Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 9, 2010 10:50 AM

Why, there are even people who disagree with me!

No there are not.

Posted by: vanharris | March 9, 2010 10:56 AM

Pharyngula is not to everybody's taste...

Yeah, but they're only religious nutjobs, so they don't count, eh.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 9, 2010 11:03 AM

Yes, be nice and be informative. Good thing we know that now!

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith | March 9, 2010 11:16 AM

All I can say is that I have learned so much lurking this blog (and a few others like it). The rough and tumble dialog only makes it more enjoyable.

PZ said:

I can't help but think that the author had some preconceptions about how a science blog should be (which usually means antiseptic, pure, aloof, esoteric, and technical) and found that they are rarely that way at all. And was a bit disappointed.

Posted by: ernestotinajeroseo | March 9, 2010 11:19 AM

It brings about an interesting question of what Science blogging is. Is Science Blogging about Science or Blogging by a Scientist? If it means science, then many of the blogs he mention, including this one fail to meet the criteria. Not a criticism, but the reality as many of the post here are of personal nature, (travels, movie reviews and such make their way into this electronic media). Also, would it be blogging without the personal voice?

Blogging has more, as a medium, in common with an intellectual diary or memoir than does it mean "... a focus on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication." His question seems begged. He defines a blog as: "Blog is a frequently updated webpage that facilitates informal communication between the author of
the blog and its audience." Then he calls for a change in the nature of the Blog, (informal communication between the author of
the blog and its audience) to one more formal and non blog like. Boiled down he says a blog is better if it becomes less like a blog.

It seems to me that if Science Blogging is a blog written by a scientist, a more interesting question is how a popular sciences blog effects attitudes toward science, rather than calling for a revision of how blogs are done. I don't believe any blogger will change how they blog on the advice of an academic paper.

Posted by: Moggie | March 9, 2010 11:24 AM

#8:

That's right. This is a gladiator arena. I'm wearing a slave Leia outfit with a gladiator helmet right now and I'm looking goooooood.

Coincidentally, I closely resemble Jabba the Hutt. We should get it on!

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 9, 2010 11:28 AM

Peace and love through anarchy and chaos!

Posted by: Newfie | March 9, 2010 11:33 AM

Bora has an exhaustive dissection

you think?
Maybe that's why he gets so few comments/readers, compared to other blogs.

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 9, 2010 11:50 AM

Holy crap. 15 comments each from 11 different blogs? I would return a student paper in a class to redo for having such a small sample size, never mind actually trying to get something published with it. The blogosphere is BIG. It's not that hard to get a lot of data.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 9, 2010 11:55 AM

I'm sure the way the comments here instantly degenerated into some kind of bizarre Gladiator/Star Wars mashup* will confirm the author's thesis, at least in their own mind.

*I would totally watch that movie.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 9, 2010 11:57 AM

Newfie, some people actually like to read posts that transmit information. Not everyone is stupid and needs things to be simple. And if you would go read his blog, you would find that his writing style is quite clear, crisp, and entertaining all while exhaustively taking down the article in question.

Exactly. Bora does a great job. Not sure what length of posts has to do with anything.

Newfie have you ever read one of Orac's posts?

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 9, 2010 12:07 PM

Looking at Bora's post on this is a great education in the process of peer review. Basically he's posted his peer review of the paper to his blog, so if you are a young academic looking to publish your first paper, this is what you should expect from a good reviewer.

@Carlie - Well, it's actually 1409 comments from 174 posts. The 11 blogs is certainly an inadequate sample, but I think that there is an adequate sample of posts and comments.

Posted by: nejishiki | March 9, 2010 12:09 PM

Great, another dumbass who has never set foot in a lab opining on science, and in an academic journal no less. (And, really - 'The Journal of Science Communication'? - I think we need a moratorium on new journals.) Reminds me of Feyerabend's remarks about how 'Bastard subjects such as the philosophy of science, which have not a single discovery to their credit, profit from the boom of the sciences.'

*flush*

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 9, 2010 12:14 PM

Wrong methodology, worthless conclusions.

Posted by: Richard Eis | March 9, 2010 12:16 PM

As a non-scientist I think I already spend far too much time on these blogs. Making them more addictive would be a bad idea. Though his recomendations are incredibly obvious and would be dealt with through market forces anyway.

Posted by: Louis | March 9, 2010 12:22 PM

I find Pharyngula comment threads to be a generally poor place for me to pick up scientific information, the signal to noise ratio is all kinds of wrong. The posts are a different matter. However, the comment threads are also one of the few places on the web I genuinely learn something, scientific as well as personal. Interesting, no?

If I want a specific piece of scientific information I have plenty of places to go. If I want a detailed (and there really is no other way in research) dissection of some piece of science in a sober and informed manner, then sorry, but these comment threads aren't usually the place. Nor should they be, they serve a far better (and far rarer for me) purpose. A place to bang ideas about with people who are more than capable of banging them back.

Incidentally, I don't think this derives from a limitation of the people here, I think it's a limitation of the format. We don't get into images and equations a lot, whilst html and the text editor can cope with such things we generally agree not to, and the linear format can sometimes hinder following a subthread clearly/quickly.

Again, I don't see this as a problem. In fact, it's an advantage, a feature. If I have an idea (quasi-scientific or otherwise) I know of no better place to voice it than the comment threads at Pharyngula. The ravening hoardes tear it to shreds (or ignore it!) in the appropriate manner. This is a Good Thing! It's just not the best format for an in depth, technical discussion of detailed science.

I think mistaking the comment threads for serious discussions of science (on average) is an error, and misses the point of what they are good at. The original posts are a different matter perhaps, being a mixture of science, news and comment.

Like PZ said, many formats, many voices. It all goes to serve many needs. And that is good!

Louis

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327 | March 9, 2010 12:31 PM

Except for a couple of physics courses in college 30 years ago, I'm entirely self-taught in the sciences, and I work as a journalist, not a scientist.
However, I still enjoy your blog and find I can understand about 80-90% of the hard science. I don't feel put off by the technical stuff, and I flunked high school algebra. Don't change a thing!

Posted by: Kamaka | March 9, 2010 12:52 PM

Just what science-blogging needs, another concern/tone troll.

What is so hard to understand about "blogs are personal expression"? If someone wants to blog about monkey butts, all monkey butts all the time, so what? Read it or don't read it, who cares?

You want all science all the time? Go read Eruptions. I do. I like that blog.

These trolls are just annoyed by which science blogs are the most widely read. Sorry, but popularity can't be mandated.

Posted by: circleh | March 9, 2010 1:03 PM

I can't help but think that the author had some preconceptions about how a science blog should be (which usually means antiseptic, pure, aloof, esoteric, and technical) and found that they are rarely that way at all. And was a bit disappointed.

Some people need to just grow up and learn to deal with real people, I guess.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 9, 2010 1:08 PM

Yes.

Ok, while he doesn't get the PZ traffic he does pretty well as far as the SciBlogs go.

Posted by: Newfie | March 9, 2010 1:32 PM

Ok, while he doesn't get the PZ traffic he does pretty well as far as the SciBlogs go.

There's plenty to be learned from the comments, here, and on other blogs. They provide links, insight, maybe some clearer context/examples for the average reader, and a sense of community that keeps people around and brings them back.
I realize that PZ gets a lot of traffic for Scienceblogs, but as an average reader, I don't find his posts too technical to absorb, or too winded, and the comments keep it interesting.
A good model, IMO, if reaching a wider audience is the goal.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl61Xz3jVOoXQLeonr0QlIml85KT81ad3U | March 9, 2010 2:03 PM

Wow, such a debate over Bora's (admittedly long-winded) article.

I find it a bit amusing to see a journal analyzing blogs "scientifically".

What is the hypothesis being tested?

What is the "problem" being solved?

As another poster stated, the marketplace will work it out. I see the whole exercise as a bit pointless (i.e. the analysis of blogs - not blogging itself)

Posted by: Peter G. | March 9, 2010 2:16 PM

Welcome to the Monkey House. Who doesn't enjoy a good scat flinging fest from time to time? On a meta level we are a scientific experiment in cultural anthropology.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 9, 2010 2:29 PM

I am a scientist, but only in a narrow sense; I have a field of expertise* and outside of that field I am a curious child/noob. I want to know more, and am poorly implemented to do so on my own**...and so I go on the interwebs. I suspect that this is true of most other scientists. Besides having a passion for science, I love profanity...not a big user myself, but when eloquence and profanity are combined...magnifique. I learn a lot here about things that I wouldn't be pondering on my own, and during slow science weeks (eg..the fucking holidays when discovery comes to a grinding halt), I at least get to enjoy the rants. If I want to talk nice with the respectable members of my field, I use my real name and a telephone.

*C'mon. Field of competence? Field of employment? Throw me a bone here.
**Because of the employment thing. It eats a lot of time.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 9, 2010 3:00 PM

I also think I am pretty aware of my audience, and if you look at the comment threads here, they aren't just scientists.

I'm certainly no scientist, I'm an artist and photographer. I learn a great deal here, and much of what I learn is in the comments - extended discussion and lots of clarification, for which this non-scientist is grateful. An antiseptic, pure, aloof, esoteric, and technical science blog wouldn't teach me nearly as much. Nor would it be remotely as enjoyable.

Posted by: statueofmike.myopenid.com | March 9, 2010 3:09 PM

I think he's saying that he wants space in scienceblogs for pseudoscientists to pontificate without having to deal with all of your "Scientist" words and theories getting in the way.

Posted by: https://openid.org/cujo359 | March 9, 2010 3:20 PM

The whole idea of a blog is that it's about whatever its author(s) wants it to be about. There are plenty of formal publications in technical fields already.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | March 9, 2010 3:49 PM

Carlie: frog, what's your point? It doesn't matter if you want to look at blogging from a sociological or scientific perspective (should there really be a difference there, which I don't think there is); the sampling was inadequate and terribly done to meet their own stated goals of analysis.

My point is that even if they met their "stated goal", it would have been pointless. What you can get from sociology would have been an analysis of class, race, occupation, etc. To find out what the science blogging "should be", or "what it is" -- you're better off hiring an English Lit grad student than a Library Sciences grad student.

Who would you hire for a PR campaign? Mostly sociologists, or mostly humanists? I'd hire a ratio of 10:1 latter to former, myself.

There's a reason why most cultural anthropology isn't "scientific" -- at the end of the day, measuring caloric intake gives you very loose constraints. An interpretation of a joke gives you a much better "interpretation" -- even if you can't get to "explanation".

Posted by: menckensghost | March 9, 2010 5:31 PM

When I was a lurker, I came here to read PZM, marvel at the lightning-fast exchanges, and hoot and holler whenever a halfwit was defenestrated.

But now... now that I'm registered with *^&#@^% Moveable Type, I come here to be told that my password is incorrect. That's what it's all about for me now. Just me and MT, locked in a death-spiral...

Be right back. Gotta go find a claw hammer.

Posted by: Kobra | March 9, 2010 5:42 PM

@50: I nominate myself on account of my new sweet LARP sword.

I have since put reflective duct tape on the "edge" to indicate the legal striking surfaces.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 9, 2010 6:09 PM

Science bloggers need to become more aware of their audience, welcome non-scientists, and focus on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication rather than on reporting and opinionating.

I wonder which blogs they've been looking at ? Which blogs are unwelcoming to non-scientists around here ?
Aren't plenty of the sciencebloggers happy to get any traffic at all ?

And I agree with Louis on the observation that a lot of information and education will be picked up just by reading the comments here sort of accidentally, which is a great thing, and doesnt happen this way on many other blogs.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | March 9, 2010 6:34 PM

It's blogs like this that are pushing my scientific understanding of reality. This is a precious resource, so many people here with different fields of expertise and understanding - not only to find out what to learn but how to find it too.

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 9, 2010 7:39 PM

Okay, so I read. Then I think. And this is what I think.

More science content in "science blogs".

Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing. Amusing as it is, some time the science content is just not there.

Now yes it is a blog and as such, PZs little kingdom, where what he says goes. But maybe not always, but only sometimes a science blog. Like the squidy pics and the Monday Metazoans, but how is Sunday Sacralidge science content?

To bad these blogs dont do XML tags, I'd love to tag this whole thing to an opinion tag.

Posted by: claire-chan | March 9, 2010 7:47 PM

@50: Alpha... nerd...? Do we have such a system?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 9, 2010 8:03 PM

So, Sandi, please provide the scientific backing for Deepak.

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 9, 2010 8:06 PM

Caine @ 68:

I have seen the tagline. Nothing I said was untrue.

As for how much I think, clearly a lot more than you did in your clearly reactionay comment.

Furthermore, I don't own any pearls, and "the intersection is waiting"? WTF?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 9, 2010 8:15 PM

Sandi isn't blog savy. Mooney.

