to chastise or mock a commenter. That's fair game.

It's entirely another to put words in that commenter's mouth, then not allow him to post and correct it. What a fucker.

Posted by: Diane G. | February 13, 2010 12:19 AM

OK, this latest Laden insanity is just unspeakable. Weren’t some of his bulldogs getting all huffy about Paul W’s supposed ethics breach a while ago? If adding content to a comment post isn’t a breathtaking breach of ethics, what good is a blogosphere in the first place?

And...I have my own little bit to add; I think he played a little trick like this on me much earlier.

Back when I made my comment upthread here (# 281, 8:15 AM) about posts being held up forever in comment moderation at GLB, it was because a simple little comment of mine hadn’t been posted for over an hour...I don’t know when exactly it finally was posted, but there were well over 50 comments at the “Private letter to SC” site when I noticed it had finally been inserted—as comment #17, timed at 7:11 AM.

Worse, in a post in which I’d complained about the annoying lack of proof-reading in his “letter,”* there was a glaring typo right in my post. (So I thought, good thing the thread’s hurtled past #17 by now—maybe almost no one will notice it...)

BUT—I could have sworn the error wasn’t there in my previews; because I’m pretty anal about checking them, especially when I’m writing a fucking post griping about someone else’s errors.

Me being me, I was going to just figure that’s what I deserved for getting on my high horse...but NOW...now that we know that comments have been tampered with...combined with my pretty confident recollection of previewing with a fine-toothed comb, and with the oddly extreme posting delay...

Suffice it to say that “someone might think” Greg had a hand in that little “typo.” Makes sense to me—I musta struck a nerve or something.

I would never have wasted so many words here on such a stupid little story if I didn’t need to just let off steam somewhere. FWIW, if I ever decide to post on GLB again, I’m sure as hell gonna copy my post and save it somewhere before I hit submit. Maybe we need a notary?

*I mean, come on—I get that blogging is not supposed to be polished or anything, but, esp. when someone claims to be trying to make himself so damned clear, it’s pretty amazing how many errors appear in his writing lately (standing in stark contrast to the often excellent clarity & syntax of so many of the commenters**). I do understand infant-in-the-house-sleep-deprivation and all, but there comes a point when as a reader, I’m just insulted by so many blatant typos, not to mention the fact that they impair comprehension significantly. Don’t bloggers get to be bloggers because they’re supposed to be able to write half-way decently?

**Especially Pharynguloids. :-) (Not including myself, mind you. I don't even consider myself one of the group here...)

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | February 13, 2010 12:24 AM

I wonder if Stephanie (thread cop) knows that Greg is altering commenters' posts?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 13, 2010 12:27 AM

Caine,

I'm glad you went for a look about the pygmy loris. They are really cool and we just don't know that much about them. There are only a handful of people who have done research on them in the wild.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 13, 2010 12:30 AM

RMM Barrie,

where we did not do a very good job of setting anything much on fire,

That's why we built our stuff from stone ;)

Posted by: boygenius | February 13, 2010 12:34 AM

While we're on the topic of trains, here's something to cheer up Sven, SC, and perhaps others (NSFJ). The only video footage I've ever seen where Jerry is intoxicated on ethyl alcohol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bEHsovtadw

Posted by: Kyorosuke | February 13, 2010 12:38 AM

I don't have any stake in this whole Laden thing, but I commented on the recent thread that Josh's comment had been edited because I felt that any independent observers deserved to know.

Now, admittedly, I should hope that any independent observer would realize that SC didn't do anything wrong and that Greg Laden is completely nuts, but I've overestimated people's general intelligence before.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 13, 2010 12:45 AM

He's got a demonstrated track record of altering commenters's posts so that you appear to say things that you didn't actually write.

BS

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | February 13, 2010 12:54 AM

Yes, yes, he did

BS

Posted by: boygenius | February 13, 2010 12:56 AM

Addendums to my #578

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP0KMZ__eh4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMvFdsJ7GwA&NR=1

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | February 13, 2010 1:01 AM

BS,

He had problems with a few of us. Oh well. Troll is gone, so I'm unconcerned.

Posted by: SC OM | February 13, 2010 1:02 AM

Thanks to all of you, and please excuse my tart tone of voice.

Josh, you have no need to explain. I still can't believe he did what he did to you and Sven (and possibly Diane G.). Tart it up.

(Not including myself, mind you. I don't even consider myself one of the group here...)

I do. :)

Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2010 1:11 AM

At the risk of sounding like I'm playing a game of Rank Oppressions (TM), I have to say the biggest wrong has been done to you, SC. This entire affair was an obscene hit job on you. And I'm not going to forget it.

The absolute worst part of it imo is that the initial statement was likely only poorly phrased with no offensive intent. But all this is the fallout from a jackass professor doing anything to keep from honestly apologizing and analyzing his behavior and way of expression (the latter of which he constantly berates everyone else to do).

