Pharyngula

Posted by: infi.myopenid.com | January 15, 2011 7:17 PM

Ah, thank you, Lance Mannion's place looks interesting. Will see if I can't send something his way.

Seed hasn't managed to send me a paycheck for the last several months.

ಠ_ಠ

Why can't Adam get his ducks in a row?

Posted by: Fred The Hun | January 15, 2011 7:21 PM

Blogging isn't the path to riches, I guess

Especially in a society that is in the throes of collapse. Which, everything seems to indicate that is well underway in our own.

Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter 2010 (Part 1 of 5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddmQhIiVM48

BTW higher education and scientific research are both very vulnerable if this scenario plays out to its logical conclusion.

I personally haven't had a job for the last two years and happen to fall into an age bracket where it is especially difficult to find another one, in my case I've been able to hire myself but life is pretty tough, I can't for example afford health care anymore. Cest La vie!

I will at least read Lance Mannion's book on raising a child with Asperger's since I have a son who is an Aspie.

We need to find a way to build a new paradigm for a simplified world.

Good luck to all of us!

Posted by: John Morales | January 15, 2011 7:25 PM

I'll also mention a fourth example of low-budget blogging: me. Seed hasn't managed to send me a paycheck for the last several months.

We know you've never done it for the money, but that's a pretty poor show by Seed.

Posted by: llewelly | January 15, 2011 7:27 PM

PZ:

Seed hasn't managed to send me a paycheck for the last several months.

Seed never should have been organized as a for-profit organization.

Posted by: TCC | January 15, 2011 7:30 PM

I thought Seed was going to clean up their act after the big walk out last year.

Has anything improved on that front? I as a reader sure haven't see anything change.

Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | January 15, 2011 8:17 PM

And meanwhile the wingnuts in Kentucky are raking in millions with their stupid lies and ignorance and a creationist crackhouse while those who stand for the truth suffers financially.. something's wrong with the scenario here.

Posted by: jafafahots | January 15, 2011 8:33 PM

As I see it you basically saved Seed's ass when people got pissed about the Pepsi thing and started leaving. (Though the powers that don't seem to be at Seed might not see it that way.)

Let's face it - you're personally responsible for most of the revenue Seed has coming in... if you're not getting paid, I doubt anyone else is either.

Might be a good time to start exploring your options.

Posted by: ophelia.benson | January 15, 2011 8:43 PM

Yup, this is no way to make a living. It's no way to make bus fare, even.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 15, 2011 8:55 PM

Always remember the struggle and poverty of Phil Plait, while you're at it.

Oops, no, sometimes blogging (plus book that feeds on blogging) pays off pretty damn well.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: ncovington89 | January 15, 2011 9:05 PM

Here's a few ways to earn money as a skeptic/atheist blogger (and no, the following advice is not spam):

Become an amazon partner and link to them whenever you can. That at least helps you buy a new book or DVD every now and again.

Find a place that will pay you for your writings. For example, there's a website called DB Skeptic that pays you 20 dollars for every article of yours that they publish:
http://www.dbskeptic.com

Put ads on your blog (duh!). Adbrite or Google Adsense can help you with that.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 15, 2011 9:26 PM

Seed hasn't managed to send me a paycheck for the last several months.

Last July, when PZ went on strike I gave a link to Innovium's 1st Quarter 2010 Financial Statement. Innovium is bankrolling Seed. Here's Innovium's 2nd Qtr 2010 statement. There's continued bad news:

Effective January 1, 2010 Management ceased accruing interest and dividends from its investment in Seed for financial statement purposes. However, these amounts continue to accrue economically to the Company (i.e. these amounts are still owed to Innovium by Seed). As a result, while $341,000 of accrued dividends were earned by the Company in the first half of 2010, in the first quarter of 2010 Innovium recorded interest of only $2,000 (Q2 2010 - $nil) compared to $302,000 of accrued dividends and interest recorded in each of the first and second quarters of 2009.

Out of $341,000 that Seed owes Innovium for the first two quarters of 2010, Seed only paid $2,000. It gets worse:

In the first quarter of 2010, Innovium advanced US$137,500 to Seed as a Series C preferred equity unit (‘Series C Units”) advance. In the second quarter, an additional US$192,500 was advanced as a Series C Unit advance. These advances accrued interest at 12% per annum and, upon the second closing of the Series C Unit financing, were to accrue dividends at 12% per annum. When it was determined that there would not be a second closing of the Series C Units, these advances were converted into a secured Seed 18% Bridge Loan, convertible into Seed equity at a 15% discount to the price of a subsequent equity financing, at any time prior to maturity (“Seed Bridge”). Subsequent to the quarter end, an additional US$35,000 was advanced as part of the Seed Bridge.

What this says is Seed hasn't been paying back their loans so Innovium refinanced the loans from 12% (payable in stock equity) to 18% straight cash loans.

Innovium hasn't released their 3rd or 4th qtr reports or at least I couldn't find them.

Folks, it's not looking good for the home team.

Posted by: montejo | January 15, 2011 10:02 PM

I'm not sure what the purpose of this post is. If you are wondering why your blog, and presumably the other blogs you mention, are not making more money, then it's probably because not enough people read them. Maybe more people would read them if they had more interesting content.

For example, this post offers almost nothing that is interesting. You mention other bloggers who have failed to make money off their blogs. What do you expect? You criticize the NY Times for not hiring people like these bloggers, who "ought" to be working for them. As if your opinion is in any way relevant to this. You then talk about your own personal situation and how you're not asking for donations. How is any of this interesting to the casual reader, who has an attention span of about 10 seconds?

From the look of your blog, you are an intelligent, outspoken atheist with extensive knowledge about biology. You could be speculating on the evolution of DNA itself, the origin of organelles, the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and whether hypothetical alien tool-makers would also be bipedal and have opposable thumbs!

Posted by: Illuminatus | January 15, 2011 10:26 PM

#24: You clearly didn't read any of the links provided. This post is not (primarily) about blog earnings, but rather about financial issues being suffered by individuals who are (incidentally) bloggers.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | January 15, 2011 10:35 PM

"ಠ_ಠ"

How do you make those eye thingies?

Posted by: John Morales | January 15, 2011 11:00 PM

James, over 100 million page views and counting.

And I note this post is not about PZ, except incidentally.

I'm getting a lot of sad stories about bloggers struggling financially, and I just thought I'd mention a few of them.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/.ESzU4YkvpCaGVcc_gE_bwoO_nHc#3d697 | January 15, 2011 11:39 PM

James is right. If a blog has topics that are interesting and make people want to visit regularly, the blog will do well. And I don't mean interesting to just a small amount of people. This blog, like many other blogs, has mostly the same old shit over and over and over again. It's just a bunch of arrogant, name-calling rants about religion, creationism, and ID.

There are some people who obviously love this blog because they think like PZ Myers. They hate religion, and anyone who doesn't worship science. And of course PZ wants to be worshiped personally too.

PZ has a one track mind. It's not science that he's trying to promote. It's not science or the so-called scientific method that he uses to base his attacks from. It's not a philanthropic endeavor for him to have this blog. The only motivation PZ has is the promotion of his personal biases, and hatred toward anything that doesn't fit within his limited view of the hows, whens, and whys of how nature works.

Name calling and biased insults don't educate people about science or nature. They merely cause more anger and friction, and make you people look like ill-mannered children. When I read posts and comments on sites like Uncommon Descent I don't see out of control anger, hatred, and name calling like I do here and on sites like Pandas Thumb. Even if the people who write the posts and the comments on Uncommon Descent and other sites like it are or may be wrong, at least they discuss things in an adult manner and don't just resort to insulting trash talk like the people here do.

If science has all the answers and evidence you people think it does, you should never have to resort to anything but showing what the evidence is. No insulting name calling should ever be necessary. Your name calling and biased arrogance just makes your position look weak and hopeless, and after seeing the same old crap here for the thousandth time, it gets to be boring and fruitless.

PZ, maybe you should rethink how you want to present your case. As it is now, you're just a skipping record.

Posted by: jafafahots | January 15, 2011 11:51 PM

"If you nasty atheists would just shut up about it..." blah blah blah

Fuck off.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 15, 2011 11:55 PM

Name calling and biased insults don't educate people about science or nature.

Of course not, but information about science and nature that also contains name calling and biased insults does. Just look at comments made by Truth Machine. Always something to learn in there, always name calling and biased insults. Lots of fun... and educational!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/.ESzU4YkvpCaGVcc_gE_bwoO_nHc#3d697 | January 15, 2011 11:57 PM

Thanks for helping to prove my point Tor. Your name calling just shows that you have no reasonable, mature, intelligent response.

Posted by: Tor Bertin | January 16, 2011 12:06 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spine

Posted by: iasasai | January 16, 2011 1:46 AM

What's with all the people giving "helpful hints" on how to run a money-making blog? Did they really read the whole post? What caused them to jump to the conclusion that PZ was really just obliquely asking for help on how to run his blog? Oh right, people are a/the problem. Oh no, the tone isn't what you've seen at other blogs, oh no! I guess that person never realized that this IS the tone that PZ is going for. Well, actually I can't read PZ's mind, but I have stronger than creationism evidence that that is the case.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/JfibV1oJku.uXCq6xm9iFkhlqML5RDDT#e0d48 | January 16, 2011 2:12 AM

Thanks, PZ. Hugely.

I've only gotten one donation so far, but it's the first in... a long time, so I attribute to you.

I realize you have nothing to link to, and I need to write up a coherent post about my current situation, but that's difficult for me, as it involves both great complications, other people's lives, and most of all, psychological issues for me that are the very reason I've been in such trouble for so many years, and for decades before that.

Nowadays I have gout and physical issues; mental health issues are much more complicated to explain, and paradoxically, mine include revolving around being unable to ask for help until I'm nearly psychotically suicidal.

I've been on meds (Lamictal and Buspirone) that have been working, only since late 2008; unfortunately, my situation in Raleigh was such that the horrificness of it overwhelmed the good the drugs did, which was a lot.