Sandi, there is a lot of science involved especially when we bash creationist. We don't do with nothing, like you seem to think we do. There is a lot of scientific data used into trumping them.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 9, 2010 8:25 PM

Sandi here:

Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing. Amusing as it is, some time the science content is just not there.

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but it sure sounded like you trying to say we had no substance. Especially since the sentance were paired together.

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 9, 2010 8:29 PM

Perhaps there should have been a linebreak there. Those are two seperate thoughts. But thats grammarnazi nitpicking. Lets not go there :-)

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 9, 2010 8:35 PM

Gyeong, thought of this as I clicked the submit button last.

What definition would you give for "blog savy"?

Just curious.

Posted by: The Pint | March 9, 2010 8:40 PM

For the record: work in publishing, hold a BFA in Literature/Writing, am a hobby artist/cook/firedancer; in other words, not a scientist. And I love this blog. 90% of the time I have to work at following the more science-heavy posts and comments and content myself with learning something new, rather than being able to contribute to the fray (unless it's to throw out/respond to a geek reference - you guys are awesome with those!). Which is the main reason I come here - to learn from some extremely knowledgeable people who don't shy away from saying exactly what they think in no uncertain terms. And occasionally engage in dialog when I feel I can contribute to the discussion.

And really, it's rather easy to participate in discussion here - as far as I can tell, the basic rule of thumb is anyone's welcome, as long as they refrain from saying anything patently stupid.

I'm still surprised at how often that happens. Damned entertaining when it does, though.

PS - all the bacon love and Cthulhu references don't hurt the attraction, either.

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 9, 2010 8:41 PM

Carlie, u wernt ignored, you made your argument, you win whether or not I acknowledge you or not.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 9, 2010 8:54 PM

Carlie, u wernt ignored, you made your argument, you win whether or not I acknowledge you or not.

The Intersection is one of the Discover magazine blogs. As luck would have it, the blog master/mistress and the commentariat are all colossal asses. Y'all should get along beautifully.

Posted by: John Morales | March 9, 2010 8:59 PM

sandiseattle

Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing. Amusing as it is, some time the science content is just not there.

No,it isn't, and sometimes, it is (respectively).

Overgeneralising is not wisdom.

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 9, 2010 9:05 PM

John@87:

Yes I was generalizing, but that is sometimes the nature of an opinion.

Love the last line too. Very PHI 101, and a truism.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | March 9, 2010 9:16 PM

Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing. Amusing as it is, some time the science content is just not there.

Lets face it, it's not just "ha ha, you believe in magic sky daddy" - even if it is just religion bashing it is done by exploring the issues therein.

Posted by: Truthmachineom | March 9, 2010 11:26 PM

Coturnix says this blog is "carefully moderated". I called him on his silliness and he simply redefined "moderated" (and ignored his "carefully" claim). That's consistent with previous experiences with him. Good takedown of this crappy paper, though.

Posted by: Truthmachineom | March 9, 2010 11:39 PM

Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing.

Is that what this post is about? No. How about the one before it? No. How about the one before that? No. Sorry, but you lose. Try looking up the word "usually" in the dictionary.

some time the science content is just not there.

Yes, sometimes. So what?

maybe not always, but only sometimes a science blog

Yes, not always, only sometimes. So what?

Like the squidy pics and the Monday Metazoans, but how is Sunday Sacralidge science content?

Who said it is? But if you read what PZ writes about scientific thinking being incompatible with religious thinking, you might figure out the connection.

Posted by: thebmcc | March 9, 2010 11:54 PM

Yes! There are plenty of people who disagree with PZ who read this blog and I'm one. I can't say that I agree with everything PZ does. Yeah, I was raised catholic and I don't always love how PZ trashes them. I went to a catholic high school and some of the most influential people in my life were catholic priests. In fact, it was a priest who introduced me to the world of chemistry and another priest who introduced me to biology and I've loved them since. They didn't do that whole "maybe God guided evolution" stuff. They taught real science and let us come to our own conclusions. I was taught by Jesuits and they've been criticized and banned by the catholic church in every European country in the past, so maybe they had it right and being criticized by the church counts as points in their favor.

Anyway, I didn't love PZ's whole eucharist in the trash thing. I know as an educated and enlightened person it shouldn't bother me but the image still struck a nerve with me. Its amazing how cognitive thought and emotional urges are so disconnected at times. That is why I love this blog. It is informative and challenging all at the same time.

Not sure if the point of my post is clear so I'll simplify. PZ... keep it up. I think you do a great service to the blogosphere and the world. Thank you. I'm very much in your debt. Reading this blog has educated me and helped me to understand the world I live in.

thanks.

Posted by: Kobra | March 10, 2010 1:02 AM

@86: My sword is not vorpal, but it does have an equivalent +5 enhancement bonus. Also, because it's only double-edged on the upper half of the blade, I can wield it in a wider variety of styles than normal nodachi or completely double-edged nodachi. :)

Posted by: MadScientist | March 10, 2010 2:33 AM

I was lost at "To become a tool" - it sounds like the title of an instruction pamphlet for the religious.

Posted by: MadScientist | March 10, 2010 3:30 AM

Hmmm ... then again, the interwebz seem to be consistent about the jesuits being disbanded only once. Perhaps I only want to replay such a happy thought twice - alors, I will write a Revised History of the Soldiers of Christ. I may even leave out that nasty bit about the (literal) war against the Reformists. Then again maybe I should embellish the tales of murder instead - it would make the story so much more compelling.

Posted by: Kobra | March 10, 2010 3:45 AM

@100: Yeah, because in 3.5, there was almost nothing resistant to sonic damage but plenty of things weak to it.

*Reads up on resonance.*

Posted by: shonny | March 10, 2010 5:03 AM

Who the hell needs a social life when there's Pharyngula . . . and WEIT and Sandwalk and RDN and . . .

Posted by: llewelly | March 10, 2010 7:26 AM

'Tis Himself, OM | March 9, 2010 8:59 PM:

Kobra #59
Is that anything like Pox Day's vorpal blade?

Posted by: CalGeorge | March 10, 2010 9:29 AM

From article: "The findings suggest that science blogs are too heterogeneous to be understood as an emerging genre of science communication. The blogs employ a variety of writing and authoring models, and no signs of emerging or stabilizing genre conventions could be observed."

Three cheers for heterogeneity, variety, and destabilization! Those are the best thing about the blogosphere. Shake it up!

Posted by: Barrett808 | March 10, 2010 10:50 AM

Science fights back:

Exclusive: Dr. George Woodwell sets the record straight

The response to the [email] vandals is to bury them with the data and experience of a century of scholarly research and analysis. The information that is important in making the decisions as to how to manage our world is unequivocal and must be advanced, not as questions at the edge of scientific knowledge where scientist like to dwell, but as the facts that they are, facts as immutable as the law of gravity. The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution. This approach is uncompromising, partisan in the sense of selected for the purpose. It is not a lecture to undergraduates; nor is it ecology 101. It is a clear statement of what is required for government to do its job in protecting the public welfare. The scientific community has a firm responsibility in this realm now. This is not the time to wring our hands over the challenges to hyper-scientific objectivity, the purity of scholars, and to tie ourselves in knots with apologies for alleged errors of trifling import.

Posted by: Celeste | March 10, 2010 11:48 AM

Speaking as someone with only a little college experience and absolutely no scientific expertise, I love PZ's blog. I also read Dispatches From the Culture Wars and occasionally read Not Exactly Rocket Science. I've learned so much from all of these blogs and have never felt they were over my head. As one of the commenters above pointed out, if I need a little extra background info on something, I Google it or check Wikipedia.

While I'm less likely to take on a creationist in an argument since I don't have the scientific background, I find myself jumping into political and social discussions far more readily these days. Thank goodness for ScienceBlogs!

Posted by: Bastion Of Sass | March 10, 2010 12:15 PM

If I wanted to read a purely stick-to-the-facts-and-keep-it-simple science website*, I would. But that kind of site just doesn't appeal to me enough for me to spend my limited time reading regularly, and I doubt if I'd ever comment on one.

I come to Pharyngula primarily for the snark, the atheism, and the community of commenters. The science is merely a nice bonus.

*Site, not blog, because it doesn't sound very bloggy to me.

Posted by: drawingbusiness | March 10, 2010 12:40 PM

#118: Uh-oh. Have I sprung sort of trap? Should I expect the ravening hordes at any moment? Oh Jebus, what have I done?! I feel like those guys running through the long grass in Jurassic Park 2 (specifically one of the ones at the back). I knew I shouldn't have broken cover.

Posted by: markabbott50 | March 10, 2010 1:37 PM

I'm not a scientist, and I like coming here to be educated, even if many of things I read here and don't interest me, or is beyond my understanding. I actually learn a lot from the propeller head scientists making comments on the posts. It can also be very entertaining.

There are plenty of dumbed down places I can get information. I come here for a reason.

Posted by: Paul | March 10, 2010 1:49 PM

OK, fuck it, I'm not using any html tags for a couple days. I'm messing up every single time somehow. Anyway, what I meant to say in 122 is it's being complained about right now. Screw 2011. The commenters are basically wetting themselves hoping Kirshenbaum comes down hard because people are saying she should be raped with a rusty knife, and Myers "likes it that way".

At least they provided a link this time, I suppose. I need to stop reading there again, for the sake of my health.

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 3:45 PM

Well said, a_ray. I agree. I've always thought it a great example of a community that functions without heavy-handed control or strict rules of interaction, and doesn't (OK, rarely) descend into chaos and 'violence'. It doesn't appear that many of the people presenting their so-called observations have any real interest in understanding how or why it works as it does.

OK, so I saw that the sidekick sniped at me over at A Blog around the Clock. Here was my response (the only one I'll be making to her), in case it disappears from there:

There are two generally recognized definitions of the verb, "to moderate." The first is to restrict or repress. The second is to oversee and direct. Both are applicable to comment sections of blogs. It isn't "silly" or "dishonest" or "weird" or "wrong" or even particularly unusual to use the definition Bora uses here.

These are not separate, but overlapping. The sense of restriction and active direction is generally used, and that meaning was implied in the subsequent elaboration to which truth machine responded. None of it was applicable to how PZ or the commenters at Pharyngula operate. The reason the blog works is not "careful moderation," if this term has any beyond the most idiosyncratic meaning, and some of the things Bora asserts that PZ does in support of his characterization (e.g., deleting comments) are done virtually never if at all. "Moderation means that the blog owner sets and controls the tone of the comments, sets the criteria for what is 'over the line' and builds a commentariat community that enforces his rules." He does not set or control the tone of the comments, his criteria for what is over the line are remarkably narrow, and the community does not "enforce his rules." It is wrong. What people imagine when they hear "carefully moderated" is what is being done here: controlling the direction of the comments, threatening commenters, emphasizing blog ownership,... That is very distinct from what PZ does.

Of course, you're about as unfit to judge clarity or intellectual honesty as a person could possibly be, so I expect no better from you, and won't be responding to you further.

Anyway, I enjoyed and agreed with the dissection of the article, as I said at the time I linked to it in a comment thread at Pharyngula. It's a shame more people can't simply acknowledge that they said something incorrect or presented their case in a way that is likely to be read as contrary to its intended meaning. Oh, well.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 10, 2010 3:54 PM

Who are the Colgate Twins?

Posted by: drawingbusiness | March 10, 2010 4:16 PM

Who are the Colgate Twins?

them

Good grief, I never realised how apposite their nickname was until I just looked at that photo. They are indeed the inane, grinning buffoons I imagined them to be.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 10, 2010 4:26 PM

Good grief, I never realised how apposite their nickname was until I just looked at that photo. They are indeed the inane, grinning buffoons I imagined them to be.

Really? I think they're both quite attractive. :-)

Posted by: Paul | March 10, 2010 4:40 PM

Don't say she's attractive, or we'll have another blog war on how it's unacceptable to mention a woman's looks.

Also, while you're looking at the Colgate ad note how Mooney's still not being up-front about having taken Templeton money (apparently Knight Science Journalism Fellow sounds better than Templeton Fellow).

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 10, 2010 4:53 PM

my last blog war was a stalemate, don't care to bother with another. :-)

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 5:09 PM

It...would...not...be...a...battle. It...would...be...a...massacre.

[This attempted quotation brought to you by my suretobe faulty recollection of an episode of Kung Fu, the TV series.]

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | March 10, 2010 5:22 PM

Walton, one can be physically attractive and an inane, grinning buffoon - since all three relate to behaviour not appearance.

Conversely, I'm frequently an inane, grinning buffoon - but I ain't as pretty as either of them...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 10, 2010 5:37 PM

Walton, what is your sexual orientation?