It's painful to watch.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | February 13, 2010 2:03 AM

K.D. Lang singing Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" was awe-inspiring.

Dang! I knew I'd dozed off for a few minutes, but I guess I missed more than I thought. I'm very sorry to have missed this performance.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 13, 2010 2:34 AM

Couple more :

Connolly on Religion

Connolly--Old woman on bus

Posted by: Miki Z | February 13, 2010 2:51 AM

I thought an atheist firing squad is what the "Intelligent" "Design" people want to start up for the education system.

Is Greg hallucinating? It can be disturbing, but there are techniques to cope.

Posted by: Diane G. | February 13, 2010 3:04 AM

It's interesting that Greg has declared a moratorium on anyone dissing Salty or him, but has left Steph Z hung out to dry...

Posted by: Darkling | February 13, 2010 4:04 AM

I've been lurking for a while and seldom comment. I stopped following Laden’s blog some time back. He seems to be a mixed bag. His Congo series are some of the most interesting blog posts that I've read. Yet at other points he seems to wander off the deep-end. And recnetly not wander so much as jump on the fastest vehicle he could find and drive full throttle off the pier. I only noticed this Charlie foxtrot when one of his posts appeared in the top five most active. I took the time to read and since then have had a hard time pulling myself away from the train wreck. Usually when people hit bedrock they stop digging, instead he's pulled out the explosives and heavy equipment (how long before he reaches China?).

Laden always seems to have thought of himself as a clever writer. Unfortunately in practice he seems to fall far short of that. At the end of the day he's sloppy and you can see that in posts themselves and in the comments that he makes. How many comments he needs to spend clarifying his posts and explaining what he actually meant?

At this point I won't be paying attention to any more of his posts. Any goodwill or benefit of the doubt that I had towards him is gone. He may or may not have other stuff going on in his life but unless he comes up with a substantial mea culpa, he's just a wanker.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 13, 2010 5:23 AM

Pygmy Loris, et al:

I love both The Star-Spangled Banner and O Canada, and know all the words to both (along with numerous other national anthems, since I'm a massive anthem-geek).

I do like God Save the Queen, but, in terms of both musical and poetic value, I will be the first to admit that it's not in the same class.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 13, 2010 5:42 AM

I do like God Save the Queen

You're welcome !

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | February 13, 2010 5:50 AM

I wrote the following argument, which I'd like to get ripped apart if possible. It's about the impossibility of omniscience, much in the same line of the "can God create a rock even he can't lift?"

Suppose a being can hold all the knowledge about everything. But to hold knowledge about everything creates a new fact, that there is a set of knowledge that contains everything. And that in itself creates a new fact, that there is a set of knowledge that contains the set of knowledge that contains everything. And so on. So no matter how one wants to encompass all the facts, doing so creates new facts. Thus absolute knowledge can never be reached. Thus omniscience is impossible. QED

Anything wrong with this argument?

Posted by: Rorschach | February 13, 2010 5:50 AM

That's revolting.

*grin*

Posted by: Rorschach | February 13, 2010 5:55 AM

Anything wrong with this argument?

I would probably argue that the premise "But to hold knowledge about everything creates a new fact, that there is a set of knowledge that contains everything" is dodgy, in an affirming the consequent kinda way.

:-)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | February 13, 2010 6:04 AM

I was going for the whole Godel incompleteness theorem argument.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 13, 2010 6:09 AM

you've got absolutely no taste in music. the Sex Pistols are fucking awesome.

I don't think my taste in music is that bad. I don't listen exclusively to national anthems from around the world, though I do love them; I also like some classic country and western music, as well as some jazz (particularly Dixieland) and gospel songs.

This is awesome, for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHr4ubuD64

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | February 13, 2010 6:13 AM

How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfqaEuCR54w

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 13, 2010 6:49 AM

Paul@392,

The reposts were an odd interaction between my broadband, which was running slow, and Laden's site: when I tried to post a new comment, I got timed out, then when I went back to the thread and refreshed, the old comment was reposted. I've had the same happen on one other side. I did preface my next (and last) comment with an apology there, as you may have seen.

Posted by: Rorschach | February 13, 2010 7:05 AM

and this is so bad, it's awesome

Oh !! That is hilarious !!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 13, 2010 7:10 AM

I also like some classic country and western music

Walton listens to both kinds of music, country and western.

I like some Muddy Waters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3FSXshAB1s

Posted by: Miki Z | February 13, 2010 7:15 AM

Kel,

The axiom of choice is problematic for your suggestion. You're essentially asserting that there is a chain of facts with no choice function. Unless you are willing to accept that only a finite number of facts can exist, it's not a compelling argument.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 13, 2010 7:35 AM

There are two types of omniscience: Inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known; and total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known. Some theologians argue that god's omniscience is inherent rather than total. God chooses to limit his omniscience to allow freewill. Other theologians use total omniscience as a justification for predestination.