I'm now again homeless, living on charity in a friend's house, house-sitting and cat-sitting through August, totally depending on blog income -- period, and where I'll be after August, I have no idea.

There's a tremendous amount more, but even in writing a post on my own blog (and I have two, now, but this would only be appropriate for Amygdala, where I also have a broken template that I desperately need to get fixed -- anyone want to help with a template redesign? -- and even more sanely, if I can be, it's very hard to figure out to write.

I'll do what I can when I can. Meanwhile, I have all these other bloggers to help.

But, in short, yeah: I'm homeless, and until such time as I can jump through the hoops to qualifiy with Social Security as disabled, I'm begging, and that's no fun at all.

It's a lot worse, but let's not go there. It's more than seriously upsetting for me, it makes me suicidal to discuss it.

Or it used to; I'm somewhat better at the moment, but next week or next month? Well, that's the sort of thing I need to write about.

If I can be sane enough to. And find enough time.

We'll see.

Meanwhile, many thanks.

Posted by: Terry Gibbs | January 16, 2011 2:44 AM

I teach people how to make money online. If I was doing a consultation on this blog, I'd say the traffic is great, but it's poorly monetized.

Looking at the topic, it will be hard to make consistent money from a blog like this one. The reason is most readers don't come here with the idea of buying something.

Google ads are a poor choice, for that reason. A blog like this one would end up with poorly targeted ads or public service ads. If there are clicks, the advertisers will have a hard time converting visitors to buyers, and google will quickly decrease the payout. Short run you would get a first payment of between $100 and 500, then little or nothing.

Amazon is a good fit for the readers of this blog because the readers are curious. The problem with Amazon is the payouts are shit. It's certainly worth the minute or so to make an affiliate link when a book is mentioned in a post, but spending time looking for books isn't a good use of time.

One thing that probably would work is something like cafepress. That's a site where you design shirts or coffee cups and get a percentage of the sales. You can also promote other people's designs. Again it's not going to result in enough money to quit your day job unless you're willing to sleep in your car and eat cat food, but it will generate some money.

Any easy way to make money would be to sell links. Marketers buy links to their websites so Google will think people like their sites. Your home page has a PR of 7 out of 10. I was offered $100 for a link on a site with a PR 4 last week. You might get $500-1000 for a link.

Personally, I'd do the links if I was offered links I would be comfortable posting. The ones I was offered were gambling, debt repair, and some kind scammy of mortgage fix.

There are also services where bloggers get paid for posting short articles reviewing products that include links. The payout is low for the services I examined last year, but they target blogs with poor traffic.

The biggest money is promoting information products as an affiliate. You get paid per sale from $5 to 500 and in some cases more. There are aggregators - Commission Junction and Clickbank are the largest - that allow you to select from products by many different marketers. I sell all my products through Clickbank because they handle all the payments and such.

The hurdle is learning what offers your readers will respond to. If you hit too hard, or try to many unwanted offers, you'll lose readers. But, the only way to find out what people will respond to is by making offers. 5-10% offers and 90-95% content is the range to test in. This means 1 or 2 offers a week at your present posting frequency.

I have a bunch of free reports available at the link below - no email address or anything else required. Just take what you want. The video on the page doesn't work.

http://www.nalroo.com/fordad.html

Notice many of those reports are just transcripts of interviews. I used to sell those and even sold teleseminars so people could ask questions.

Posted by: Aliasalpha | January 16, 2011 3:30 AM

He could become very well off indeed if he wrote a book (when's the one he did write coming out?) on how he was an atheist biologist who now understands that Jebus made the world because he now "knows" that if it's complex it must be designed.

You know, that could be a good idea and a great way to test how much publishers really read manuscripts. Write a 14 chapter book where the first 13 are the standard "jeebus did everything except the bad stuff which is the fault of communist atheists" conversion to the one true faith rantings but then chapter 14 is pretty much one sentence "Isn't it scary that there are people who really believe all that bullshit?"

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | January 16, 2011 4:52 AM

I always wonder why people like James and Yahoomess feel like they have to spend so much time coming here to read posts and then tell PZ why his blog is so unpopular(?!?-- this is not an unpopular blog).

I don't have time to waste on blogs I don't like. I often don't have time for the ones I do like. How empty are the lives of Tone Trolls?

Posted by: Sigmund | January 16, 2011 5:10 AM

Where do people spend money online?
Not on blogs, certainly. It doesn't matter whether the blog is popular or not, paying for online content is simply not on the radar of most people nowadays. Nevertheless some bloggers seem to make serious money. How?
Well, from my limited knowledge of the matter I can see two ways.
1. Sell advertisements (which is why the mommy-blogs are financially viable - and, unfortunately, many of the woo/anti-vaccine blogs).
2. Sell your book or books. Use the blog as a way to advertise or to simply say "buy my book" - the Denyse O'Leary, Chris Mooney method (its also used by good guys like Carl Zimmer, John Hawks and Dickie Dawkins).
Looking at increasing viewing numbers without implementing either 1 or 2 won't increase your income.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkOxyC7WFXvi-PQPqz9mtQMtXRCYWv_edA | January 16, 2011 5:21 AM

#44 above is Gary Farber, for those who don't recognize him. Great political commentator.

I'm really disturbed by the fact that PZ here writes a "Some great writers are in financial straits: can we help them out?" post and so many of the comments are full of fail. I guess the random commenter coming by to say "I don't like this blog" is not rare; but there are people who seem unable to comprehend what PZ's doing in this post, even going so far as to say, "You won't get anywhere in life if you ask me to care that people are poor and sick." WTF? Is this some kind of Randian thing, in which generosity or the idea that talented people need help are unintelligible concepts?

I recommend that people google Susie Madrak's "No More Dead Bloggers," written after the deaths of Jim Capozzola and Steve Gilliard. PZ's absolutely right to grieve the absence of reward for great Left and liberal commentary.

-Josh Lukin

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | January 16, 2011 5:42 AM

yahoomess @ 53:

I realize that this may come as a surprise to you but some people think for themselves and don't blindly follow any herd or self appointed master.

You don't come as a surprise, nor does anything you say. You see, Cupcake, idiots of your caliber come along all too often. Regardless of what you think (which isn't much, given that atrophied brain you're working with), this isn't an echo chamber.

You aren't a revolutionary, you aren't a great thinker, you aren't a rebel. Just another Cupcake who thinks they are making.a.stand., but aren't doing anything except whining.

PZ simply pointed out that blogging doesn't pay, even when it should, and there are great writers out there who could use some support. Not a difficult point to grok, at least not for those of us with brains. Try reading #44. That is why PZ wrote this post.

You're just another dipshit, toxic Cupcake. Why should anyone care about your point of view when you are incapable of getting the point or displaying any empathy whatsoever?

Here, have a decaying porcupine. Now, as to what to do with it...use your imagination. Be sure to shove it backwards in the orifice of your choice, though. Go ahead, trust me. It will do wonders.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 16, 2011 6:02 AM

I realize that this may come as a surprise to you but some people think for themselves and don't blindly follow any herd or self appointed master.

To put aside the condescension for a moment, just what makes you think that people who post here are merely blindly led by PZ? I mean, in terms of determining causality, there has to be a reason for the inference. Perhaps any correlation between agreement in the posts stems from the self-selective process of posting - after all, why be a regular on a place that's going to be hostile? Or it could be that there's agreement through good reasoning and evidence - after all if we say 2+2=4 or that the earth revolves around the sun this would be accepted because of the truth and not merely a top-down indoctrination. And that's even assuming there's a correlation to begin with, there's plenty of disagreement with PZ and between people on here.

So take your pick. It's a quite oft repeated allegation on here. And as someone who posts here, I really wonder why that is. It seems nothing more than an ad hominem, a condemnation without regard for its accuracy. Most the regulars on here are pretty headstrong people, but it would be interesting to be shown otherwise. But I could be wrong. It would be interesting to see a causal link...

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | January 16, 2011 6:20 AM

yahoomess @57,
Quickie rants on a blog aren't likely to have an audience large enough to generate a lot of income, and especially when they're virtually the same thing over and over.

Maybe I'm the one having trouble with reading comprehension.. But as I see it, the post wasn't so much complaining about how little bloggers can earn, but about how those people are good writers and it is a shame they can't make a living with their writing. Of course they can't earn enough with blogging, that is precisely the point - blogging shouldn't be their only source of income. They are talented enough to be employed in newspapers or writing books, but they can't find jobs. It's a shame.

Posted by: SEF | January 16, 2011 6:24 AM

How do you make those eye thingies?

0. They are characters from beyond the basic ASCII and ANSI sets (and hence need a setup which will accept and display them). Between the two "eyeball" characters is probably just a perfectly normal underscore character (which goes with the minus key on my keyboard).

1. Bear in mind that not everyone (on every browser on every type of computer) will even be able to see them the way you do. Some may see blanks or little boxes instead.

2. Either keep a direct copy somewhere on your own machine to copy and paste in wherever and whenever you want (like you just did with your post quoting the previous one!); or make a note of the entity code (and of how to do entity codes!) and store that somewhere on your computer instead or in your brain.

The "eyeball" character code is hexadecimal 0CA0 or decimal 3232. The way to produce that using HTML entities is: ಠ or ಠ

One of each: ಠ_ಠ

Posted by: SEF | January 16, 2011 6:42 AM

PS The "eyeball" character is actually a letter "Ttha" from the Kannada set - which can be viewed in Arial Unicode MS font and probably in various other extensive fonts that I can't be bothered to check but not in things like basic Arial or Times New Roman.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/bSqpFlcvhtvUNJimueHCWgWPP__6FUvE#48845 | January 16, 2011 7:01 AM

Kel, it's apparent to me that most people here agree with PZ no matter what he specifically says, and that's likely because most of what he says is based on the same premise; bashing religion and anyone who doesn't worship science.

Take the "PRUUUUUUDES!" thread for example. I'm the only one who questioned PZ about his claims. PZ did not and has not seen the "demonstration" yet he supports it, describes it as "perfectly reasonable" and "a good compromise", makes fun of the "the poor widdle boy!", adds more ridiculing and insulting remarks, and goes on to say "There is nothing immodest about the demonstration (which, by the way, the IFI portrays dishonestly and inaccurately)."