With all due respect, SC, that's hardly any of your business.

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 5:44 PM

With all due respect, SC, that's hardly any of your business.

With all due respect, Walton, this isn't the first comment you've made with a hint that you're gay or bi. Far from it. If it's so private, I don't understand why you keep doing this. And frankly, since I don't see being gay or bi as anything remotely to be ashamed of or to hide, I don't understand why you'd be coy about it if you are. You don't live in Iran.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2010 5:50 PM

With all due respect, SC, stating a man is attractive isn't necessarily a sign that another man is gay. Just like me looking at Iman and saying, "Dayum!" doesn't make me straight.

We've made the ability to say someone of the same sex is attractive a marker of homosexuality. I'm reminded of a Seinfeld episode in which Jerry and George were telling Elaine that they were incapable of telling when a man was attractive because they were heterosexual (and in which Kramer called George Will attractive but not terribly bright...he got part right)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 10, 2010 5:56 PM

I like to be mysterious. :-)

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 6:03 PM

Chimes in

(Draw from this what inferences you will...)

Mooney is okay, I guess. I think Brian Switek is cuter. (because he's got more muscle.)

SC, if I say Taylor Swift is hot, does that make me straight? In my opinion she is hot, but I've no attraction to her.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 6:07 PM

Ahem,
I caught the failed blockquote in the process of being submitted.

Well, I think Chris Mooney is attractive too. (Draw from this what inferences you will...)

was Walton's quote.

Though to be fair to SC, you did permit us to make inferences Walton.

Posted by: Louis | March 10, 2010 6:10 PM

Commenting that another man is attractive indicates Teh Gaynezz now does it? Well paint me pink and stick me in a fucking parade!

I've been in a variety of sketchy sexual situations throughout my life (and I'm hoping for more!) but never have I engaged in anything as unsketchy (or as sketchy) as proper sexual activity with another chap, even using a cigar. Well apart from that one time I wanted an A for my Latin exam back in prep school....

I'd possibly break years of quasi-heterosexuality for Dr No era Connery or Raiders era Harrison Ford. Does that make me gay or even bi? Or does it mean I recognise the greyness of human sexuality and realise that even an ostensibly hetero chap like me has limits when it comes to hot men? As Wowbagger mentioned John Barrowman, I have to agree. Gay or not, he'd learn a chap a thing or two!

Why do we have to fit in boxes? Gay, straight or bi?* Can't we just be fluid and situational? Maybe I'm just a pervert. Scratch the maybe! LOL

Louis

*I'm not gay you understand. But my boyfriend. Oy vey he sucks a mean cock.

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 6:17 PM

Well paint me pink and stick me in a fucking parade!

While we're on the subject, I'm a bit annoyed with Jon Stewart's recent "so gay" bits.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 6:29 PM

(It's a little odd that people seem to be approaching this as though I'm "accusing" him of something. *grimace*)

Tone is hard to read without using pinyin, SC

And what does a purple chicken mcnugget has to do with anything

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 10, 2010 6:40 PM

The joke is that Chinese is a tonal language, and pinyin incorporates tones into writing.

And now I have spoiled Gyeong Hwa Pak's chance to explain it!

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 10, 2010 6:45 PM

Perfect timing.

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 6:47 PM

Play on word.

Oh! *claps*

The problem was that your tone sounded like you were accusing Walton.

Of course not!

Tone is also an aspect of a language which can indicate shift in context or in some languages a indicate seperate words (like Mandarin which is romanized in pinyin.) Get it? lol

Yes, now. Cool.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 6:51 PM

And now I have spoiled Gyeong Hwa Pak's chance to explain it!

It's almost as if you've read my mind. (either that, or you were able to deduce that I would clarify things as soon as SC showed a hint of confusion. The former sounds more fun.)

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 6:56 PM

as soon as SC showed a hint of confusion

Please answer my question @ #164.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 10, 2010 6:57 PM

I was just thinking how much I wish I'd gone on and honours and a PhD in linguistics.

Sure, if you like wading through giles (er, piles) of orthographies.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 7:03 PM

Takes SC to my convoluted reasoning:

Well at 140, your question is short and offered me multiple levels of interpretations as to your tone.
Walton's first statement at 136 opened him to be question immediately. While you were not the first response you were to first to ask.

Asking question can be seen as a confrontation sometimes.

It did not help that Walton's response highlighted 140 as a threat, but keep in mind that Walton and I both admit that 136 was opened to inferences.

And that's how I deduced your tone. And remember tone is not always apparent in text, so it was wrong of me to assume.

If it makes you feel any better SC, I found you a stripper.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 10, 2010 7:05 PM

e) Anyone got any?

Not if you're going to stop at a backrub.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 7:09 PM

Mu.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 10, 2010 7:10 PM

Asking question can be seen as a confrontation sometimes.

It's an especially sensitive topic when a guy feels he has reason to stay closeted.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 10, 2010 7:13 PM

Sorry, but are you calling me frigid?

Merely inquiring as to the cost of entry.

Posted by: Louis | March 10, 2010 7:14 PM

SC #176:

All about me? Hardly, but you did quote *me* in that post at #155, I thought it a reasonable inference that your post might in some way be referring to, well, me.

As for the rest, chalk it up to *my* misreading of your intent and leave it at that.

Louis

Posted by: windy | March 10, 2010 7:20 PM

1. Make multiple references to the commenting culture at Pharyngula or a thinly veiled version thereof.
2. When someone thinks you have got the wrong impression and tries to correct it, complain that people are hijacking the discussion to talk about Pharyngula.
3. Profit!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 10, 2010 7:26 PM

Actually, I kind of do.

Hmph. It appears my linguistics joke wasn't as funny as GHP's.

I nicked a copy of Inuktitut Magazine from my eighth grade art class because it had a guide to the syllabary and its pronunciation on the back and spent a month translating the names of everyone I knew. I can still spend hours at Omniglot.com.

I tried to invent a system of numerals for writing in base 3 using triangles and lines, but couldn't ever get it to work. One day, when the aliens from War of the Worlds attack, I'll be ready to crack their codes, though dammit!

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | March 10, 2010 7:34 PM

Hmph. It appears my linguistics joke wasn't as funny as GHP's.

It might have been...had I got it.

My interest in such things came much later in life; I was in my mid-twenties before I found any of it interesting.

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 7:38 PM

It's an especially sensitive topic when a guy feels he [or a woman feels she] has reason to stay closeted.

Yes, I see this. I also feel the desire to encourage people to break out of the closet. But I don't want to get anyone hurt. I've lived in some of the most gay places in the world for most of my adult life, so that may have rendered me less aware of the dangers. On the other hand, I'm an anarchist, so...

But I get to eat with SC!

I. Am. So. Psyched.

Posted by: Truthmachineom | March 10, 2010 7:43 PM

? Perhaps you noticed the emoticon?

In all honesty, I did not. (Having it in between '*' and '**' may have caused my poor brain to skip over it as being semantically insignificant.) But I of course should have realized that you would not be so unintentionally ironic -- I apologize for that.

I'm always impressed (but not surprised) by your ability to grasp the meaning of even the most cursory comments, such as my "Mu" here. A pity that what I considered at the time to be a clever response was such a misfire.

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 10, 2010 7:56 PM

if you wanted to disagree that you should open your own blog. It seems Coturnix follows the same underlying assumption.

Ah ... no.

People disagree with me on my blog all the time and are generally welcome to do THAT.

But once commenters start to act like unmitigated shits who are utterly compulsive about their own message and have too little respect for their fellow human, ANYTHING can happen to them. On any blog, including Pharyngula, my blog, anywhere. If I get sufficiently annoyed I may well suggest that you go away and if you need to keep screaming I may suggest that you get your own blog. I'm not quite sure why you feel it necessary to tell me that I can't make that suggestion.

Although a lot of people (many being anonymous commenters) believe that they have a right to say and do whatever they like without consequences, that simply isn't true. If you are an asshole, you must expect people to treat you like one. Why people don't get that is rather astonishing. Having the suggestion made in strong words to take your ball and find a different corner to play on terribly upsets some people ... generally those who prefer a world in which they tell others what to do ... it is not actually the worst thing that can happen to you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 10, 2010 8:06 PM

And 'Tis and strange gods, I'll be back to you soon!

I wait with breathless anticipation.

Posted by: John Morales | March 10, 2010 8:10 PM

Greg Laden,

If you are an asshole, you must expect people to treat you like one.

Yeah. Apparently, I made you sufficiently annoyed.

Posted by: Truthmachineom | March 10, 2010 8:15 PM

You (like others who shall not be named) are adorable.

It has seemed that you are not as angry at me as you once were, but I really wasn't expecting anything like that. Thank you.

:)

Assuming of course that that one doesn't have the same meaning as the other one. :-)

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 10, 2010 8:19 PM

What is wrong with you Greg? Your hostility is just so over the top. You outed the identity of some commenters, and changed a commenter's text (mine) without indicating that it was an edit. That's just unethical behavior and there's no justification for it, no matter how much you disagree with what a commenter says.

If you don't like a commenter, delete the post or ban him/her. Abusing your ability to out people or edit their comments is appalling.

Posted by: Truthmachineom | March 10, 2010 8:22 PM

OTOH, #193 does appear to be full of unintentional irony.

Posted by: Truthmachineom | March 10, 2010 8:29 PM

Yeah. Apparently, I made you sufficiently annoyed.

Blastual [sic] is a fiction, it looks like Pharyngula, it is not a thinly disguised Pharyngula.

Yegads. It was exactly Pharyngula with straightforward text substitution of names.

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 8:32 PM

It has seemed that you are not as angry at me as you once were, but I really wasn't expecting anything like that. Thank you.

I blocked your emails? I think not.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 10, 2010 8:35 PM

Bit late to the lovefest ....

OTOH, #193 does appear to be full of unintentional irony.

Problem with Greg is, most of his remarks and posts can somehow be interpreted as ironic or carrying some obscure subtle message that we just don't get, he's used that excuse lots in the "firing squad" fiasco.
Unfortunately the editing of posts remains inexcusable.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2010 8:39 PM

I'd possibly break years of quasi-heterosexuality for Dr No era Connery or Raiders era Harrison Ford.

I gotta go with Daniel Craig as the new Bond.

that piercing blue eyed stare...

...and I think he actually did practice it for quite a while, too!

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2010 8:43 PM

Ok, nevermind, I remember why I did. I admire a lot about you, S., but I'm glad I never got involved with you.

what a strange thing to say on a blog.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 10, 2010 8:43 PM

Problem with Greg is, most of his remarks and posts can somehow be interpreted as ironic or carrying some obscure subtle message that we just don't get, he's used that excuse lots in the "firing squad" fiasco.

That's his excuse for his terrible writing. Yes, yes, I know, other commenters - you don't need to tell me he's written lucidly on the Congo, etc. Not disputing that.

But much of his writing is just objectively bad. Meandering train of thought with ideas not connected throughout. Clumsy word choice that leaves ideas, at a minimum, vague, and often impossible to understand. Irregular syntax that forces you to go back and read each sentence, word by word, to try to parse the meaning.

We all have off days, and it shows up in our writing (at least it does for me). But then to get so irate and frothingly hostile when people don't understand your clumsy prose, and don't immediately intuit the meaning you want them to - what gives?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 10, 2010 8:48 PM

But once commenters start to act like unmitigated shits who are utterly compulsive about their own message and have too little respect for their fellow human, ANYTHING can happen to them.

And if revealing your private information doesn't make you get the picture, Greg Laden will send somebody to break your arm.

Posted by: SC OM | March 10, 2010 8:49 PM

you don't need to tell me he's written lucidly on the Congo, etc.

Band camp.

Posted by: Louis | March 10, 2010 8:50 PM

Icthyic #211:

I grew lady parts when Daniel Craig walked out of the sea.

Mind you I regrew gentleman parts when Eva Green....well...when Eva Green did anything. Mind you I have strange urges about Dame Judi Dench. There's a compellingly interesting woman.

One must have conversation after sex after all.*

Louis

*For given definitions of "must" and "conversation".

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 10, 2010 8:53 PM

It's not fair he's not the same age,

Gyeong, you're not seriously going to tell me you'd turn him down because he's not in his early 20s like you?

Posted by: Louis | March 10, 2010 8:56 PM

Gyeing Hwa Pak #220:

To be fair though, rearranging one's sexual preferences is a lot trickier than obtaining a plane ticket, some natty clothes and a drink or two.

Damn you lucky, lucky gay people. DAMN YOU!!!!!

;-)

Louis

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 10, 2010 8:57 PM

Bobber @ 216:

I'll second Wowbagger about John Barrowman.

That man breaks the attraction barrier. ;) Even if I hadn't liked Torchwood (and I did), Barrowman would have kept me glued to the screen.

Oh, and he looks great in a kilt.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 10, 2010 9:00 PM

I suppose you could separate that out to "yeah, i can tell the ladies would like how that guy looks", but is that the same thing?

Okay, maybe I have to take back my unqualified praise for Pharyngula straight guys (just kidding, Ich):) Respectfully, though, I think you have a tinge of the problem I was talking about. You seem to need to hedge the phrase "that guy is attractive" with the qualifier "I bet ladies would find him attractive."

Don't conflate the thoughts "That person is attractive" and "I am sexually attracted to that person." That's another common straight guy thing that seems to spring from a fear that other people will think you mean to say you want to sleep with the guy. I admit there is some danger of that, since male heterosexual culture is, in the main, obsessed with not being seen to be gay or feminine.

It's no different from when I remark on a beautiful woman. There are some women who are just objectively ravishing, and leave me slackjawed. Yes, I enjoy looking at their luscious faces and curves - it's an aesthetic delight. But I'm not sexually aroused by them. And I don't feel compelled to say, "Oh, I bet straight guys would find her attractive," when a simple, truthful, "Wow, she's beautiful" will do.

Posted by: Bobber | March 10, 2010 9:02 PM

Caine:

Did they cast him perfectly in Doctor Who or what? No matter where he went, men and women fell for the guy. Would love to know if that actually happens to him in his real life.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 9:06 PM

Gyeong, you're not seriously going to tell me you'd turn him down because he's not in his early 20s like you?

I just think it might be complicated. (And perhaps I've just expressed a culturally imbeded taboo on age. I can't tell anymore.)

To be fair though, rearranging one's sexual preferences is a lot trickier than obtaining a plane ticket, some natty clothes and a drink or two.

Some religion based pseudoscience will disagree with you. Otherwise, you're right. ;-)

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 10, 2010 9:07 PM

Ichthyic - I want to soften something I said, because I realize it sounds insulting (and I didn't mean to insult you):

I admit there is some danger of that, since male heterosexual culture is, in the main, obsessed with not being seen to be gay or feminine.

I didn't intend to characterize you, personally, in that sentence. What I meant by that is that many straight guys are justifiably anxious about how they're perceived, because other straight guys will often subtly, or not-so-subtly, exert pressure on them. It's an unfortunate feature of the culture, though it seems a little less intense than it used to be.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 10, 2010 9:09 PM

I think you're overharping the point a bit.

I probably am - sorry about that:)

Posted by: Louis | March 10, 2010 9:14 PM

Josh #229:

As an Ostensibly Heterosexual Married Man (TM, Patent Pending)*, there are definitely men who blur the line between being "attractive" in the sense I can see what a woman/gay man might find attractive about them, and "attractive" in the sense that I might wistfully wish myself at least bi.

Does that mean I get boners at beautiful blokes? Nope. But it's far more than merely appreciation of beauty.

Kidding oneself that one's appreciation of a man's beauty is merely the same intellectual appreciation that one might give Michelangelo's David is tanatmount to denial, IMO. I might be wrong. But I reckon there are a few "unorthodox" desires lurking in the straightest (or gayest for that matter) soul.

Louis

*Is there really such a hard and fast category? No hint of a shade of grey? I doubt it very severely. See previous comments.

Posted by: Louis | March 10, 2010 9:17 PM

Sure, but it fits into the lose concept of "preconceptions" so I've given my permission for the derail. ;-)

{Runs off giggling}

Louis

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 10, 2010 9:20 PM

Wowbagger OM @ 232:

Oh, jeez. It's going to take me a while to get that out of my head.

:D He also happily showed some people a flash of what one traditionally wears under a kilt.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 10, 2010 9:26 PM

Wowbagger OM:

On the other hand, I've always been fascinated by people (men or women) who find Jude Law attractive. For me he's always been kind of weasel-like and oily-looking and certainly nothing to get excited about.

Josh, OSG:

I find Jude Law's face one of the most handsome I've ever seen. He was a pretty, pretty boy back in the day, and has matured into handsome (to my eyes, anyway).

Geez, I had to go search for a photo...meh, doesn't do anything for me. I'd much rather look at Alan Cumming all day.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 10, 2010 9:31 PM

Cumming all day.

Folks pay good money to see that sort of thing.

Posted by: Bobber | March 10, 2010 9:32 PM

Caine:

Alan Cumming. Awesome in Plunkett & Macleane and Titus. Solid actor. Thought he was a good choice for Nightcrawler, too.

[/unsolicited opinion]

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 10, 2010 9:39 PM

Bobber, agreed. There was a lot of good in Plunkett & Macleane (mmm, Robert Carlyle), but Alan Cumming was the jewel. I thought he was terrific as Nightcrawler, one of the bright points in a movie I found on the disappointing side.

Posted by: Louis | March 10, 2010 9:48 PM

Bobber #252:

It's ok as along as Icthyic, who moved to New Zealand a while back, doesn't start telling us about all the sheep he finds attractive.

After all his recent bout of ill health (from which we all hope he recovers swiftly and without any long term damage) coincides* with him moving to a sheep infested area. And we all know about those sheep now don't we. With their coquettish winks and well proportioned hindquarters and woolly coats for better purchase and sly come-hither legs and...

Erm. Well you see my point of course. Icthyic is clearly embroiled in some tawdry sheep shennanigans and has caught something. Obviously.

Louis

*I didn't say it coincided well.

Posted by: Bobber | March 10, 2010 9:52 PM

I have two sheep on my farm.

There is nothing remotely attractive about them. Especially after they have been sheared, as sheep without wool resemble nothing more than really big, really ugly dogs.

What, you want I should end up like these guys?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 10, 2010 10:08 PM

Folks pay good money to see that sort of thing.

It's jokes like these that makes me afraid to say "I'm comming" out loud in public. ;-)

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2010 10:12 PM

heh, that content is blocked in my country.

evidently, Jimmy doesn't like NZ much.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2010 10:25 PM

Social pressures interfere with the expression of this, of course.

...and opportunity.

Daniel Craig still hasn't returned any of my emails requesting we go on a trip to the Caribbean together for 2 weeks.

bastard.

;)

Posted by: Bobber | March 10, 2010 10:28 PM

Daniel Craig still hasn't returned any of my emails requesting we go on a trip to the Caribbean together for 2 weeks.

Perhaps it's because you're stirred, not shaken - and he just doesn't go for that.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2010 11:25 PM

heyo!

that actually worked!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 10, 2010 11:53 PM

he's written lucidly on the Congo

Why doesn't anyone listen to me? That's the "other context" in which Sgt. Sidekick is his editor!

Posted by: John Morales | March 11, 2010 2:16 AM

[meta]

The Laughing Man,

Use this:
<blockquote>Sorry, i am not familiar enough with blockquote procedure, but ah well...</blockquote>

to get this:

Sorry, i am not familiar enough with blockquote procedure, but ah well...

Posted by: John Morales | March 11, 2010 2:30 AM

Laughing Man, no worries.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 11, 2010 5:35 AM

Greg Laden, you crossed the line by editing other people's comments. You have the right to have whatever rules you want on your own blog, but you don't have the right to impersonate other people or ascribe words to them they didn't say. To do so is nothing short of fraudulent and grossly dishonest.

I don't normally get involved in arguments on other blogs that have nothing to do with me. But in this case, what you did was absolutely inexcusable.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 11, 2010 5:42 AM

Third, I suspect that the vast majority of people are fundamentally bisexual and there are outliers of homo and heterosexuality, like any bell curve. Social pressures interfere with the expression of this, of course.

Quoted for truth.

Posted by: RickR | March 11, 2010 5:55 AM

Well, I'm so far on the edge of the curve, I'm ringin' that bell! (Or something. It's really late here...)

About Jude Law, I've never found him sexy, or handsome really. He has a distinctive (and to my eyes, rather strange) look. You either gor for it, or you don't.

Now Chris Meloni ("Oz" and "Law & Order: SVU"), THAT'S sexy! Not at all "pretty", but with so much animal magnetism, he seems like he could talk absolutely anyone into the sack with just the force of his personality.

Oi vey, is that man sexy.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 11, 2010 7:50 AM

It's fine, SC. You did nothing wrong. But please do feel free to email me.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 11, 2010 8:25 AM

people should be able to make all the coy comments or jokes like that they want without some jerk demanding clarification or seriousness.

I would be so fucked.

Posted by: RickR | March 11, 2010 9:27 AM

Oh, and David Boreanaz. Of course.

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2010 10:44 AM

Is there somewhere that I made the claim that I am not an asshole? I think rather the opposite.

Neurons, people. Find them, use them, love them, connect them.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 11, 2010 11:00 AM

Neurons, people. Find them, use them, love them, connect them.

wishfull thinking for yourself?

something tells me you've fried a few too many connections of your own.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 11, 2010 11:02 AM

you've lost it Laden.

seek assistance.

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2010 11:07 AM

No, actually. I merely made a bet with a friend. Now, what am I going to do with this extra five dollars?

Oh, I know. I'll make another bet.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 11, 2010 11:13 AM

Now, what am I going to do with this extra five dollars?

I would suggest putting it towards a downpayment on all that mental health care you appear to need.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | March 11, 2010 11:25 AM

Greg Laden, You can floss your teeth with the fiber from my shit.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | March 11, 2010 11:28 AM

Greg, you're just being very, very strange. It isn't even entertaining (maybe to yourself, I don't know?). Honestly, you are behaving like a rather bitter and dull, low-level sociopath.

Is "Yeah, I am, but what are you...?" really the best you have to offer?

I'd like to think that this is episode is some sort of misguided experiment in the use of online personas, rather than strange and misplaced spite. But if this behaviour is real, then it is actually quite disturbing, because it is very similar to that of those obsessive web stalkers who've lost perspective/their sense of reality. This is real Heart of Darkness stuff.

I'm very sorry that you've resorted to these kind of comments, and in particular your recent pattern of possting oddly personal invective. It is an ugly thing to see someone acting so deranged.

I hope you're currently happier/more sane/coping well with adversity in the real world.

(None of this post is intended to be an insult, bu the way, although you may find it patronising and/or banal.)

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 11:36 AM

I am home early from work today. Sadly, nurseries don't mind coughs and colds, but when your child has decided to shit itself with wild abandon they tend to draw the line. Wimps.

So as I sit here dandling a 9 month old lad who is determined to spray ordure across the room I am thinking to myself "Well, he's pre-literate and covered in his own faeces*, but he has written lucidly on the Congo".

Louis

*Obviously this is hyperbole. I am taking spectacular care of the little lad. Cleanliness and suitably nutritious/non-nutritious fluids are being administered as and when appropriate. He's actually sleeping off a particularly spectacular shitting/squawking episode at the moment. I'm tempted to enter him for the next Olympics. He is a prodigious turd producer. Just thought I'd share. ;-)

P.S. Can we stop with the hot men now? I am finding myself agreeing with so many people I am tempted to just scrap the whole thing, move to San Francisco and rent my arse out as a ballroom. This would be a bad thing seeing as I have no desire to do so, however my personal honour demands no less. (For the more adult comic reader look up www.oglaf.com and search the archives for honour. Very funny)

P.P.S. Brad Pitt in Fight Club. Sorry. But DAMN!

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 11, 2010 11:44 AM

Greg Laden, stop drinking and go (back?) to bed. I'm completely serious. You're in a hole and keep digging; please stop.

Walton: Kinsey scale. You're not 6, and you're not 0.

But I reckon there are a few "unorthodox" desires lurking in the straightest (or gayest for that matter) soul.

You simply aren't the straightest soul. :-)

One thing I really appreciate about the straight guys here on Pharyngula is that none of you plays that stupid "I can't tell if a man's attractive" game. That drives up the wall. It's so middle school.

There may be few who really are 0 on the Kinsey scale, perhaps a lot fewer than many cultures assume, but what makes you think there aren't any at all?

For the record, the photos on the Wikipedia article about John Barrowman leave me stone-cold. :-|

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 11:51 AM

Dear Greg Laden,

I don't have an OM, and don't need to be granted permission to speak. I have a special chitty.

I couldn't care less about all the DRAMA, but even you've got to admit that the editting of other people's posts is beyond the pale. In fact, and I can't be bothered to check this you can confirm it if you like, I think you did admit this.

Anyway, I suspect you are rather enjoying stirring the pot over here. Naughty, naughty. Aren't you a little grown up for this sort of lark?

I suggest a beer and a quick wank. The world will seem a better place after that.

Louis

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 11:53 AM

David:

There may be few who really are 0 on the Kinsey scale, perhaps a lot fewer than many cultures assume, but what makes you think there aren't any at all?

I think you misunderstand me. I said nothing to indicate I thought there were no men who are "0" on the Kinsey scale - where did you get that? Having zero sexual attraction to members of the same sex is not equal to being unable to recognize when members of the same sex are attractive.