How does PZ know if the "Vagina Dance" is what he says it is? He doesn't know, and neither does anyone else here, but that sure didn't stop a bunch of PZ worshipers from jumping on the bandwagon and acting like blindly loyal PZ puppets. Virtually every comment in that thread supports and encourages PZ, and adds more insults and ridicule.

Maybe the "demonstration" is nothing that any normal person should get upset about but that isn't the point since no one here has seen it. My point is that almost everyone commenting in that thread automatically believes what PZ said and doesn't question his claims about the demonstration. As a so-called scientist PZ should know better than to make claims that he can't substantiate with real evidence. If he had provided a video of the demonstration and statements from actual observers of the demonstration in the school verifying that the video is authentic and accurate, people here would have then have had evidence of what it's really like. Then, if it turned out to be a "simple demonstration" and "perfectly reasonable", as PZ described it, his opinion of it would at least be based on something tangible and verifiable. As it is, he just voiced a biased opinion based on hearsay, and a lot of people automatically went along with him. That's the kind of behavior I would expect from religious zealots, not scientifically minded people.

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 7:13 AM

Beatrice

They are talented enough to be employed in newspapers or writing books, but they can't find jobs. It's a shame.

If they are talented enough to be employed in newspapers or writing books, then why aren't they writing for newspapers or writing books?

Newspapers and book publishers WANT people to read their newspapers or books. This is why when you read articles that give advice to writers who want to be published, they tell writers to take a book publisher editor's criticisms seriously. This is because the chief editor of a newspaper, or an editor that works regularly with a book publisher is more likely to know what will be sell-able to the reader.

The reason Rush Limbaugh makes more money than PZ Myers is that more people want to listen to what Rush Limbaugh has to say than what PZ Myers has to say. As to which one is smarter, Rush Limbaugh or PZ Myers, that's kind of irrelevant. Although, I gotta admit that Rush Limbaugh seems to know a hell of a lot more about what people want to read or listen to than PZ Myers. In fact, I have about a million reasons, all attached with the $ symbol, why I think Rush Limbaugh knows more than PZ Myers does about what people want to listen to.

Besides, let's put PZ Myer's claim to the same scientific standards he puts to biological or theistic claims. Let's have Gary Farber write articles for the NY Times and see if readership increases. If it doesn't increase, or it in fact declines then we would have evidence of who is the better writer (in terms of readership).

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | January 16, 2011 7:25 AM

Oh, for fuck sake! Professor tries to help someone with financial problems and you turn it into a pissing contest of who can be more condescending?!

Yes, they are currently jobless. No, I don't know exactly why, I doubt professor Myers knows either (unless he does, in that case I apologize for my presumptions). You've never had a friend who couldn't get a job, which prompted you to go on a rant about how people are stupid because they don't appreciate his talent? But no, because PZ Myers wrote it, it must be a call for revolution and rebellion against evil tyrants of NY Times. I'm sure NY TImes would be grateful for your defense of their virtue.

If you don't want to give a donation - don't, if you don't want to read this or their blogs - don't, just stop attacking someone for trying to help. It just makes you all look like assholes.

Posted by: KG | January 16, 2011 7:27 AM

Kel, it's apparent to me that most people here agree with PZ no matter what he specifically says, and that's likely because most of what he says is based on the same premise; bashing religion and anyone who doesn't worship science. - yahoomess@66

That's simply false, as a look at the evidence would show you. I've already linked@61 to three recent posts demonstrating this. But of course, you're not in the slightest interested in evidence.

Posted by: Moggie | January 16, 2011 7:36 AM

#50:

I don't have time to waste on blogs I don't like. I often don't have time for the ones I do like. How empty are the lives of Tone Trolls?

Trolling for Jesus is a noble calling! Just... not very effective. The pitch is "ok, you may have a popular blog, but if you just changed the way you write, and the things you write about, you could have many more readers like me". They don't explain why this would be desirable.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 16, 2011 7:37 AM

elzoog, here's what Dr. Myers said:

The annoying thing about these writers is that they're all good, thoughtful, interesting people…and they ought to be writing for the big magazines or newspapers. But, unfortunately, when the NY Times goes looking for columnists, writing skills and cogent commentary aren't among the qualifications, or plodders and hacks like Ross Douthat or Jonah Goldberg would be unemployed, rather than living well on wingnut welfare.

And here's what you said:

You see, whether or not Gary Farber (who PZ likes) is a better writer (in terms of making money) than Ross Douthat is a scientifically testable claim.

Dr. Myers said nothing about money-making potential. His words can be paraphrased as "they are talented writers and the public could benefit intellectually from being exposed to them". You pulled the "money-making" qualifier, which wasn't in the original text, out of your ass thin air, in order to have something to nitpick at him with.

This is called "equivocation": using (or creating) an ambiguity in terms in order to support your point. You use the phrase "good writer (in terms of making money)" as an intermediate, to change the meaning of "good writer" from "writer with high quality prose and content" to "popular writer".

Equivocation is bad, mkay?

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 7:53 AM

Beatrice

Yes, they are currently jobless. No, I don't know exactly why

That's why I am making fun of you. You see, when I was struggling financially and living in my car, it was because I was unable to earn enough of a living to do otherwise at that time. The reason why, was because I was not offering an employer an incentive to pay me more than what I was making at the time.

Similarly, the reason why Gary Farber isn't employed by the NY Times is he is unable or unwilling to convince the people at the NY Times that he would generate more readership than Ross Douthat or Jonah Goldberg.

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 8:05 AM

KG

Evidently the only criterion you're interested in is how much money a writer makes. That says a lot more about you than about the actual talents of writers.

If a book publisher published a book that is really well written, but only one person buys it, that wouldn't be enough money to pay for the printing, the editors, the graphic artists, the copywriters, and so forth.

In other words, publishing a book requires money. A publisher that doesn't realize that, would be a publisher that would soon not be in the business of publishing ANY book, well written or otherwise. He wouldn't be able to pay these writers that you call "good writers" (whatever criteria you are using to judge) and the "good writers" would then have to do something else to make a living.

The fact that all of this is totally foreign to you, speaks volumes regarding your opinion of a "good writer".

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/bSqpFlcvhtvUNJimueHCWgWPP__6FUvE#48845 | January 16, 2011 8:08 AM

Nerd of Redhead, PZ did a lot more than post information. Most of what he said was his personal opinion. Of course he has the right to do that but it doesn't mean he's automatically right, and it doesn't mean that whatever he says is a fact.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 16, 2011 8:09 AM

most of the people who comment here agree with PZ

Here's a Euthyphrean dilemma for you: do they agree with PZ because they comment here, or do they comment here because they agree with PZ? The answer to that is kind of important to the point you are trying to make.

insulting toward religion/creationism/ID

It's only possible to be insulting toward entities that can be insulted. People, mostly. When you say "insulting toward religion" what you really mean is "critical of religion", only you probably figured that doesn't sound bad enough for your purposes.

or anything and anyone else that PZ doesn't they don't like.

FTFY.

but I don't think that being negative and insulting all the time is going to accomplish much of anything.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Why do you think others are obliged to share it?

You might have noticed some of the responses I've gotten from people I didn't even address in the first place.

When you write something in a public forum, you can expect responses from everyone who is reading it. If you wanted to address PZ privately, you would email him.

People are insulting you because what you are writing isn't new. It's been addressed here many times. Sorry.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/bSqpFlcvhtvUNJimueHCWgWPP__6FUvE#48845 | January 16, 2011 8:17 AM

Matt Penfold, thank you for helping to prove my points about some (most?) of the people here.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 16, 2011 8:21 AM

Sheesh people, don't you get that Dan Brown is a better writer than Shakespeare because he made a lot more money?

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 8:24 AM

Matt Penfold, thank you for helping to prove my points about some (most?) of the people here.

I neither need nor want your thanks. I have done nothing to earn them since I have not helped you in the least.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 16, 2011 8:24 AM

From the look of your blog, you are an intelligent, outspoken atheist with extensive knowledge about biology. You could be speculating on the evolution of DNA itself, the origin of organelles, the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and whether hypothetical alien tool-makers would also be bipedal and have opposable thumbs!

He's a scientist. Why on the planet would he speculate in the absence of evidence?

Think this through, please.

And then go to the archives and read a few posts in the "science" category.

If science has all the answers and evidence you people think it does, you should never have to resort to anything but showing what the evidence is. No insulting name calling should ever be necessary. Your name calling and biased arrogance just makes your position look weak and hopeless, and after seeing the same old crap here for the thousandth time, it gets to be boring and fruitless.

So you think PZ only gets upset when he feels it's necessary?

No. PZ gets upset when something pisses him off.

You seem to be one of those pitiably naive people who believe scientists undergo the full kolinahr in their basic training; we don't.

1. Sell advertisements (which is why the mommy-blogs are financially viable - and, unfortunately, many of the woo/anti-vaccine blogs).

Do you use Firefox and Adblock? Or Lynx? Or are you just blind? There are already advertisements on every ScienceBlog!!! Scroll to the top of this page, and you'll see ads in the top bar and ads in the right sidebar.

Really, WTF?

Wasn't there a big stink of some sort about Pepsi(?) advertising on science blogs?

No, it was about Pepsi getting to write a ScienceBlog that wasn't even marked as an advertisement.

Either that or, the NY Times already hires people with statistical training to determine which writers would generate the most readership and Ross Douthat comes out towards the top.

And what makes you think the NYT has actually paid for such an analysis? Isn't it more likely they just don't want to change a running system and go with what feels "logical" to them?

And what about the circular relationship between public opinion and published opinion? You act as if public opinion existed just so, and the media had a read-only relationship to it. In reality, they make public opinion. People form their opinions based on, among other things, the information they're fed.

Yes, they are currently jobless. No, I don't know exactly why

Because there aren't any jobs left in the world, except in Angola, where the Portuguese now emigrate to (in order to "re"build the country after decades of civil war).