Try reading some of my follow-up posts before you flippantly "correct" me for something I didn't say.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 11, 2010 12:01 PM

I couldn't care less about all the DRAMA, but even you've got to admit that the editting of other people's posts is beyond the pale. In fact, and I can't be bothered to check this you can confirm it if you like, I think you did admit this.

Don't forget outing a person's pseudonym to their actual email address that contains their IRL identity. I actually saw that one happen. I find that to be an even worse abuse of power.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | March 11, 2010 12:06 PM

Pikachu, you have excellent taste. ^_^

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 12:07 PM

Don't forget outing a person's pseudonym to their actual email address that contains their IRL identity. I actually saw that one happen. I find that to be an even worse abuse of power.

And Greg's "if you're an asshole you deserve what you get" posturing doesn't change the fact that he outed a person simply for pointing out that he altered someone else's post without properly attributing the added text as an edit. It wasn't the case of him "punishing a troll" like he keeps pretending. It was the case of him being a raving lunatic trying to cover his dickery using even more dickery.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 11, 2010 12:11 PM

So as I sit here dandling a 9 month old lad who is determined to spray ordure across the room I am thinking to myself "Well, he's pre-literate and covered in his own faeces*, but he has written lucidly on the Congo".

Ha! One of your better days, Louis.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 11, 2010 12:14 PM

Greg, I think you are being disingenuous. You dismissed a_ray_in_dilbert_space because he does not have an OM (Though he should have had one by now. {Yes, I know I have not voted for him. That is not the point.}) I have one and told you that you should shut up. But by commenting, you have disregarded my rank. The rank that you brought up.

So I repeat myself.

SHUT UP!

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 11, 2010 12:23 PM

I have one and told you that you should shut up. But by commenting, you have disregarded my rank. The rank that you brought up.

Thump!

Go troll the Intersection, Greg.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 12:30 PM

Louis - you're cracking me up today. You need to hang around here more.

Laden - You're, unethical, you're mean-spirited, and you're unable to admit you're wrong. Editing my post was bad enough. Outing Sven de Milo's personal email address (which linked to his real name) was appalling.

Why don't you get the fuck out of here and confine your assholism to your own blog.

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 12:40 PM

Dear all,

I would like to apologise. I have, in all seriousness, made a grave error and need to correct it.

In several posts I have made mention of Greg Laden as being at least potentially dishonest (if not actually dishonest), a drama queen/troll and a wanker.

I am completely wrong to have done this and I would like to apologise unreservedly to Greg Laden. I was wrong and should not have made those accusations.

What I should have said is that the things Greg Laden is doing, has done and has written could make some people think he is a dishonest, drama creating wanker. I, of course, am not saying that Greg is a dishonest, drama creating wanker, you understand. Just that some uncharitable folk could read his comments (and the comments of others he editted) and get that impression.

That is all. Thank you.

Louis

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 12:46 PM

Louis, there is already one Greg Laden in this thread. We don't need a second.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 11, 2010 12:51 PM

How exactly does one "troll" a blog where bilbo is a valued member? By posting rational cogent arguments?

Sure, and Greg could use the exercise.

Posted by: SC OM | March 11, 2010 12:59 PM

Am seriously thinking of filing a complaint with SEED Media over the comments listed at that Pharyngula thread and would strongly encourage others to do the same.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Oh, please let him post it in the comment thread there. Oh, please let him post it in the comment thread there. Oh, please let him post it in the comment thread there.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 1:03 PM

Oh, please let him post it in the comment thread there. Oh, please let him post it in the comment thread there. Oh, please let him post it in the comment thread there.

Evens: Mentioning where he went to school.
2-1: Mentioning he is best friends with Ken Miller
3-1: Mentioning he was taught by Frank McCourt.
100-1 On: Failing to mention when complaining to Seed that he once tried to blackmail PZ.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 1:07 PM

Oh, sweet frakkin' Christ on toast, Teh Kw*K has shown up on the Intersection to threaten filing a complaint against PZ with Seed. No mention of which camera will buy his silence. Yet.

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 1:08 PM

3-1: Mentioning he was taught by Frank McCourt.

Does it count if he's coy about it and just mentions "a renowned Irish author"?

100-1 On: Failing to mention when complaining to Seed that he once tried to blackmail PZ.

That was obviously a joke. He showed the message to a friend of his, who recognized it as obviously a joke.

Posted by: SC OM | March 11, 2010 1:10 PM

Note to Ichthyic and Lynna: You are my paypals today. Hope it helps.

:)

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 1:13 PM

Paul #330,

Ah! My bad, my bad!

I will be doing no more Ladens, although since I need a new camera therefore I will be doing a Kw*k at some point.

See #334 for my {ahem} "excuse".

Louis

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 1:17 PM

I will be doing no more Ladens, although since I need a new camera therefore I will be doing a Kw*k at some point.

Don't you fucking dare!

Posted by: E.V. | March 11, 2010 1:22 PM

I'm getting that stomach churning feeling you get in grade school when the class starts misbehaving after the teacher has left the room. This thread is a freaky train wreck.
Wait... it was just the mention of Qwox' pitiful cries for attention & validation. False alarm.
BUT (Seriously, WTF Greg Laden?)

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 1:22 PM

Paul, I can't tell if you are being serious or not. It's impossible to tell if he was joking after a rereading the demand letter. If it was a joke, it was probably too deranged to be funny. If you were being sarcastic in #333, then nevermind.

It isn't exactly sarcasm. Kwok has made that exact defense on The Intersection in the past, and demanded an apology from PZ Myers for accusing him of blackmail instead of recognizing the obvious joke.

Nobody believes him. But he insists it was a joke, and as proof he notes that "a friend" after reading it for the first time saw that it was "obviously a joke" (note: I didn't search for citations for those quotes, so they might not be an exact hit, but they accurately portray the argument).

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | March 11, 2010 1:24 PM

Louis says: "I will be doing no more Ladens, although since I need a new camera therefore I will be doing a Kw*k at some point."

Don't do that--you know your brain can get stuck that way!!!

Posted by: Paul W., OM | March 11, 2010 1:26 PM

Greg Laden,

But once commenters start to act like unmitigated shits who are utterly compulsive about their own message and have too little respect for their fellow human,

According to you, when other people think you're the one being an unmitigated shit

ANYTHING can happen to them.

Watch it, Greg. It's fine with me if you censor or ban people on your own blog.

But if you start revealing pseudonymous posters' identities---possibly damaging their family relations, wrecking their careers, etc.---then you have crossed a great big line.

Your judgment is just not that good, that you have the right to out pseudonymous posters.

And if you think you do, you should not be allowed to blog on ScienceBlogs, IMHO.

And if you actually do it, ANYTHING could happen to YOU.

ANYTHING. If you wreck somebody's career, or their meatspace relationships, or whatever, do not be surprised if they make a point of making you regret it for the rest of your life.

Seriously.

Greg, you are being a clueless authoritarian doofus.

Over and over again, you have been told that people don't think you have any business outing anybody for what they say on your blog, when you could simply censor them. (Or a least try; if they morph, and you warn them, that might be different.)

Consider this. If you out somebody, you're not just outing them---even if your judgment is exquisite and the person you're intentionally outing deserves it, you are also outing anybody they've talked about on the assumption of pseudonymity. Somebody could go through their posts, find information about, say, their best friend, or boss, or wife, or child, and then connect it up to specific people with those relations to the specific person.

For example, suppose some guy has posted about people his bisexual ex-wife slept with in an open marriage.

Do you have the right to out the ex-wife?

I really, really, really don't think so. Do you?

And if you haven't thought about this sort of thing, and don't think that's significant, you are not somebody who ought to be pontificating about proper behavior on blogs. You should take a break from blogging and get a clue about privacy and responsibility.

DO NOT OUT PEOPLE, GREG LADEN.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 11, 2010 1:29 PM

I'm having a hard time coming up with any ability to grasp the mental gymnastics that are required to continue to post the pearl clutching,, myopic lack of context grasping comments that continue to appear from the Milquetoast crowd over there.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | March 11, 2010 1:30 PM

It isn't exactly sarcasm...he insists it was a joke, and as proof he notes that "a friend" after reading it for the first time saw that it was "obviously a joke"

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 1:33 PM

I'm having a hard time coming up with any ability to grasp the mental gymnastics that are required to continue to post the pearl clutching,, myopic lack of context grasping comments that continue to appear from the Milquetoast crowd over there.

The fact you find it so difficult is to your credit. I would be worried if you found it easy.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 1:38 PM

Josh, OSG:

How dare you, madam? Anal violation by nuggets of calcium carbonate surrounding a crispety, crunchety sand core is no joke. Won't someone think of the molluscs?

The oysters can fend for themselves. However, I agree, they should not be the subject of jokes. Lady Pucker, on the other hand...perhaps if someone yanked those pearls out, she'd relax a little.

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 1:41 PM

perhaps if someone yanked those pearls out, she'd relax a little.

Purely consensual yanking, right? We don't want anyone to get the wrong idea here.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 1:44 PM

Flower of Evil, I'm so glad you used the term "Lady Pucker" here, because I was just about to pull it over from the other thread. Dying. Laughing. Right. At. My. Desk.

Let me add to your genius. I hereby rechristen the Toothpaste Twins, "Lady Pucker and Lord Turtlehead."

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 1:45 PM

perhaps if someone yanked those pearls out, she'd relax a little.

I ain't going to volunteer for that job. Who knows what kind of effluent will be discharged along with them. Enough to keep The Intersection in posts for a year I expect.

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 1:48 PM

Sorry. I know I'm going to get into trouble for this, but can we PLEASE stop talking about Sheril with pearls up her bottle*, it's causing unfortunate mental imagery.

And for this thread it is far more appropriate to be talking about Chris with leather chaps and a beaded love wand up his khyber**.

If we continue to talk about Sheril in this manner then the derail will have to be the lady Pharynguloids telling us chaps about the ladies they quite fancy. Which, and I want to make this absolutely clear, none of us will enjoy at all.

Next thing you know we'll be talking about bacon, and then all heck*** will break lose.

Louis

* I am using Cockney Rhyming Slang to avoid causing unrest at the Intersection. Bottle = Bottle and Glass = Arse.

** Khyber = Khyber Pass = Arse.

*** Like Hell, but much more polite.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 11, 2010 1:57 PM

I think that consistent use of Cockney rhyming slang is an excellent strategy for increasing the civility around here.

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 1:59 PM

Can we retitle the Intersection "Two Prudes, One Kwok"?

I think we then need a series of YouTube reaction videos where various Pharynguloids are just pissing themselves laughing at Two Prudes' posts.

Louis

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 11, 2010 2:11 PM

BDC,

You really should read it. It is far far better than the film that took the story and transplanted it to another continent.

Yeah I might have to hit the library this weekend.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 2:15 PM

Can we retitle the Intersection "Two Prudes, One Kwok"?

Can I suggest a slight re-wording to "Two Prudes, One Kwak"

Posted by: SC OM | March 11, 2010 2:20 PM

Anyone remember how when PZ said "Fuck you very much" to Nisbett in reply to Nisbett's idiocy about the Expelled expulsion she got all upset and claimed no one should ever say fuck ?

Title of that post: "PZ Myers, Mind Your Manners."

Seriously.

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 2:24 PM

Matt Penfold,

Alteration accepted, motion passed (but that's more of a personal thing), so mote it be.

Henceforth the den of lucid writing on the Congo known formerly as "The Intersection" is now "Two Prudes, One Kwak".

Louis

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 11, 2010 2:29 PM

Oh, and by the way, fuck their sorry, appeasing, milque-toast bullshit. Fuck them all sideways with a rusty fucking knife*.

Actually... I may be late to the party on this one, but I really don't think this comment was acceptable.

There are insults, and there are insults. This one was over the line. It trivialises the experience of people who have actually suffered serious violent sexual assaults (of which there are several among the regular readers here). There are plenty of good reasons to criticise Mooney and Kirshenbaum, and in no way am I defending them. But this post was not OK.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | March 11, 2010 2:32 PM

seems like some people have forgotten that the "colgate twins" aren't some abstract concept, or evil nemeses. they're people. and so are you. act like it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 11, 2010 2:35 PM

But as I said, it was in bad taste and I'm not defending the statement. But ignoring the context

Something that could explain the vast majority of idiocy being displayed at the Intersection currently.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 11, 2010 2:39 PM

David, he didn't say "don't find a man attractive", he said "can't tell if a man is attractive".

But I can't tell if John Barrowman is attractive.

He lacks features of outright ugliness, as far as I can tell, so I could have made a hypothesis that someone would find him attractive (simply based on statistics), but… I… can't think of any men I find handsome, and have trouble imagining even their hypothetical existence. It just doesn't click.