That's why.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | January 16, 2011 8:31 AM

In contrast to the struggles of bloggers, you have this...

Jan. 10-16: 50 Cent Uses Twitter To Make $8.7 Million In One Day

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/thatsreallyweek/130325/jan-10-16-50-cent-uses-twitter-to-make-87-million-in-one-day/

Our society is just too fucked up for words!

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 8:39 AM

Matt

Is elzoog really arguing the market is what determines who is and is not a good writer ?

Let's make this clear Matt. Separate writers into two categories.

1) A writer who is a good writer, but the market will not pay him for his writing.

2) A writer who is a good writer and the market agrees that he is a good writer so he gets paid.

I am willing to talk about writers in category 1 as long as you don't confuse them with writers in category 2. In other words, I am willing to admit that there are "good writers" who nonetheless, can not make money with their writings.

However, in PZ's original post he says things like

"they ought to be writing for the big magazines or newspapers"

Question for you Matt, does a big magazine have to worry about things that cost money? Like buying paper, paying a printing press, and so forth? If the writer is in category 1, then where do you think the "big magazines or newspapers" are going to get the money?

"when the NY Times goes looking for columnists, writing skills and cogent commentary aren't among the qualifications"

Another question for you Matt, when the NY Times gets a columnist, do you think they pay those columnists? If so, where do you think they get the money to pay them?

In other words, PZ is making claims about the market (i.e. that writer X should be writing for big newspapers and magazines). Therefore, he needs to take into account how the market works.

I will also add that in general I think PZ's taste in music sucks. I don't comment on that because unlike this example, PZ doesn't complain about these musicians not making enough money.

I also think that Jethro Tull is much better than Michael Jackson but obviously the market disagrees with me. I would say that if Ian Anderson wants to make as much money as Michael Jackson, he should do more of what Michael Jackson does and less of what Jethro Tull does.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 16, 2011 8:44 AM

Yawn, Yahoomess is a true idjit. I know I'm not the brightest bulb here. That is because I am honest, and recognize talent in other people. And there is a lot of talent out there. My ego isn't getting in my way of acknowledging that. So, that makes me ten times smarter and more self-aware than Yahoomess.

Oh, and Yahoomess, I am a professional scientist, so I fully understand evidence. I also understand supercilious idjits, usually small time humanists/philosophers, who think the world revolves around them and their opinions. If you want a blog done a certain way, you are free to start one. Just stop criticizing your betters, who are actually working and producing.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/bSqpFlcvhtvUNJimueHCWgWPP__6FUvE#48845 | January 16, 2011 8:54 AM

Forbidden Snowflake, I meant insulting toward religion. Criticizing apparently isn't enough for the purposes of PZ and many others here. The name calling and other insulting remarks here go way beyond reasonable criticism.

Just a couple of other things:

Why do you think others are obliged to share your opinion, or the opinion of PZ Myers?

If what I'm saying has been addressed here many times, that obviously means that I'm not the only one who has pointed out the same or similar things. Maybe that should be a clue to you.

You're right, in a public forum you can expect responses from anyone who reads it, which is all the more reason that you and people like you shouldn't be surprised when people disagree with you or question you. And even though anyone can respond, that shouldn't mean that PZ is above answering questions.

Many of you (including PZ) have been saying the same things over and over for a long time and have addressed the same things over and over but apparently that's okay. It just isn't okay for someone to have a different train of thought, at least when it comes to some things.

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 8:59 AM

Forbidden

elzoog, I understand all of that. But you are now putting forth the claim "magazines choose their writers by the criterion of profitability", which is hardly groundbreaking, or interesting, or even opposed to the content of the OP.

Apparently, it's groundbreaking to PZ since he thinks certain writers should be writing for such magazines. Mind you, PZ has no experience running a big newspaper or magazine and so he doesn't know what would generate revenue.

I have a radical idea for you. Maybe the NY Times doesn't publish stuff by Gary Farber because doing so wouldn't generate enough revenue? Either that, or Gary Farber hasn't convinced the NY Times that he would be profitable for their business?

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | January 16, 2011 9:03 AM

elzoog,
Similarly, the reason why Gary Farber isn't employed by the NY Times is he is unable or unwilling to convince the people at the NY Times that he would generate more readership than Ross Douthat or Jonah Goldberg.

Wow, you've got it all figured out...I'm so impressed. I bet you could solve problem of unemployment in the whole world. After all, there are no possible reasons why one can't get a job except their own inadequacy.
As for making fun of me, knock yourself out. And I mean that literally. Please, knock yourself out.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 16, 2011 9:05 AM

Yes, as I'm saying, it is an "ought" claim, an "ought" claim about the ideal world! An "ought" claim about the real world would be a contradiction in terms.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Posted by: Gary Farber | January 16, 2011 9:10 AM

And these debates are why it's so easy and fun to ever ask anyone for help.

Because either you have to read them, or ignore them, and either way, it's a psychological issue, too.

Real people live at the other end of the pixels.

I mostly have a pretty thick skin. I have to.

But it's... well, many thanks to all who understand what they can, based on the information available to them.

I, Gary Farber, thank everyone.

This next is far too long, and understandable that few won't; it should have been at least three posts. I've been, um, kinda busy. Anyone who reads this, both it, and between any lines, many thanks.

And some thoughts.

Eat a good breakfast of too many links.

Have some wisdom of others, some code, and some crap by me.

Thanks again.

If you're in the Bay Area, I'm doing a monthly get together. There will be another in Februrary. Watch Obsidian Wings and
Amygdala for announcements.

Also, anyone is welcome to Facebook Friend me; just say you know me from PZ or Pharnyn. Only if interested, if course.

Will try to post on substance at either or both ObWi and Amygdala when I can. Meanwhile: a bit busy. Apologies.

best to all,
Gary Farber

Posted by: Gary Farber | January 16, 2011 9:13 AM

There will be another gathering next month. You are welcome and invited. Look for future announcements on Obsidian Wings and Amygdala.

Have fun, and be kind.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 16, 2011 9:18 AM

Let's make this clear Matt. Separate writers into two categories.

1) A writer who is a good writer, but the market will not pay him for his writing.

2) A writer who is a good writer and the market agrees that he is a good writer so he gets paid.

Well, there's also shitty writers that "the market" (all hail the greatness of our golden god, the market!) says is a good writer. There's quite a few of those.

Yes, you're not saying anything we all already know by pointing out that under the current system the media has to be more concerned with making money than with quality or truth. This sort of thing has had made news channels obsess over celebrities, newspaper hire crappy writers, and "educational" channels air programs about UFOs and other conspiracy crap. We don't have to accept it as inevitable however and can point out how it's for the worse.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 16, 2011 9:20 AM

Many of you (including PZ) have been saying the same things over and over for a long time and have addressed the same things over and over but apparently that's okay.

That's because over and over again we get fuckwits like you coming to this blog and making the same arguments. Do you think you're the first person to make the claim: "You people are so nasty and this place is an echo chamber but if you were nice and if you disagreed with PZ then I would be so much happier"?

You'll probably be gone by tonight. But in a week or so another "you guys are so mean and you're all potty mouths" fuckwit will show up making the same whines you made. And the discussion will happen once again.

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 9:30 AM

Matt

Not willing to do that. Bit pissed off you assume I would be.

Let me remind of you what you have said:

You see, whether or not Gary Farber (who PZ likes) is a better writer (in terms of making money) than Ross Douthat is a scientifically testable claim.

Whilst it is true that it is possible to work out how much writers earn and rank them that way, you would first need to show that there is a correlation between the critical reception of a writer and their earnings from their writing.

You have not shown that. In fact, given one of the best earning writers of the last few years is Dan Brown, you would have a very hard job making such a case.

Hmm, where to start.

First of all, even if Dan Brown makes more than Shakespeare, Shakespeare is still good enough to warrent spending the money on paper, binding, and so forth, to print books and try to sell them. If he wasn't, then a publishing company would lose money trying to sell his books.

I don't know whether or not you know much about how publishing companies operate, but from what I was able to discern (doing research because I was thinking of trying to get a science fiction novel published) they aren't exactly raking in the dough.

As far as critical reception, that is not a good gauge of what will make money. You can easily find examples of movies or books that got a good critical reception, but failed at the box office (or failed to be in the top selling list) and visa versa. Given that such examples are easy enough to find, it's only a stupid publisher that would use such a criteria.

The reason why someone like Roger Ebert gets paid is because people like reading his critiques and not because all moves Mr. Ebert likes, they will like.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 16, 2011 9:31 AM

The reason Rush Limbaugh makes more money than PZ Myers is that more people want to listen to what Rush Limbaugh has to say than what PZ Myers has to say.

That's not the only reason. Limbaugh also has the backing of the Republican party. So does Fox News. If you support the rich and powerful you're more likely gonna get a position in the major media conglomerates (owned by the rich and powerful) than if you spoke out against them.

Also, talking about "readership" is a bit misleading. Not all readers are created equal according to "the market". Those who are more likely to spend money are more valuable to advertisers. Also, if you are thinking of writing things that will upset your advertisers you can kiss your job good bye.

Posted by: TWood | January 16, 2011 9:35 AM

I know this post isn't really about how to make money while blogging, buuuut....

The model that seems to work best is to give away something on the blog, and include links to something that you are also selling. Seth Godin probably does it best, but he's a marketing guy, so go figure.

Another ploy is to say things that are really controversial in order to attract incoming links, and also have links on your site to your stuff for sale. Using YouTube to distribute the controversy, then following up with a DVD sold from your site - The Pat Condell model, for example.

With Kindle and ebooks, it's easier than ever to self-publish. The problem (besides being good at it) is to get attention. Saying something controversial on a regular basis is about the only way to break through the noise. Then if you ever get linked-to on a high-traffic site, be ready with something to sell.

So, say crazy shit!

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 9:38 AM

elzoog,

If you want me to read your replies at least be courteous enough to format them properly. It is normal to differentiate where you are quoting what I have said from what you then say.

However, disentangling the mess of your reply, I was unable to find anything worthwhile.

As I, and many others keep pointing out to you, critical acclaim and financial success do not always go together. When PZ was talking of good writers he was clearly using good in the sense of critical acclaim, not financial success. Therefore for you to go on about the latter is to miss the point, I suspect deliberately.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 16, 2011 9:44 AM

Yawn, Yahoomess can't get off the fact that we don't need to see the vagina dance to have have an opinion of it. Here's the thing fuckwit, you have an opinion about us without seeing us (same gottch you keep using). How do you know PZ's blog isn't being ghost written by his daughter's evil cat? The dance I can imagine in my head, and it isn't salacious or indecent.

Thank you for helping to prove my points about some (most?) of the people here.

You have no points, just inane unevidenced ideas.

The best thing to do if you do not want to be called a fuckwit is to stop being one.

QFT

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 9:47 AM

Feynmanic

Well, there's also shitty writers that "the market" (all hail the greatness of our golden god, the market!) says is a good writer. There's quite a few of those.

In order for that to happen somebody has to buy whatever it is that this "shitty writer" writes.

I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who buys a piece of writing (book or magazine) because he thinks it's a shitty piece of writing. They buy it because they enjoy reading it.

Like I said, in music I think that Jethro Tull is better than Michael Jackson but obviously the market disagrees with me. There are a lot of people who think that Michael Jackson is better than Jethro Tull. The reason I know that is because Michael Jackson got a lot more $ than Ian Anderson. And I also know that people tend to buy something because they like it. So if they buy a Michael Jackson album and don't buy a Jethro Tull album, it must be because they like Michael Jackson better.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 9:51 AM

I

n order for that to happen somebody has to buy whatever it is that this "shitty writer" writes.

I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who buys a piece of writing (book or magazine) because he thinks it's a shitty piece of writing. They buy it because they enjoy reading it.

So what ?

We know people buy shitty stuff all the time. Just look at how many people buy crappy fast food!

Popularity is not the same thing as critical acclaim. Will you finally get that into your head!

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 16, 2011 9:53 AM

In order for that to happen somebody has to buy whatever it is that this "shitty writer" writes.

I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who buys a piece of writing (book or magazine) because he thinks it's a shitty piece of writing. They buy it because they enjoy reading it.

Some people enjoy shitty writing. Your point?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/bSqpFlcvhtvUNJimueHCWgWPP__6FUvE#48845 | January 16, 2011 9:57 AM

beatrice, I haven't stated a "conclusion" about the Vagina Dance. I haven't said whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. Since I haven't seen it I would be being presumptuous if I made any claims about whether it's a reasonable teaching demonstration or not. You have missed the point of my comments.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 16, 2011 10:01 AM

You have missed the point of my comments.

No, we understand your stoopidity. We are wrong, you are right according to your comments. Except you aren't right, just inane, tedious, and boring. Which we all recognize.

Posted by: elronxenu | January 16, 2011 10:03 AM

elzoog #127,

The reason I know that is because Michael Jackson got a lot more $ than Ian Anderson.

You sure about that? I got the impression that Michael Jackson was pretty much broke before he died (posthumous popularity notwithstanding) due to rampant insane spending whereas Ian Anderson is a pretty savvy businessman known for his frugality.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | January 16, 2011 10:09 AM

I'm so disappointed to learn that commenters here have to agree with PZ on everything. I came here when someone on an email list linked to one of his anti-homeschooling posts and stayed, despite being (gasp) a long-time homeschooling parent. I was further misled by PZ's mild-mannered courtesy when he met me and the homeschooled Spawn at Skepticon. Where must I turn in my much treasured Molly?

And I've rarely heard such enthusiastic support for the religious belief in the strong efficiency of markets. Even the law-and-economics crowd at the University of Chicago in the 1980s weren't quite so cluelessly confident as elzoog, and believe me, they were pretty annoying.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 10:18 AM

elzoog,

You seem to be repeating yourself. Since you were wrong, and dishonest, before, you will not become right, and honest, by virtue of repetition.

And do not use the italics tag to your comments from quotes. What do you think the blockquote tag is for ? Why the lack of courtesy by using common conventions ?

You keep going on about market forces ? Why ? The market does not decide what is good, in a critical sense. PZ was talking about what was good in a critical sense. Stick to that sense and quit the dishonest substitution of popularity as being a measure of critical acclaim.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 16, 2011 10:27 AM

That's like me saying that Ian Anderson should be a billionaire because his stuff is better than Michael Jackson's.

No, that's like you saying "man, if people had a good taste in music, I.A. would be a billionaire instead of M.J.". The first part is important. Likewise, the OP, as I understand it, says something like "if magazines would hire writers based on talent, rather than inertia and marketing considerations, these guys would write for the NYT instead of those guys". The emphasized part isn't said explicitly, but it can quite clearly be inferred from the next sentence: "But, unfortunately, when the NY Times goes looking for columnists, writing skills and cogent commentary aren't among the qualifications".

If A, than B. But, unfortunately, not B, so not A.
The first part can be ommited because its meaning is contained within the second.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 16, 2011 10:38 AM

Matt, stating an opinion as though it's a fact is misleading and dishonest. Many (most?) people here don't like it when religious people state their beliefs (opinions) as though they are facts. Why should scientists be treated any differently?

Do you expect religious people to back up their claims with tangible, verifiable evidence? Shouldn't scientists be held to the same or even a stricter standard since they're the ones who claim to rely on tangible, verifiable evidence?

It's funny how you dismissed PZ's comment as "hearsay".

I usually do that by separating them out using italic tags. Apparently that didn't work

Of course it doesn't. ScienceBorg software closes most tags at the first empty line (double linebreak). <blockquote>, which you should try using, is an exception... on most browsers.

and this blog doesn't allow me to edit comments after I have posted them.

This, too, is a ScienceBorg-wide issue. First, no login was necessary or even possible anywhere on ScienceBorg; then, some ScienceBorg blogs started accepting logins from Movable Type, Typekey/Typepad, Wordpress, Yahoo!, Google, Vox (now defunct) and Livejournal in addition to the normal way of typing in one's name and e-mail address every time anew; then, PZ made login obligatory to keep most spambots out. There is no way to log in to ScienceBorg, and therefore to way to edit one's ScienceBorg comments.

Big newspapers and magazines are businesses and therefore, are subject to market forces.

They are. PZ knows this, but wishes they weren't; that's what his "ought" statement is about.

PZ Myer's [sic] blog would, at best, be about 50 people

ROTFLMAO! Several thousand page views per day. 50 might be the number of people who write 10 or more comments daily!

If I write a science fiction novel, it's not good enough for me to think it's good. It's also not good enough for me to send you a copy and for you to think it's good. If I want a publishing company to publish it, I have to convince them that my novel is worthy of publishing.

Again you're talking about "is". PZ is talking about "ought".

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 10:51 AM

In Feb '08 PZ left this comment at Larry Moran's blog:

Pharyngula gets around 40,000+ visits per day (60,000+ views), or over a million visits a month. I had to look those up just now; I try to avoid fretting over traffic numbers too much, because they just wobble all over the place.

[Rest snipped]

Considerably more than 50 me thinks. Still, why let facts get in the way!

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 11:13 AM

David,

As per your sugestion, I will try using blockquote instead of italic tags

Big newspapers and magazines are businesses and therefore, are subject to market forces.

They are. PZ knows this, but wishes they weren't; that's what his "ought" statement is about.

The problem is, what other alternative do you have?

In order to print a magazine you need paper, glossy stuff, and ink. To get it to a store like Barnes and Nobles you need transportation.

All of this stuff costs money in the system we have. In order for big newspapers and magazines to not operate under market forces, you would pretty much have to do away with a market economy altogether.

There are no examples of a non-market economy operating any better than market ones. In fact, the only examples of non-market economies I can think of are primitive tribes in Africa or South America. None of these tribes I'm thinking of would have the capability of producing a magazine or newspaper. Even heavily socialist countries in Europe have market economies. Communist countries like China and Vietnam have market economies. Even the really strict communist country of North Korea (I live close enough to walk there) has a market economy (although it is heavily controlled).

So as far as PZ wishing they weren't influenced by the market, that's kind of like wishing that there was a god in the sky that takes care of us. There's just no way I can see either working in reality.

ROTFLMAO! Several thousand page views per day. 50 might be the number of people who write 10 or more comments daily!

Keep in mind those "page views" are the publishing equivalent of someone going to Barnes and Nobles, looking at a book, and then putting it back on the rack.

Again you're talking about "is". PZ is talking about "ought".

Well, what alternative to a "market" do you propose? Certainly nothing that we have in actual reality.

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 11:24 AM

Matt

Considerably more than 50 me thinks. Still, why let facts get in the way!

The 50 was an estimate of how many people, if I were to post my science fiction novel on this blog, would comment on it (either it's good, or it sucks). Even 50 is probably WAY too big of a number.

The 40,000+ visits per day are the equivalent of people who go to the book store, look at a book, then put it back in the rack.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 11:28 AM

The 50 was an estimate of how many people, if I were to post my science fiction novel on this blog, would comment on it (either it's good, or it sucks). Even 50 is probably WAY too big of a number.

Yeah right. I believe you.

Posted by: llewelly | January 16, 2011 11:47 AM

elzoog | January 16, 2011 10:50 AM:

To be honest, the people here seem to believe in magical thinking just as much as religionists do.

Only after a dishonest idiot like you has egregiously misrepresented people's positions.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 16, 2011 11:53 AM

Somehow, in the PZ fantasy world, there is nobody who has to foot the bill for publishing these things and therefore has to make a decision as to what's risky and what's not.

Yes!!! That's because the PZ fantasy world is the world that PZ thinks ought to be, not the world that PZ knows is.

How often do we need to repeat it?

The problem is, what other alternative do you have?

Who cares? PZ says "I want a pony". He hasn't offered any suggestions on how to turn the world that is into the world that ought to be; he has not even said that trying to do so would either be a good thing in general or be at all possible. He's just lamenting the badness of the world.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 11:58 AM

So, you are saying that Gary Farber being published in the NY Times instead of Ross Douthat is just wishful thinking on the part of PZ.