It's true that I forgot about the existence of people who are heterosexual but biromantic. That may well be the source of some confusion here.

It always weirds me out when one of several female relatives claims a woman is pretty. How can they tell!?! ~:-| I used to think it's some sort of patriarchal cultural expectation, so they pay attention to what men tend to find attractive and draw inferences so they can fulfill that expectation. Maybe I'm just the odd one instead.

And people do really say the latter as a sort of super-hetero posturing.

Sure. I'm just saying not all of them are lying (even if only to themselves).

I've got an unwavering record of heterosexuality but I'm pretty sure I can pick out the attractive guy over the not attractive guy.

How much of that originates in your own head, and how much is a rational inference based on what other people say?

Sheril has her pearls jammed so far up her ass they're interfering with her ability to think.

Perhaps her canalis neurentericus has remained open…?

(If anyone at the Intersucktion understands this, I might get quoted there :-þ )

Anyone remember how when PZ said "Fuck you very much" to Nisbett in reply to Nisbett's idiocy about the Expelled expulsion she got all upset and claimed no one should ever say fuck ?

ROTFLMAO! I missed that, thanks for telling me! :-D

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 11, 2010 2:43 PM

For what it is worth, I placed that rusty knife in context in the Train Wreck Part 2.

For some reason, this is really upsetting me.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 11, 2010 2:49 PM

If that was too difficult to follow, perhaps my re-enactment of the situation (with a little artistic license to clarify) that I posted at the intersection will help:

Intersection:“You said f* me with a rusty knife!”

Pharyngula:“No I didn’t.”

Intersection:“Yes you did! You totally said it!”

Pharyngula:“No, I used it as an example of something a terrible person would say, as part of a larger conceptualization of a particular type of awful person who I disagreed with, which you would know had you read the entire comment in question.”

Intersection:“No, you said f* me with a rusty knife! You did you did you did!”

Pharyngula:“Oh for pete’s sake. If you’re going to argue like that, then fine, go f* yourself with a rusty knife.”

Intersection:“SEE YOU SAID IT!”

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 2:59 PM

In case it doesn't get posted to the Intersection, mirroring my most recent (hopefully last, I really need to stop) post here.

The pharyngula commmenter, Paul, seems to be stating that he thinks the motivation behind making it seem like Myers was saying something he didn’t say was simply to get a rise from Sheril…to fan the flames. It worked!

I don't "think", it's bloody obvious as a matter of record. Here's the entire post they linked to:

sandi: Are you kidding me? The Intersection is a veritable clown car filled with rejects from any blog with standards of discourse.

It is so much better there. There is NO SWEARING.

Oh, and by the way, fuck their sorry, appeasing, milque-toast bullshit. Fuck them all sideways with a rusty fucking knife*.

* This particular post to be whined about on the Colgate Twins blog around mid-2011.

Any context for my comment in the original post is available in the "Value of Science Blogs?" post. The short version is that bilbo both admitted he trolls on The Intersection, and provided a list of "quotes" from Pharyngula showing how terrible it is. Not only did nobody in that thread actually check if the quotes were legitimate (if they had tried replacing asterisks with the proper words, several would not show up in Pharyngula search history because they were deliberately altered), people even started making up stories about poor treatment (one person went from "I have never posted on Pharyngula" to "I posted once and they told me to get raped". The commenters were thoroughly dishonest with how they treated both real and fabricated quotes, and as far as I can tell it was merely because they wanted to make Myers look bad. They consistently accused people of making light of telling people to be raped, when the only comments really being defended were of the "go f*** yourself" variety.

In short, I think my characterization was apt, but it was not meant in any way to reflect badly on Kirshenbaum. It was solely directed at the commenters and their poor, dishonest behavior. I have issues with Kirshenbaum's behavior, but mostly in the realm of omission. Bad words are verboten, but intellectual dishonesty is par for the course here. That's something I disagree with. But arguing against bad faith representations or quote-mining is not rape apologetics, and that's all I've done on The Intersection in the past couple days. And it is horribly deceptive of her to frame Pharyngula as "treating rape as a joke or game". If anything, the people who have been making a game out of it through posturing, lies, and deception are her loyal Intersection commenters.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 11, 2010 3:03 PM

Paul,

So one person decided to say it anyway, ostensibly because they were already being accused (by association, no less) of advocating similar acts. And see the asterisk.

That was a bit silly, wasn't it ? It was... provocative ?

They were open with the motivation of trolling for tone/concern trolls, and it's obvious they are not actually advocating violence.

But that's only obvious to someone who would have bothered to read the whole thing.

Posted by: Bobber | March 11, 2010 3:10 PM

Janine, #385, and thus Walton, #377:

Within the full context wherein the controversial quote is taken, to me it really is an emotional, over-the-top reaction that has no real bearing on reality - that I do not believe Cath would, under the circumstances, actually promote the taking of a rusty knife and using said knife to rape anyone. Nor do I think it was making light of actual sexual assault.

You can find the line distasteful, yes; if you find it offensive, that's understandable. But within the context, and with Cath's own disclaimer at the end, I personally don't see the justification for what I consider an overblown reaction - hysterics and "tut-tuts" that themselves conflate hyperbolic words with actual physical (and subsequently psychological) harm.

If there was ever a "mountain out of a molehill" moment in the blogosphere, this is it.

Are we now to respond with calls for censorship* when outrageous actions are denounced with words that express more in the way of frustration than they do a desire for an outcome?

*(Not that I believe Walton is among the pro-censorship types at all.)

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 11, 2010 3:25 PM

Janine and Carlie, your attempts at placing Fucking Rusty Knife references in context are admirably lucid and bespeak a patience and clarity of thought that I cannot seem to muster, due to my roiling, seething anger. Thank you!!!!

Brownian:

What frosts my fucking balls*...[snip righteous rant].
*Watch for a new influx of hand-wringing comments at The Intersection that "genital hypothermia is not a joke".

Ah, see, before I got to that endnote I read your opening salvo as referring to cake frosting. It makes way more sense your way, but I had fun with the imagery while it lasted :)

I think that consistent use of Cockney rhyming slang is an excellent strategy for increasing the civility around here.

Seconded! The load of old Pony over at the Intersection really frosts my Alberts*

*well, technically my Morris, I suppose.

Posted by: windy | March 11, 2010 3:50 PM

A commenter at the Intersection:
"The nature of some of these attacks make women feel particularly unwelcome. Science has historically been a profession that frequently worked to exclude women. Some of this exclusion has been by overt acts of discrimination, some in forms of being made to feel as if one doesn’t belong."

Isn't it terrible how we are made to feel unwelcome here, jenbphillips, Carlie, Caine, SC, Janine, Bastion of Sass, et cetera?

Posted by: windy | March 11, 2010 4:03 PM

here.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 4:16 PM

Windy @ 397:

Isn't it terrible how we are made to feel unwelcome here, jenbphillips, Carlie, Caine, SC, Janine, Bastion of Sass, et cetera?

Oh yeeaahh, so unwelcome! People are telling me I'm unwelcome all the time! /sarcasm*

*I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find this, completely out of context at a certain crossroads.

"Gaythia" goes on to say:

Feeling that one’s comments may leave one subject to threats of violent attack is not conducive to free speech or active participation. It certainly creates an atmosphere that does not lend itself to “strengthening public interest in science and improving public understanding of science around the world.”

FFS, these people need a hyperbole-ectomy and a healthy injection of reality. I have never once felt that my comments have left me "subject to threats of violent attack" I didn't even feel that way when a certain goats on fire guy invaded my photo gallery.

If someone here tells me "oh, go fuck yourself with a pineapple" frinst., I take that to mean they have an issue with something I said, not that I need to call the cops and barricade myself because someone is going to show up at my door with a pineapple and bad intent. These folks embody prudish pearliness.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 11, 2010 4:23 PM

Thanks jen, although I did get two of them confused a bit. windy, good point. It makes me mad particularly in a personal way - I do speak up every time I see a comment I think is abusive towards either specific people or contributes to an abusive society. And even though a lot of other people do too, every time I go through an internal fight of "should I or shouldn't I", wondering if I'm just overreacting and if it's going to cause a huge topic derail and if I have the energy to go through with it and what will people think of me. But at least 90% of the time, I do it anyway. So to see them bashing this place by saying that any manner of abusive comments run wild and free on the commenting plains is a [virtual symbolic allegorical] slap in the face, knowing how often I (along with so many others) do spend the energy corralling what we see as bum steers (oh no here goes the metaphor running away from me...).

Posted by: Louis | March 11, 2010 4:32 PM

Just an anecdotal observation, but I've noticed that those people who tend to like to take things out of context and scream about the vulgarity or violent commentary of people they don't like/disagree with, also tend to be the sort of people who are most likely to stab people in the back or go crying to "authorities".

Usually it's the whiny wankers who create trouble who then get a case of the vapours when the consequences of their troublemaking comes home to roost.

Louis

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 4:42 PM

My personal feeling is if some bad language makes you that uncomfortable, you need to go work in a nice Christian book store or something.

You've obviously never worked in a Christian book store. People treat you like garbage, from the employers to the little old ladies (and most other types in between). But then, the one I worked at was on the premises of a mega church, perhaps that makes a difference.

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 4:50 PM

Wow. People with seemingly no horse in the current argument are now coming to The Intersection and saying things like this now:

The truth of the matter is that yes, there is a disturbing track record on the Pharyngula comment threads of trivializing rape, sexual assault, and death as “jokes”

Solely based on them repeating it over and over again. With no citations. No analysis. No real substance at all. Simply repetition of lies.

It's the same as when Laden Becked SC on the topic of anti-semitism. Their blogs seem to attract people who take authority figures at their word, instead of checking sources and paying attention to context. It's pathetic.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 5:06 PM

I would like to echo Brownian's comment to Carlie.

I know her comments about the use of language, and comments from others, have made me change some of the words I use.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 5:11 PM

From Paul's link @ 409:

1.) The “context” of the reference to Sheril and friends getting raped with a knife doesn’t excuse the content of the comment. “I’m kidding” is not an excusable context for an equivalent of “someone take a rusty knife and simulate sex with it by stabbing these people repeatedly in the vagina.” I’m sorry, guys. Try as you might, using such rhetoric as a “joke” is no excuse.

Wow. Flat out, context doesn't matter, not one whit. That's a hell of a thing. And "simulate sex"? Yeesh.

Pharyngula has some great content in what PZ posts, but the comments are often a cesspool of such trivialized violence. If people want to write Seed Media about this and get some action going, I think they have a very solid case.

*facepalm* Yeah, there's never anything except "trivialized violence" in the comments. Uh huh.

In fact, if you’re a commenter at Pharyngula, you should probably be pretty ashamed that someone has trivialized rape to the point where it’s a “joke,” to use how several of you have put it in defense.

As a commenter at Pharyngula, I'm ashamed of all the people at the intersuction who are being actively dishonest and don't have the slightest ability to grasp the importance of context, among other things. Damn, these people make me cringe.

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 5:15 PM

Did Petra ever link to or offer the name of the thread she was talking about? If not, could someone remind her that she hasn't? And ask her if she's received a response from SEED to her alleged complaint?

I did that a couple times last thread. It has not occurred the current thread. I did use her (anon.) in an example of how people were dishonestly attacking Myers and Pharyngula (she is the person who said, unambiguously, that she had never posted on Pharyngula, then 50 posts or so later claimed she had posted once in the past and was told to go get raped). I also asked her in the previous thread to link the thread she was discussing, since she obviously would have it to hand if she was sending a complaint to SEED. She ignored my request, said the complaint to SEED was off, and that was that. I'd forward your request, but I'm trying really hard not to get into this again.

Kirshenbaum isn't even reading the comments, anyway (which should have been obvious before when she said people were interested in the subject of "The Value of Science Blogs" because it had over 400 comments, ignoring or not realizing that most of the comments were people dissembling or actively lying about content on another blog). I was hoping she'd be a bit different than Mooney and willing to follow up on her sweeping accusations (this post was more direct than the previous), but they are just two peas in a pod. They also like to make accusatory traffic-driving posts right before extended afk events. Decide for yourself if it's coincidence or plausible deniability for holding up posts arguing the side of reason (which oddly seem to get held up more than the three line slanders most of the resident trolls engage in).

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 11, 2010 5:17 PM

Suppose the Seed Overloads receive some of these complaints and decide that the Pharynguhorde really are violating the Terms of Use and that this is serious business. Just suppose they try to crack down on tastelessness. "Dr. Myers," sez the Overloads,"your commentariate is too crude; we are receiving complaints from various milquetoasts who are Offended. Please enforce more civility and no more cuss-words. Kthx."

My guess is that PZ would find another server host (and therefore Pharyngula might no longer be an Official Science Blag).

My guess also is that it will never happen, because Pharyngula accounts for at least half of the clicks that bring in ad revenue. It is 'scienceblogs.com', after all.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 5:47 PM

I just took a look over at The Intersection.

McCarthy has now driven his loco into the already quite impressive train wreck.

One thing that had escaped me was that Kirshenbaum decided to wait until PZ was busy at an Atheist Convention in Australia before posting. It would also be interesting to hear if she has tried to contact PZ before posting.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 11, 2010 6:01 PM

In contrast, at the Intersection I asked the same two basic clarifying questions about accommodationism several dozens of times over a period of two months, and never once got a straight answer.

You wouldn't.

I once asked Mooney how, if religion and science were compatible, he could explain how belief in miracles such as the virgin birth were compatible with a scientific worldview.

He said it was an interesting question and did not answer it. That was about a year ago and I am still waiting for a reply. I long ago came to conclusion he did not answer the question because he cannot answer the question.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 6:06 PM

Paul W., OM:

In my view, and I think the view of most people here, the most important norms of civility are about honesty.

Yep. The blatant dishonesty going on at the crossroads is despicable. I don't care if people cuss, whether that cussing is directed at me or not. If I comment on something, and I'm wrong, it's of value it I'm corrected, cussing notwithstanding. Of course, only those who are honest themselves will find any value in having a point of view corrected or challenged.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 11, 2010 6:18 PM

Okay, I've had about all I can stomach there.

Anybody want to give Wowbagger a hand and take up where I'm leaving off?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 6:29 PM

Brownian, Wowbagger and the rest of you brave and patient folks - I applaud your efforts, but I cannot see wading in there to make a coherent point (which has already been made countless times), just to have it utterly ignored. Looking at this reply alone (emphasis mine):

Bob S. @ the crossroads:

“f*** them all sideways with a rusty f***ing knife” is an imperative. It is read as “(You) f*** them all sideways with a rusty f***ing knife.” Without any other context revealing otherwise, this is how such statements are taken in basic English.

makes me want to slam my head into a wall. The fucking context has been provided, over and over and over and over. Aarrgghh. Hitting submit quickly, else there will be cussing...

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 6:37 PM

I think I was saying the kind of thing she's not allowed to say there anymore.

Well, she's not allowed to say anything there anymore. All her posts get blackholed. She was literally banned, it's not like she stopped posting there on principle, or was just not allowed to post on certain issues. Just making sure you're clear on that.

But yeah, from what I recall you pretty much picked up the torch where she had left off. You just came on the scene about the time I got sick enough to stop following The Intersection, so I couldn't quite remember which tack you took in engaging.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 6:53 PM

In case it gets axed over there:

Okidoki, as the person who wrote the damned thing, let me clear a few things up here.

- At the base, the statement is "f*** them". This term is universally understood not to be an imperative (I am simply flabbergasted that someone actually tried to make that point). It is a simple, crude derogatory expression.

- The comment I responded to was discussing the pearl-clutching here. Anyone following the discussion and interested in what it was about (rather than just clicking the link provided by the fainting-couch brigade, reading three sentences and getting the vapors) would know that it was a direct reference to the the earlier comment using the same imagery, which was such a source of hand-wringing in the earlier thread here. Most of the regular commenters here PARTICIPATED IN THAT VERY THREAD. To all of a sudden pretend to be unaware of that context is pathetic. Pathetic. You should all be ashamed of yourself.

- Knowing how much out-of-context quoting goes on here, I threw in a bonus hint that my comment would be whined about on this blog (I was wrong about when, though). How on Earth can a sentient being read that and not realize, between it and the comment I responded to, heck, half the damned thread even, the context?

- Rape and sexual abuse might be theoretically possible with a rusty knife, but sideways? Can someone draw me a picture? Getting offended at something that's physically impossible? Seriously?

Sheril: this post, this thread, and as of late this blog can now be directly linked as a shining example of intellectual dishonesty. But of course, nobody cares -- the only way to get a decent number of hits is to stir up Pharyngula-related controversy, and it is obvious that you will ride this pony until it drops. Understandable, but don't be surprised when you become an even bigger laughing stock than you are already along the way.

Posted by: Paul | March 11, 2010 7:07 PM

Gotta love McCarthy. As always, insisting on arguing with facts and evidence equates to "...contortions [Myers'] fan base go through, making the most absurd and irrational excuses for a straightforward instance of intentional offensiveness...". On a happy note, the main reason I was able to stick with the previous thread was the lack of McCarthy (wasted far too much time with him during the UA fiasco, and refuse to do it again). If he's wrecking this thread, I'm done.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 11, 2010 7:13 PM

I just took a look at the new train wreck. The only people who are commenting on what I linked to are the regulars from here. The same cast of clowns as before. And, yes, I resent being painted as if I am part of a mob that makes light of being raped.

I know it is only lies but as I said before, it fucking bothers me. And it bothers me that people that I have come to like and respect are being painted the same way.

I did what I could. It just was not enough.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 11, 2010 7:23 PM

Janine, for some of them it will never be enough. But what you've put there will let any bystander reading it know what's really going on.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 7:24 PM

I'm really starting to wonder (FOOLED AGAIN) whether it's not just 3 or 4 loons from the Pharyngula dungeon feverishly sockpuppeting.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 7:30 PM

The blatant dishonesty of those at the crossroads angers me and I do feel as though they actually trivialize my experience (and the experience of others) by acting as though words alone are equivalent to an act such as rape.

QFT. I am mad enough to spit.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 11, 2010 7:39 PM

Caine, I am not sure if you mentioned that before on this blog. But I am happy that you recovered enough and have enough strength of character to bring it up.

And I am damned sure that you and the women here who have gone through the same stimulation would let me know if they ever thought I was belittling that event.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 11, 2010 7:48 PM

McCarthy is quite a guy; just ask him. He has never once complained about being banned.

(Which, of course, he wasn't. He wants a gold star for not complaining about something that never happened. What's that Steely Dan tune? "Pretzel Logic".)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 7:53 PM

Janine, I don't talk about it much, it was a long time ago and thank you. You can be sure I would say something if I thought you or anyone else was belittling such experiences. You haven't and I can't imagine you doing that in the first place.

That is what the ignominious dunces at the crossroads don't understand - for all the raucous discussion here, for all the cussing, colourful expressions, disagreements and other wonders, honesty, integrity and compassion are hallmarks of the regulars here. Anyone who came in here actually trivializing an act such as rape would be pounced on and shredded in about a second flat.

jenbphillips:

To me, this travesty is in the ballpark with the inappropriate hyperbolic use of 'Holocaust' as a blanket description for various and sundry unpleasant situations.

In.A.Nutshell. I'm sorry you've had a similar experience, it happens too often.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 11, 2010 8:05 PM

Oops, #448 was for Sven--coming after Caine's recent comment it sounds hideously inappropriate. Sorry!

Anyone who came in here actually trivializing an act such as rape would be pounced on and shredded in about a second flat.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 8:20 PM

SC, oh yes, I forgot about that! Silly me.

*ouch. That eyeroll hurt.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 8:24 PM

jenbphillips, no worries! I figured it out. :)

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 8:34 PM

Oh, dear, my comment is "awaiting moderation." Since it won't likely get through:

Sven de Milo said:

poopyheads!

to which Wowbagger replied:

Sven, that’s terrible. That comment can only mean one thing: you’re inciting people to literally visit the people who post here and violently smear their heads with faeces. You’re despicable.

to which SpokesGay replied:

I agree with Wowbagger. It’s staggering that adults, in this day and age, could actively encourage fecal assault, then lamely try to excuse it as a “joke.” Coprocrania is no joke. Ever.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 8:37 PM

Oh, goodness me, my comment was Approved(TM)! Could it be that Lady Pucker and Lord Turtlehead have had a sudden reversal, and now approve of bawdy commentary? Or, are they hatching a fiendish plot to pluck my innocent comment from its context and pimp it for an intellectually dishonest pursuit?

Stay tuned for the next episode of The Intersection: Life (and our faces), Airbrushed.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 8:38 PM

Josh OSG:

Coprocrania

Hahahahahahaha. Oh my. Do you think the coprocraniums will get it?

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 11, 2010 8:47 PM

To me, this travesty is in the ballpark with the inappropriate hyperbolic use of 'Holocaust' as a blanket description for various and sundry unpleasant situations.

[gregladen]
Some might consider your comments antisemitic!!!
[/gregladen]

(just in case nutso is still trolling)

Posted by: Bastion Of Sass | March 11, 2010 8:56 PM

Isn't it terrible how we are made to feel unwelcome here, jenbphillips, Carlie, Caine, SC, Janine, Bastion of Sass, et cetera?

Agreed! That's why I left Pharyngula, haven't posted here in years, and will not post again, ever.

It's also why I started the Baltimore Pharyngula Fans group. God, I hate this blog!!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 9:06 PM

No bet, Josh. I imagine the pearlescent shrub of stylish dishonesty is going to take one hell of a pruning whenever the Lord and Lady bother to pay attention.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 9:10 PM

Ichthyic, ooooh, you get major smartass points for that one. :D :D :D

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 9:47 PM

Still going strong. In moderation now:

This is absolutely unhinged. If you call that "rape imagery", there is something seriously wrong with you. For example, if I were to say "f*** them in the ear", you take that as me advocating actual ear penetration?

I mean, you guys have a point if there wasn't a "sideways" on it. But it does. Which by any rational standard makes it crass, vulgar, offensive, insensitive, and oh, HYPERBOLE. Or satire, since it was a reference. Which any child would understand. Or both. If you don't see that you are dense as a post, lying, or both.

Also,

1. I was quoted out of context. A simple click shows you that.
2. I was directly replying to someone. If you're too lazy to even scroll up, well, that's your problem.
3. There are females on Pharyngula.
4. Some have even been raped.
5. They pounce on rape imagery.
6. None of them came even close to taking offense.
7. Because they understand context.

And no, I'm not a victim for being called less-than-clever. Of course not. Nonetheless, it is direct disparagement of a person (and a completely clueless type at that), rather than a vulgar dismissal.

Any of you thinking that what I said condones, let alone approves or encourages rape in any way shape or form should A) take lessons in basic anatomy and B) get your head examined. YOU are the ones taking this to rape, thereby demeaning actual rape or threats of rape. YOU are the ones with minds sufficiently in the gutter that you can actually think of ways to make sideways knife-rape work (again, what the hell). YOU are the ones with your mind in the gutter, and no amount of "we don't use naughty words" veneer fools anyone.

You are sickening, and projecting.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 11, 2010 9:59 PM

You know, I lurked here for ages before I commented, and I continue to be surprised by the amount of idjits who assume there are no women on Pharyngula. A whole lot of people seem to think if they don't see a host of "girly names", there are no women.

Perhaps all of the women on Pharyngula should figure out how to get our usernames to show up in pink instead of blue, so the intersection vapor won't have to trouble themselves with figuring out on their own which pigeonhole to shove each of us in.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 10:13 PM

Oh dearie me. It looks like I'm now being actively censored on the Intersection. My latest comment does not show up, even as "in moderation"... but re-submitting it shows "You've already said that".

It looks like I've officially gone down the memory hole over there.

What a bunch of weaklings.

Here it is:

You appear to be remarkably uninformed about issues of sexual violence against women.

Not at all, thank you very much. If my other comment makes it out of moderation, you'll see that several women on that very thread were victims of sexual violence and took no offense to my comment whatsoever.

What they are taking offense to is THIS, this equating a hyperbolic comment with sexual violence, thereby trivializing the actual issue. They take offense with you. Do you understand? Is this hard to grasp? It is the equivalent of someone saying "f*** Israeli settlements, in the ear" and coming back with the vapors and quacking about the holocaust.

It. Trivializes. The. Issue.

Form. Over. Content.

You are astonishingly unaware of how this imagery, directed at a specific woman goes well beyond simply tasteless and inappropriate.

You are astonishingly bad at reading comprehension. My comment was directed not specifically at Sheril, but at Chris, Sheril and most of the commenters here. If at all, I would be advocating taking one little rusty knife and taking on all of you. Again, if that seems like a realistic image to you, seek professional help.

A lengthy, complete and very contrite letter of apology should be your next order of business.

Funny, coming from someone who either did not read my comment or failed to comprehend it. A lengthy, complete and very contrite letter of apology for doing either should be your next order of business.

And no, don't deflect with "that still does not make your comment okay". You just misrepresented what I said completely. You did so out of carelessness, stupidity or outright perfidy. Until you address which one it was, and apologize for it, you have no standing in this conversation whatsoever.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 11, 2010 10:23 PM

Oh no, Caine! Not nearly girly enough. In fact, we should probably also start doing all our posts in Curlz MT font too.