Finally you have got there. Pity you did not then stop.

How fucking long did it take you ?

I think you owe us all an apology for being so fucking slow on the uptake.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 12:05 PM

Jebus, but this post drew in a fine crop of blithering inane morons overnight, didn't it?

Now PZ, surely you should be letting the market decide what is fine. Who the fuck are you to say!

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 12:10 PM

Feynmaniac

That's not the only reason. Limbaugh also has the backing of the Republican party. So does Fox News. If you support the rich and powerful you're more likely gonna get a position in the major media conglomerates (owned by the rich and powerful) than if you spoke out against them.

Also, talking about "readership" is a bit misleading. Not all readers are created equal according to "the market". Those who are more likely to spend money are more valuable to advertisers. Also, if you are thinking of writing things that will upset your advertisers you can kiss your job good bye.

These advertisers also do a hell of a lot of research into the market including, looking at the buying habits of people in supermarkets. Hence the reason for things like the "Kroger Plus Card".

In order for Rush Limbaugh to stay on top, he has to be a lot more savy about his audience (i.e. the Republican party) than PZ seems to be about his. The same goes for Howard Stern. Same goes for Tom Leykis

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 12:19 PM

So, how is that different than wishing there was a Santa Claus?

It is possible to conceive of a society in which PZ's vision could come to pass whereas Santa is a physical impossibility. It has not always been the case that the dross was what was popular. There is nothing to say it has to be that way in future.

Now did you give us that apology for being so slow on the uptake, or did your manners desert you ?

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 12:22 PM

Nerd of Redhead

I think liberturds like elzoog just can't grasp the concept that not everything in life has to do with economics, nor should it.

Yeah because we all know that big magazines and newspapers (those things that PZ complains aren't publishing who he likes) get their paper from Paper Daddy. They get the ink from Little Girl Curl. People buy their magazines using money from a government program called "Buy Newspaper Welfare". They decide which columnist to published by putting their name on pieces of paper, putting them into a bag and putting it under their bed at night. Then the Green Leprechaun comes in and pulls a piece of paper out and lays it on their forehead when they sleep.

If you have something that you can prove is better than the market for getting these sorts of things, then let's hear it Nerd or Redhead.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 16, 2011 12:32 PM

If you have something that you can prove is better than the market for getting these sorts of things, then let's hear it Nerd or Redhead.

Market has nothing to do with wishes, and you have shown nothing otherwise. Which you should know, and apologize for, for being slow on the uptake. Let's hear "I'm sorry" from you to those of us who got PZ in one.

You also confuse writing talent with position. The need of newspapers/magazines is for speed, not good quality writing ability. They just hope to be able to edit it into something the readers can tolerate. So real writers who can put coherent sentences and paragraphs together, which take time, go elsewhere.

Not everything has to do with economics. Show me otherwise...

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 12:33 PM

Matt

It is possible to conceive of a society in which PZ's vision could come to pass whereas Santa is a physical impossibility.

I say it's just as impossible for PZ's vision to come to pass as it is for Santa Claus. Both are based on wishful thinking that have nothing to do with reality.

I already explained that a big magazine or newspaper needs money to operate. In fact, all of the things I mention in my posts are just the tip of the iceberg as far as the costs of producing a magazine or newspaper and putting it on the stand for you to buy.

There are no examples of any kind of entirely non-market societies working well in reality. Even the most socialist country you can think of, still has a system where you can buy or sell things like magazines or newspapers.

I guess you could imagine a money-less society like Star Trek, but weren't there some recent posts about how inaccurate Star Trek is scientifically?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 16, 2011 12:39 PM

I've been thinking of giving money for starving children, but then I realized that if they were worthy they'd already have money and food.

So that's all good.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 12:44 PM

Do you honestly think that consumers all have equal access to everything possible and choose what they like best from the entirety of offerings?

I think his answer would be that if an offering was good people would be aware of it. If they are not, then by definition, it cannot be good.

I don't think elzoog has this thinking thing worked out yet.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 16, 2011 12:48 PM

I don't think elzoog has this thinking thing worked out yet.

Liberturds don't. Otherwise, they wouldn't be liberturds, as the problems with that economic theory aren't that hard to see.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | January 16, 2011 12:57 PM

I have no complaint about that. I also have no complaint about the NY Times sending money to support Ross Douthat in exchange for him writing articles for them. PZ seems to have a complaint about that though.

I noticed that professor Myers is really grateful for your explanations about how he can't have an opinion about someone's writing because it isn't economically feasible.

I think this particular market has been saturated with your wisdom. Improve or back off. You've been repeating yourself over and over again.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 1:06 PM

It's not necessarily inevitable. Only that in reality, they are more popular. Just like Michael Jackson is more popular than Ian Anderson despite the fact that I like Ian Anderson better.

If you want to try to convince enough people that Farber should be more popular than Douthat or Goldberg, you are free to try. Just don't expect to be successful.

No, you have said it is inevitable. You admited as much earlier. Please stop lying about what you have said.

Apologize for what?

For being so slow on the uptake.

Do you not feel the need to apologise when you have done something wrong ?

You have been asked several times now, and really, you should not have had to be prompted in the first place. You really should be adult enough to admit you were wrong without needing a grown-up to tell you.

Why the lies ?

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 1:13 PM

PZ

Elzoog: Zealous and obtuse are not qualities that go well together, and you are combining both to a fanatical degree. You have completely misrepresented this post and gone off on a bizarre tangent

A bizarre tangent that is entirely your fault PZ. If you wanted to say that Gary Farber is a better writer than Ross Douthat and leave it at that I wouldn't have responded the way I did.

Instead, you said, and I quote
"they're all good, thoughtful, interesting people…and they ought to be writing for the big magazines or newspapers"

It's the "ought to be writing for the big magazines or newspapers" that I take issue with.

A "big magazine or newspaper" because it operates in a milieu that includes market forces, has to consider that milieu if it wants to be successful. Otherwise the "big magazine or newspaper" wouldn't be able to publish ANYTHING good or not.

Besides whether or not X is a good writer, they have to worry about

1) Whether or not X will hurt them financially. This one seems to confuse your commenters.

2) Whether or not X will piss off the advertisers that advertise in the newspaper.

3) Whether or not X will write something slanderous, or otherwise illegal according to the laws of the city, state, or federal government.

The commenters on this blog, can't even understand 1 which is why I haven't bothered to mention 2 or 3 yet.

Posted by: elzoog | January 16, 2011 1:16 PM

Matt

No, you have said it is inevitable. You admited as much earlier. Please stop lying about what you have said.

Please quote EXACTLY where I said it was inevitable. Either that, or admit yourself you it's you who is lying.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 1:23 PM

Please quote EXACTLY where I said it was inevitable. Either that, or admit yourself you it's you who is lying.

Already done.

Repeated since you are so stupid.

I say it's just as impossible for PZ's vision to come to pass as it is for Santa Claus. Both are based on wishful thinking that have nothing to do with reality.

I think you need to go.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 16, 2011 1:26 PM

I can only imagine the rant elzoog would go on if someone said something like "I can't believe the price of milk has gone up again!" in front of him. He'd probably give them a full course in economy right there in the supermarket.

He would probably go on about how it was ridiculous to not believe it, since the evidence is right in front of you.

elzoog does not do figures of speech. Or thinking. Or even saying sorry it seems.

He does not accept he is in the wrong even when the "market" tells him he is.

Piss poor manners the boy has.

Posted by: Marc Abian | January 16, 2011 1:28 PM

I say it's just as impossible for PZ's vision to come to pass as it is for Santa Claus.

So elzoog...Santa Claus, inevitable or not?

Elzoog, you're arguing against a claim that was never made. Believe it or not, people are aware of the existence the market and that paper isn't free.

Think of what PZ says as "people ought to like reading these bloggers more than the bad columnists in the NYT."

I haven't seen anyone miss the point this badly since Claudio Scajola.

The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace.

Posted by: Marc Abian | January 16, 2011 1:33 PM

It always stuck me as odd that advertising on the internet is always taked about in terms of clicking the ad, when advertising in any other medium just needs the audience to note the ad. Why is this?

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | January 16, 2011 2:12 PM

You know, I think the point that elzoog doesn't get is that there is more than one way for a market to work.

In the current model, a media outlet--be it a blog, a newspaper of a TV station--simply tries to maximize eyes on copy, so that it can maximize eyes on advertisements. Since most eyes are not in front of first-class gray matter, this involves catering to gray matter that is not only not first-class, but on the side of the IQ curve that is shallow and gently rising. OK, it accomplishes the goal of maximizing the potential audience.

Unfortunately, every media outlet winds up involved in a race to the bottom to attract the eyes of those last few drooling troglodytes. And what is more, none of the media outlets attracts the eyes of its intended audience for any appreciable time. The microsecond that it challenges them or their prejudices in any way, they flip the channel or switch blogs or...

Might it now be possible, now that we can get a couple of hundred channels of identical shit on out TV, that we could convert some of those channels to actually cater to the upper end of the IQ curve. Granted there aren't many of us, but we'd certainly be a grateful audience to find something that wasn't utterly banal and which might challenge our minds, and even our preconceptions and prejudices.

Maybe, just maybe, there are ecological niches other than the ones into which everybody is trying to fit themselves.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | January 16, 2011 2:18 PM

I for one have never disagreed with PZ Myers, let alone criticized him, and certainly not in harsh terms. And I never will.

Anyway, what's wrong with wanting to be worshipped as a god? Look at these rock hard abs...

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | January 16, 2011 2:48 PM

(I looked down, and I had the body of a heavy reader)

Posted by: SEF | January 16, 2011 4:01 PM

@ jafafahots #202:

Part of why they make money on the classified adverts is that they pay the writers so little. NB not the original submitters (who are the ones who do the paying!) but the backroom staff who have to read the largely illegible and barely literate scrawl and convert it into something sensible while typing it in and making it fit the page. It was one of the sillier temp jobs I had for a while ...

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 16, 2011 4:18 PM

The market will prove Shakespeare is a better writer than Dan Brown.

What do market sales have to do with writing quality?