Someone over there is now claiming that the offensive comment in question is a veiled reference to FGM, to which I say WTF?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 10:28 PM

Oh my god. I'm laughing so hard here I nearly had to go throw up (srsly). Look at the intersection:

Stu:

Rape and sexual abuse might be theoretically possible with a rusty knife, but sideways?

That's got me giggling. And then. . .

J.J. Ramsey:

One can easily interpret you as speaking of moving the knife sideways as one penetrates, which is quite physically possible and no doubt more painful than I want to imagine.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Fuck me gently with a chainsaw, Ramsey. What's your damage - did you have a brain tumor for breakfast?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 10:34 PM

Carlie:

Someone over there is now claiming that the offensive comment in question is a veiled reference to FGM

*jaw drops* How in the hell is anyone capable of drawing that conclusion? I stand in astonishment of just how far they are willing to go in an attempt to justify their so-called outrage.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 11, 2010 10:40 PM

J.J. Ramsey:

One can easily interpret you as speaking of moving the knife sideways as one penetrates, which is quite physically possible and no doubt more painful than I want to imagine.

Just how much time has this guy spent thinking on how one might go about such a thing? Now that's grade A creepy.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 10:50 PM

Caine, ma fleur, my thoughts exactly. WE'RE the sick ones?

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 11, 2010 10:51 PM

Now that's grade A creepy.

and THAT'S really why Ramsey was banned from here.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 10:54 PM

Stu:

Josh, you fruitloop*... your comments are getting through where mine are not!**

DISCRIMINATION!

* This obvious gay slur about to be discussed on the Veneer Twin's blog in 3... 2... 1...

First, I have no idea why my comments are getting through, since I've been rather firmly censored there before. Also, the reason I don't style myself as "SpokesGay" there is it's a Pharyngula-specific joke/identity, and I don't have the patience fight prissy faggots like Anthony McCarthy, who'd spend 200 comments deconstructing it to tell the world why he's a more upstanding, ethical gay man than I am. He's so damned clenched not even ShamWow shorts can help.

Second, yeah, it's almost inevitable some dumb shit from Lady Pucker and Lord Turtlehead's* realm is going to misconstrue what you said. Well, let them. I'll laugh as I feast on their open skulls!**

* Ima work that brilliant idea from Caine until it becomes a true meme

** This shall not be construed to endorse skull-opening, trepanning, or any involuntary act of decepahilization.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 11:06 PM

Thank you, Caine. I should have been able to figure that out. And, shit, I am even more angry at that den of assholes.

As well you - or anyone of ordinary ethical sensitivity - should be. Willful intellectual dishonesty that denigrates real suffering through false comparisons with hyperbole is disgusting. And it betrays everything we need to know about the true moral compass of the people who indulge in it.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 11:12 PM

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG you guys, Deepak Shetty wins the thread:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/#comment-53208

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | March 11, 2010 11:17 PM

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG you guys, Deepak Shetty wins the thread:

Oh yeah, he/she does. Pwned. Suck on it*, whiney ass Intersectionistas.

*Yes, this is meant to be construed in as vulgar a way as you can imagine. Thank you.

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

I've thought quite a bit of what would constitute the equivalent for a male, and, well...

The male equivalent would be cutting the head off the penis. Which is why it's so infuriating when people poo-poo the trauma of FGM, or try to compare it to male foreskin circumcision. No, circumcising the foreskin of baby boys isn't right, and it isn't justified. But it is most emphatically not the equivalent of excising the clitoris.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 11, 2010 11:43 PM

Stephen Colbert just got done with a bit about Karl Rove. He said when he cannot find Rove on TV, he puts a pair or wire rim glasses on a canned ham. At the end he ate a bite of Karl Rove and stuck a knife in the top of his head. Colbert is obviously advocating the murder and eating of our political foes and making light of murder and cannibalism.

I will not talk about putting Karl Rove through the Truth (Meat) Grinder.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 11:51 PM

the absolute evil of women

Well, whoa now, I do not in any way dispute any of the kind*.

I just think that cutting off clitori is not in any way an appropriate response.

* Oh really, I really need to put down the disclaimer here? As if the people that actually would read it do not already know that I mean it in jest, and that the Listerine Consortium will not take this out of context?

Just as a random aside, what is really busting my non-leather chaps is that I posted a motherfucking three sentence post, with obvious references, and that the We Love To See You Smile corporation actually felt the need to take one of them to quote out of context. I mean, really. Of all the limp-wristed intellectually-bankrupt asinine moves... you have to kill a referential footnote?

What the flying motherfucking fuck is wrong with these people?

(And as another random aside, if I have to hear anyone else disparage this particular forum's freedom of expression disparaged, I am going to fucking flip**.)

** Which means that I will talk serious shit. I will at no point, in any way, in any form, consider, incite or advocate sexual harrassment, intimidation or violence of any sort towards anyone. This disclaimer was brought to you by People Willfully Dense And Willing To Quote-Mine.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 11, 2010 11:57 PM

Stephen Colbert just got done with a bit about Karl Rove

Watching the same damned thing.

Going on now:

"Some really smart people believe some really dumb things".

I have such a pointless crush on you, it's not even funny.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 12, 2010 12:09 AM

Well, it looks like I was wrong, and it's all my own fault. Gaythia over at intersection linked to what I thought was a NYTimes series on female genital mutilation that came out awhile back, but it's really the wartime rape series. So I take back my assertion of what she was saying, because I was wrong at #475. I saw the title, thought I remembered that was the title of the fgm series, and wrote before checking it to be sure. Absolutely, totally my own fault.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 12:13 AM

It does reek of dumb and disgusting but Deepak Shetty rocks!

shityeah

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 12, 2010 12:17 AM

FGM is an action of the construct which reinforces the absolute evil of women, a construct supposedly from god, in which it is always the woman who is unclean, filthy, a temptation which cannot possibly be ignored or averted...

I totally agree, of course, that it's all that--and more. There's all sorts of fucked up superstition behind this abominable practice, some god-related, some not, but at the center is an undeniable belief--a preference, even--that women should not be sexual beings. As such, it is perfectly justifiable to hack away the parts of their bodies that function as organs of sexual pleasure, thus ensuring that they will never dishonor their families by having sex for any reason but procreation--or to serve the pleasure of their husbands.

Stu: thanks for cross-posting your comments over here, whether or not they ever appear at the pile-up, I appreciate the time and effort you took to speak on behalf of the Pharyngulistas.

And, just for a little extra perspective: so far we've been face-palming over the inapt comparisons between anonymous blog insults and real life violence. Here is an example of a comment, directed at me, that was far, far creepier--verging on threatening--than anything being discussed at Chez Colgate right now. Notably, it contains no profanity whatsoever. Make of that what you will.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 12, 2010 12:21 AM

jen - sorry, I remembered something wrong, didn't double-check, and brought up worse than they were really doing.

But wow. That comment you linked to is about ten ways of creepy. That's how you do threatening and scary to women, right there. I'd take a dozen rusty knife comments over that any day.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 12, 2010 12:30 AM

Jen, that was breath taking and not in a good way. Implying that one should act and talk in a certain way because of gender was bad enough. But that was the point of that story? It is good that Orac did the right thing.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 12, 2010 12:41 AM

Carlie--no worries at all. I appreciate you correcting your original assumption, and as others have pointed out it is a damn sight more than we could ever expect from anyone in that nest of tone trolls.

Yeah, that comment was more than a bit chilling, especially as it came in the same week I had decided to come out from behind my 'Danio' 'nym and start posting comments under my real (full) name.

Back on point, though, can you imagine a greater departure from the tone and content of StuV's offending post? There's just no comparison. Sheril & Co are fucking insane.*

*by which I mean their behavior is exceedingly irrational, not that they are fornicating with the mentally ill.

Posted by: Paul | March 12, 2010 1:03 AM

By the way, Deepak Shetty posted the same rebuttal in the previous thread when they were complaining about SEED's terms being violated and SEED being responsible for the content (that is, that they state explicitly that they have no obligation to censor content). It was post 476. Note that they completely ignored it and started parroting the same talking points in the new thread.

By the way, Stu, re: "can't we all go to Pharyngula?". The Intersection regulars have previously admitted to trolling merely to get post count up (the example that comes to mind is McCarthy, who was "just trying to hit 700 comments on that thread"). Makes you wonder about the relationship between commenters, blog hosts, and traffic flow in situations like this. Do they allow trollish, intellectually dishonest morons to continuously spew their tripe merely because they drive people to the site via rampant SIWOTI who are otherwise sick and tired of M&K's contentless blather? One wonders.

Posted by: Paul | March 12, 2010 1:13 AM

Sorry, I hate uncited hearsay, even when it's tangential. McCarthy said:

Big Dumb, you need to get another line. I’m just here trying to get the comments up to 650 so I can mention it to Coyne’s boy, NEB, someday.

While knee deep in garbage finding the exact quote, I found that Kwok gem regarding the camera blackmail:

A few friends of mine caught onto my “threat” over at Pharyngula and realized immediately that I was joking (I had no idea that they were reading it until I found out a few days later.). But the point remains that even I admitted to PZ that it was a joke, he still insisted – and apparently still does – that it wasn’t. IMHO for him to still insist means that he’s lying.

Just including it since I mentioned it earlier, and someone was surprised and unfamiliar with the excuse. Good stuff. "My friends knew I was joking, so PZ is lying because he took my blackmail (sent to many people so they would insist he pay up) at face value".

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | March 12, 2010 1:23 AM

A total of 3 of Pharyngula's banned (Kw*k, Bilbo and J.J. Ramsey) appear in The Intersection's latest train wreck of a tread.

Not bad, but it doesn't beat its own record of 5*.
___

* Kw*k, Pete R**ke, J*hn D**ison, M**bus, and S*lver F*x. Many other kooks who weren't banned appear on that thread as well. Enter at own risk.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 12, 2010 1:30 AM

Ah, the link is broken. I hadn't bothered to click on it before.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | March 12, 2010 1:44 AM

I haven't been around long enough to know the troll commenters at the intersection. But from my visit there, I get the impression that they are doing what Ham does (I think it was in the Ken Ham is baffled post where he quote-mine and distort peoples comment without linking and attribution). Which would be very dishonest of them. But again I don't know them so I can only infer.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | March 12, 2010 1:52 AM

Actually i used to be semi-regular here under a different psuedomymn but i thought if i HAD to sign up i would take a name that i preferred

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 12, 2010 1:57 AM

Laughing Man @512:

These criticisms aren't new, and are, in some ways, valid. There was no randomization because all participants in the survey were volunteers. Kinsey answered this charge with the claim that a more random sample wouldn't have necessarily given more representative results because people would have been afraid to answer honestly.

The important thing to keep in mind, IMO, is that Kinsey & colleagues were the first to even attempt to collect these kind of data. Even if the methods were flawed from a scientific point of view, the end result was that a huge taboo was lifted, and a sea change occurred in cultural acceptance of talking about sex, and in particular talking about homosexuality. Sex surveys, which had never, ever been done before, became increasingly commonplace, to the point where today it's quite straightforward to take a random population cross section and be reasonably assured of honest responses to such intimate questions. At this point, literally thousands of such surveys have been done, and none of them appear to conflict with Kinsey's original findings in any meaningful way.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 7:01 AM

bourbon and Panic and jazz and pork and hoppy beers

I so want to be at El Chimpo's house. Pretty much all the time.
I've seen pix of his beer fridge.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 12, 2010 12:19 PM

I just read johnq's comment about the whole dustup:

I’d call it sophomoric if I weren’t worried about triggering a thousand posts arguing about whether I’d been overly insulting to sophomores.

He's a bit off the mark. It's not that those at The Intersection would worry about being overly insulting to sophomores, it's that they'd start complaining that johnq was actually suggesting they all be immediately enrolled in a second year of high school or university. Claiming someone be forced to enrol in remedial education against their will may be fine for governments, but is almost certainly a violation of Discover Blogs' Terms of Service. As someone who's seen A Clockwork Orange, I can only weepily imagine what someone who's been the victim of the Ludovico technique might feel upon having read that filth.

I am angrily typing a letter.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | March 13, 2010 1:26 AM

jenbphillips, I was hoping you may actually have a paper in mind :-p

There is an entire Kinsey Institute. I don't believe that there Wouldn't have been other surveys of this kind....

Posted by: Mykelb | March 16, 2010 4:10 PM

Control freak much? Authoritarian? Wow, what a dupe.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | March 27, 2010 8:04 PM

what a strange thing to say on a blog

No stranger than "I blocked your emails? I think not" or, more to the point, "And your true self emerges. I dodged a bullet there.... So sorry we won't be meeting up."