Posted by: SEF | January 16, 2011 4:21 PM

special, non-market, non-economical treatment in his own time?

That tended to come in the form of the patronage of royalty and other nobility (or possibly of the papacy, in countries more afflicted by that). The general populace was far less of a market force then and it was even more about who you knew. Rather like the voting public are still insignificant in regards to choice of political policy compared with big corporations and other monetised pressure groups.

Posted by: SEF | January 16, 2011 4:33 PM

Yet, it still pays shit.

Much of the internet is very different from TV though (the online back catalogues of TV channels and YouTube etc being the most similar areas). It tends to require the active attention of someone moderately literate to notice and choose to read an advert on the internet, instead of having stuff forcefed to them in between batches of some non-advert content which has sent them into a suitably zombie-like state.

They could try putting advert breaks into online games but the players necessarily have to be more alert to be interacting with that content than with TV/radio and are even more likely to take a toilet/tea break during adverts.

Find a type of internet content which has the right stupefying effect on the people it has sucked in (such that they aren't even voluntarily changing pages any more) and you'll have found the right venue to place your paying adverts.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 16, 2011 6:43 PM

He's gone, but I just have to say it...

So, how is that different than wishing there was a Santa Claus?

As long as you keep in mind that Santa Claus doesn't exist, is it somehow evil to wish he did?

elzoog acted as if PZ had to be punished for saying that the Earth is not heaven.

Or the notion that EVERYBODY in the US (without exception) has a gun.

At 90 guns for 100 inhabitants, the US isn't all that far away from everybody having a gun. Yes, I know that many gun owners have more than one gun, so it doesn't translate to 90 % of Americans having one; still, it's way too close for comfort.

It always stuck me as odd that advertising on the internet is always ta[l]ked about in terms of clicking the ad, when advertising in any other medium just needs the audience to note the ad.

On ScienceBlogs, page views are counted, not clicks.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 16, 2011 7:41 PM

But all that says is the objectivity of a worth of art is measured by its popularity. This can only make sense if you treat art as arbitrary, such that the measure of its worth is consumption. And that, to me, deprives it of being art.

Posted by: montejo | January 16, 2011 8:07 PM

Unless of course you have an economic system that rewards irrational behavior; in that case, anything goes.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 16, 2011 8:34 PM

Just to elaborate, you defined art in such a way that objectivity came through popularity. My response was that by doing so that doesn't capture what art is, and makes an arbitrary standard by which to judge art. You could determine the fitness of humans by seeing how many colours they could name - that would be an objective measurement, but it would be completely arbitrary.

The question, as far as the conjecture is concerned, what makes popularity a non-arbitrary objective measure of art? Arbitrariness, and not subjectivity, should be the undesirable attribute to a rational mind. The subjectivity doesn't necessarily take away from a greater meaning, but arbitrariness does!

Posted by: Timaahy | January 16, 2011 8:47 PM

Christians believe the bible is a history book, and history 'aint art.

But to the rest of us, it's a collection of idiotic, internally-inconsisent stories punctuated by the questionable moral teachings of a jealous god prone to random massacres.

So I'd call it art. But it's the art equivalent of a finger painting. By someone with no fingers.

Posted by: montejo | January 16, 2011 9:21 PM

I'm not saying objectivity is defined by what's popular at the moment, but that what's popular will eventually follow objectivity so long as a society rewards rational thinking. The problem with the Bible is that past societies haven't rewarded rational thinking; pious people were given special privileges by governments with absolute and arbitrary authority. If economic power had to be earned through the free market, why would people continue to value the Bible more than Shakespeare?

Even if a society lost all its knowledge and went back to the stone age, as long as it rewarded rational thinking, people would judge Shakespeare to be more valuable than the Bible. People might make up their own creation myths and value them more than Shakespeare for a while, but not the Bible more than Shakespeare.

Posted by: montejo | January 16, 2011 10:08 PM

Yeah, sounds accurate to me.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/.ESzU4YkvpCaGVcc_gE_bwoO_nHc#3d697 | January 17, 2011 3:05 AM

beatrice, in response to your #138 comments, I'll try to explain my position about PZ's "PRUUUUUUDES!" post:

Based on your user name I'll assume you're a woman. I've never met or seen you. I don't know what you look like or how old you are. Now, let's say that someone tells me that you are ugly and fat and old, and that you are a bible thumping republican.

So, I take that person's word for it and I go to my blog and say that you're ugly, fat, old, and a bible thumping republican, and I make fun of you and insult you and anyone who thinks that you're not ugly, fat, old, and a bible thumping republican. Add to this that it's typical for me to insult and ridicule people who are ugly, fat, old, and bible thumping republicans on my blog, and also add that I pass myself off on my blog as being an expert on such things. I'm a "professor".

Now, would you think I was being fair and that I had relied on tangible, verifiable evidence of my claims about you, or would you think that I was being an uninformed jerk?

You see, for all I know you're a beautiful, young, slim, non-theistic democrat, or who knows what. The point being that I don't know and shouldn't take anyone's word for it, and especially if I'm going to blog about it and ridicule and insult you and others to make myself look like some sort of big shot expert.

My complaint with PZ is that he assumes things, accepts hearsay, makes up his own biased bullshit, and then proceeds to write it up as though it's expert testimony that is unquestionable and proven. As a self-proclaimed scientist he should know better.

And what a lot of people here and elsewhere don't realize is that when a so-called scientist/expert/professor doesn't abide by any reasonable standard of evidence before spouting off about something, and says things on his blog as though they are facts, that are no more tangible, verifiable, or proven than the ravings of a street corner evangelist, a lot of people are going to see what he writes here as just a bunch of biased, baseless, narrow minded bullshit.

There's nothing wrong with PZ having and stating his opinions. However, there is a lot wrong with him stating things as though they are facts when he's relying on hearsay, guesses, or simply his own biases.

PZ seems to be more interested in tabloid style journalism than in making sure he has the actual, verifiable evidence before spouting off. I hate to think that he likely uses the same modus operandi in his scientific pursuits.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/.ESzU4YkvpCaGVcc_gE_bwoO_nHc#3d697 | January 17, 2011 4:19 AM

PZ, I want to add that if you and your worshipers think that banning me or elzoog or anyone else who simply doesn't kiss your ass is some sort of victory for you and this blog, think again. You're the ones who are limiting yourselves and this blog. Banning people, and viciously insulting anyone you don't like, makes you look just like the religious and/or political zealots who want to stifle and eradicate anything or anyone that doesn't fit their narrow view of how things should be.

Someone above mentioned your "target audience". You'll never get anything accomplished by only catering to a particular audience. You see, they're already convinced. It's the people who disagree with you that you should be trying to reach. Thinking small will keep you small.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 17, 2011 4:31 AM

You'll never get anything accomplished by only catering to a particular audience. You see, they're already convinced.

I always hate this argument. It's like the only conversation worth having is one that's going to bring someone around to your way of thinking. Not about perhaps building a community, not about sharing knowledge - if you're not preaching to a hostile audience then it's not worth doing... apparently

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/.ESzU4YkvpCaGVcc_gE_bwoO_nHc#3d697 | January 17, 2011 4:52 AM

Kel, what kind of "community" results from hate, rage, insults, ridicule, stifling, banning, etc.? And how is that "sharing knowledge"?

Think about this: Religious people try to reach everyone they possibly can, and they're pretty successful at it. PZ and many others here obviously hate religion, and would like to see it go away. If PZ's reason for having this blog isn't to try to get people to shun religion, then what is this blog for?

If this blog were only here to share knowledge about science and nature, there wouldn't be any rants here, by PZ or anyone else, or at least no rants about religion. Whatever science there may be on this blog is lost in the vitriol about religion. If people want to see vitriol about religion and/or politics they come here. If they want to see science or nature they would have to go somewhere else.

Is a community just a bunch of robots who all march to exactly the same beat? Religious zealots often think so. Do you?

Posted by: Nij | January 17, 2011 5:18 AM

what kind of "community" results from hate, rage, insults, ridicule, stifling, banning, etc.? And how is that "sharing knowledge"?

One that is more tolerant to the usage of mere words, as opposed to the actual message they deliver. As for banning, one that is less insipid, less moronic and less blindly anti-knowledge. And, the sharing of knowledge? I'll explain this as simply as possible: do not conflate the comments in which vitriol is used to assault the idiotic populist notions of religion with the precision and care in which PZ explains all manner of scientific research. Look at the posts he makes in the science category, especially those tagged as "blogging about peer reviewed research". I see very little railing against cultism there, and it's drowned out by the discussions of the implications of the research being described; whenever it does happen, it's invariably some kind of anti-science idiot denouncing what they disagree with.

Most of the rest of your comment is a bunch of bullshit about the way PZ handles his blog. Well, I hate to break this news to you, but nowhere does it say this blog is specifically and only about science and nature. And even if you disagree with that, and continue to decry the blog as merely a venue for anticultism, guess what? Nobody is forcing you to read it*.
So do everyone a favour, and fuck off.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 17, 2011 5:27 AM

If you want science you can go here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/science/

And so what if this blog isn't only about science? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't blog about?

Posted by: Timaahy | January 17, 2011 5:50 AM

And I don't think your point at #225 has any relevance.

Let's assume for a moment that the people making the complaint are absolute beacons of truth. What's the worst they had to say about the class? That the teacher wacked some porn on the projector? That she whipped out her own vagina and said "Look kids, if you tilt your heads just right you can see my fallopians"?

Well, no... the worst they had to say was that "to the tune of the Hokey Pokey, Levin led her class in a puerile dance that involved pointing to and singing about reproductive body parts while prancing about the classroom".

"Prude" doesn't even begin to describe the idiotic thinking that would object to that class, and PZ was absolutely justified to call them out on it. Their own words gave them away, not the heresay you're alleging.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | January 17, 2011 5:53 AM

Yahoomess, Expressing an opinion contrary to PZ's or to anyone else on this blog will not get you banned. Continuously droning on and on about your opinion while demonstrating an utter inability to support it with evidence, however, is insipid and boring. Those will get you banned. Elzoog failed spectacularly to support his opinions in over 20 posts--several after he received the ban threat.

In doing so, he added yet more empirical evidence that glibertarians are incapable of supporting their anti-social view of human reality. It was his failure to support his views that got him banned, not the views themselves.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | January 17, 2011 6:05 AM

Yahoomess: "I think I've been real tolerant..."

Well, of poor grammar, certainly. Of other viewpoints...not so much.

Yahoomess: "I may not always remain that way,..."

Ooh, jump down, get back. A threat! Where are my pearls to clutch? Where's my fainting couch? Go ahead, we could use the laughs.

Yahoomess: "...and I'm perfectly justified in responding in kind if I choose to do so."

If you can. Cupcake, you strike me as the sort who is utterly incapable of anything resembling wit. I'll bet people laugh at you when you cuss them out, don't they? Among other times. Go ahead. Respond "in kind." Let's see how you fare.

Pass the popcorn, please.

Posted by: Roestigraben | January 17, 2011 6:07 AM

For what it's worth, those doubting the ability of regulars to criticize PZ might want to have a look at this thread, which quickly filled up with hundreds of spirited rebuttals when PZ sided with Ebert's rather stupid point about video games not being art. He was never able to justify his opinion on this matter, and accordingly, just about every one of the commenters ripped his arguments to shreds and called him out on it.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 17, 2011 6:35 AM

1. Post vitriolic and fallacy-ridden criticism of PZ in the comments, for all to see.
2. Await objections from commentariat.
3. Based on the fact that the commentariat responds to criticism of PZ, accuse commentariat of worshipping PZ.
4. Add whining about tone, negativity, dismissiveness of religion, use of naughty words. Use above as shield to protect self from understanding the point of what is being said.
5. ???
6. Profit!!!

Now, what did I leave out?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/.ESzU4YkvpCaGVcc_gE_bwoO_nHc#3d697 | January 17, 2011 7:55 AM

Some of you, at least, would be wise to consider these comments made above, and how they apply to you:

"Continuously droning on and on about your opinion while demonstrating an utter inability to support it with evidence, however, is insipid and boring."

"A large amount of verbiage doesn't mean a strong argument."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 17, 2011 8:02 AM

Some of you, at least, would be wise to consider these comments made above,

Consider anything said by you cogent mr. strawman? I don't think so Tim. Your authority and cogency is all in your head.

I'll give your idiocy at #248 0.3 starfarts, but only because it was deliberate.

Posted by: Nij | January 17, 2011 8:28 AM

Oh, by the way, some of you, at least, are fudge packing,
Yes, several members are probably homosexual, and I think at least one explicitly states so in their pseudonym.

cock sucking,

No doubt; many of the women are in long-term relationships.

brainless,

That's pushing it. Well actually, there is a troll infestation at the moment, so this is indeed true for "some of [us]" where "us" refers to the collective group of all commentators

arrogant,

Hey, just because we're cool. Yes, that was sarcasm, for those impaired of the ability to discern it.

childish,

Excuse me, but NERF guns are perfectly sized for the average adult male.

ignorant,

All of us are ignorant of something. What matters is that we recognise what we are ignorant of.

imbecilic,

Again, troll problem recently, don't blame the regulars.

inane,

Um... I don't precisely know what this means (although I treat it as something resembling "boring" combined with "repetitive" and "simplistic" as well as a touch of "behind-the-time"). Sorry, no witty repartee for this one.

insane,

Again, fuck you. Mental disorders are not something to be made light of, as the recent Arizona shootings demonstrate.

loud-mouthed,

poorly raised,

Anecdote: my father was an alcholic. Couple that with an antisocial disorder (possibly the result of a minor ASD, but I've never been diagnosed formally) and consequently I had few adult male role models in my life. It's been a struggle, but I am a far better person than many because of it. I don't know if that would be "poorly raised" to you, but it probably counts as such to some.

uneducated,

classless,

Only until mid-February; I'll be back in the lecture halls then.

ugly,

For someone who was decrying the making of opinion based on a lack of evidence, that was surely hypocritical.

stupid, smelly, rancid, trollish,

Told you already. PZ banhammers them whenever he can, but he does have a professional teaching job too so he can't cover all of the time.

lice infested,

Well, I bathe regularly enough and wear clean clothes, change my bedsheets every week or so, vacuum-clean the house too. Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure most are honest enough to jump in here and say so if they are.

robotic,

Well, if you consider anything operating on the basis of very simple physical and chemical laws of its own accord to be a "robot", that includes you too. Then again, if you mean something that is trained to act in a certain way, then you might also be describing those with OCD or higher autism disorders.

Either way, not seeing how this is meant to be bad.

PZ worshiping

Speak for yourself. As pointed out to you multiple times, almost everyone here has disagreed with PZ on occasion. Hardly "worshipping". Plus you still didn;t show us where the shrines or temples are. One more block on your hypocrisy about evidence.

fuckwit cupcakes with delusions of Godhood

I did see a funny parody of this part on xkcd the other day; I think this is it?


Oh, that's all? Huh. I give you a 2 for creativity, and a 3 for anger and vitriol. Not really the best attempt at abuse; maybe you should stick to preaching gospel in a cathedral and/or buggering the altar boys?

Posted by: Nij | January 17, 2011 8:32 AM

Fuck.
Preview is your friend, preview is your friend...

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | January 17, 2011 9:53 AM

Oh look, yahoomess's brain exploded.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 17, 2011 9:57 AM

Hey PZ, you fat, hairy bag of shit in a rocking chair, you said:

"Something does emerge out of nothing all the time"

Prove it.

Virtual particles

Posted by: KG | January 17, 2011 10:11 AM

Religious people try to reach everyone they possibly can, and they're pretty successful at it. - yahoomess

Yes, scams based on unsupported claims, bigotry, and empty threats and promises unfortunately do succeed all too often - and religion is only the most prominent area in which this is true. Evidently, their success pleases you; there, we differ.

Posted by: KG | January 17, 2011 10:32 AM

Reason is the only thing that ever helped people survive; faith and superstition have only been recreational pursuits. - James

Not true. To give just one counter-example, in any society where exhibiting a lack of faith in the local superstition can get you killed, having that faith helps you survive. Pretending to have a faith you don't have is difficult.

Posted by: montejo | January 17, 2011 11:23 AM

Pretending to have a faith you don't have is difficult.

You wouldn't call it reason that recognized the threat from the superstitious locals?

Posted by: KG | January 17, 2011 11:46 AM

James@265. Yes of course. But you completely miss the point. You claimed faith and superstition could never help you survive, and I gave a clear counter-example: in the circumstances I outlined, you'd survive better if you had faith in the local superstition than if you were rational, even if the latter led you to pretend to have that faith - because doing so is hard.

What else would market forces tend towards if not objectivity?

Why do you assume they would "tend towards" anything in particular? There is no reason to believe that there is a long-term equilibrium in the valuation of art at all. Moreover, Shakespeare (as is also true of writers of much less merit) is kept on the shelves in large part because he's part of the school and university curricula, which are largely self-perpetuating, because the teachers have themselves been taught him, the critics have written about him, etc. Your triple identification of market forces, survival and artistic value is very simplistic.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 17, 2011 12:14 PM

Oh, and... I really don't think the Tunisians want another dictator now that they finally got rid of theirs.

Pretending to have a faith you don't have is difficult.

Depends. It's easy to pretend to believe in an all-encompassing ideology (communism, Catholicism...) that provides one correct answer for every possible question: you simply learn all the answers by heart – which is the same thing you'd do if you actually believed in it.

Posted by: The Sailor | January 17, 2011 12:33 PM

An objective person would regard the Bible as a work of art.But are they as good as Shakespeare? Probably not, but I haven't read much of either.

There is no 'objective' judgment of art. It is inherently subjective. ++++++++++++

"As far as Ross Douthat. If he was so terrible that nobody liked him, then readership of the NY Times would go down. If the readership goes down and the NY Times could prove that it's because of Ross Douthat, the NY Times would fire him pretty quickly."

The NYT isn't losing money, they are losing profit margin since they hired those (including Goldberg) clowns.

If they would switch to pure porn I'm sure their margin would go back up.
++++++++++++++++++++

"By the way, South Korea ranks towards the top in the world as far as math and science education. "

Oh wait, I think I've heard this argument before. I for one welcome my new asian overlords. Pfft.
+++++++++++++++++
Considering how the OP was just a nice harmless request to help out some folks that PZ admires their writing, does anyone else think that including the name of Goldberg and Douchehat triggered some preset RSS/Google search for all things written about them?
++++++++++++++++
BTW, I have totally seen the vagina dance, I gave it 2 thumbs up ... I may have phrased that awkwardly. But that's a different thread, try to concentrate, Yahoomess. Or at least take your meds.

Posted by: The Sailor | January 17, 2011 1:08 PM

That's what the market is--it rewards rational and objective thinking. - James

Has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read here. The 'market' awards thieves who take advantage of ignorance, sexual frustration and greed.

Posted by: The Sailor | January 17, 2011 1:57 PM

A thief is one who takes from another what is rightfully theirs thru force or deceit.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 17, 2011 2:49 PM

How is it irrational to take advantage of ignorance, sexual frustration, and greed?

Well it is irrational if you have morals and aren't a totally selfish jerk.

Posted by: The Sailor | January 17, 2011 8:13 PM

Ahh, Yahoomess; crack, thwip, ommph, "owww!"

Posted by: The Sailor | January 17, 2011 9:10 PM

Damn, Mattir, I missed James and hit Yahoomess. Sorry, my bad. I really have to correct the sights on my tranq blow tube. It keeps wandering to the right. It could be my astigmatism.

Posted by: drbunsen | January 18, 2011 1:23 PM

Jethro Tull suck - FACT. Anyone who claims otherwise has automagically invalidated anything else they might have to say.

Unrelated: Speaking as a trained singer, there is some technical merit to the claim that Michael Jackson is "objectively" a better singer than Ian Anderson.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to tend to my shrine to PZ as an avatar of Ganesh. It's next to the Oppenheimer.