Thus Spake Zuska

A Mournful Complaint

I just had to share this very recent comment with you all:

I would actually very much like to avoid this blog (and a few others), but the ScienceBlogs channels – which I prefer to having to subscribe to each and every blog individually – won’t let me do so. I usually just skip over the posts, but if there is any way to stop the “content” here from cluttering up my feeds, I’d appreciate hearing about it.

Lazy, whiny, insulting misogyny asking for help in maintaining the lazy, whiny, misogynistic state – you gotta love it. That takes balls, I suppose – if by balls you mean arrogant whiny ignorance.

Comments

  1. #1 John McKay
    April 8, 2008

    You really should have some kind of prize for that level of chutzpah.

  2. #2 decrepitoldfool
    April 8, 2008

    “Excuse me, but the very minor effort of hitting “page down” while reading my RSS feed is too taxing for my right index finger. And configuring several individual RSS feeds, well that would also be out of the question. Could you please tell me how I can avoid being reminded that people I disagree with even exist?”

    You know, there’s probably money to be made in providing a custom menu of Internet filtering for people like that… Call it “Teh Blinkernet”

  3. #3 Corey
    April 8, 2008

    To the commenter
    I would actually very much like to avoid you reading my blog (and a few others), but the nature of the universe won’t let me do so. I usually just skip over your comments, but if there is any way to stop the “opinion” here from cluttering up my blog, I’d appreciate hearing about it.

  4. #4 Peggy
    April 8, 2008

    What a lazyass. It’s not that difficult to subscribe to individual feeds if you find reading the headlines from one or more particular blogs offensive. Personally, I subscribe to the combined feed (which clearly indicates the blog along with the headline) and just skip the posts I’m not interested in. It doesn’t seem that difficult.

  5. #5 The Ridger
    April 8, 2008

    Oh, my. That is funny. “Please help me pretend people like you don’t even exist” indeed.

  6. #6 Dr. Free-Ride
    April 8, 2008

    First, what Peggy said is the preferred way to take ownership of what blogs appear in one’s feedreader.

    Beyond that, does lazybones intend to complain to the authors of those blogs to which he manually subscribes when they elect to publish posts he considers “clutter”?

    Or is he one of those people who feels obligated to read every word of the newspaper delivered to his door, and then to write an angry letter to the editor about the articles that were a waste of his time? Because it turns out you can save time by not reading the articles you’d rather not read. And I suspect one could fruitfully apply the same approach to the contents of one’s feedreader.

  7. #7 Jessica Palmer
    April 8, 2008

    Ah, but in the process of deciding one doesn’t want to read the story, one may be exposed to and corrupted by the ideas within it. Much better to simply avoid all contact with any writer with whom one disagrees, keeping one’s personal biases pristine and unsullied by conflicting opinions!

  8. #8 RSS
    April 8, 2008

    Hmm, I seem to have raised more ire than I intended. I simply don’t like your blog and yet it continues to pop up in the channel feeds (like the Education and Careers feed where this post is) with blogs whose writers I am interested in. Since your original post told me that I was a moron for not sharing your opinions, I wanted to know if there was a way that I could construct a feed that would completely ignore your posts and its insults, or if something that suited my needs already existed. Perhaps a channel feed where I could de-select individual contributors? I’ve seen some pretty useful things done with RSS, and I thought that maybe I was just missing the mechanism here on ScienceBlogs.

    I also find your assumption that I’m a man somewhat curious. I just don’t like your brand of feminism. I hardly see how that makes me misogynistic (or forces a sex change on me, for that matter).

    Incidentally, in response to the individual complaints: Peggy and others, there are 70 blogs at ScienceBlogs. I like or have no pressing problem with about 67 of them. This is the only blog at ScienceBlogs that I would actively go out of my way to avoid. Subscribing to and maintaining the subscriptions to all 67-69 of those blogs would take quite some time, and I’m generally happy with the channels. To be honest, if there’s no way to avoid this blog specifically, I’ll just continue to skip the posts in the feed reader like I always have. However, the post I commented upon, which invited me to take myself elsewhere, struck me as the best place to ask the question.

    Considering the invective which is routinely hurled here, I’m rather surprised at how thin-skinned you are, Zuska. However, I certainly did not intend to cause this level of uproar, and I apologize for the offense. I maintain my question about the feeds, and if someone has something useful to say about that I’ll be happy to accept your advice. Otherwise, I won’t be commenting any further here, nor will I read any other post here.

  9. #9 Zuska
    April 8, 2008

    …I’ll just continue to skip the posts in the feed reader like I always have…

    …except for when you actually read the posts and leave comments? Okay.

    It’s not that I’m thin-skinned – believe me, if you think what you have to say is the most annoying thing I’ve had to put up with, you have no clue. It’s that I find you hilariously amusing in your pomposity. It’s the height of arrogance – not to mention moronocity – to comment on someone’s blog explaining why you don’t want to read them and asking them to help you not read them.

    I assumed you were male because these are the kinds of things I usually get from male readers. But if you are female, consider yourself included not just in the Morons, but also in the Apologists for the Oppressor group. Congrats!

  10. #10 Ed S.
    April 8, 2008

    Long-time reader delurking to remind certain folks that the at-least-vaguely uncomfortable feeling you have in reading here just may be an indicator that you about to get a clue.

  11. #11 RSS
    April 8, 2008

    I really am sorry that I ever commented here in the first place; the only reason I ever read the original post is that it was short enough to fit entirely in a single window in my reader. I read quickly, and the word ‘moronicity’ caught my eye, prompting me to read the post. When I found that you were dismissing me as an idiot for holding a different opinion than you, I thought that it might be worthwhile to ask how I could avoid you. Clearly, I made a mistake. I will remember it for next time.

    I wish you luck, Zuska. I don’t agree with you at all, but I hope that your efforts to benefit women in science are rewarded. Good-bye.

  12. #12 Brian
    April 8, 2008

    Zuska, I agree with you a lot of the time. But just because somebody does not like your blog does not make them an Apologist for the Oppressor. I’m an angry atheist but I don’t really like Pharyngula all that much. RSS was rude and an idiot, but not necessarily a misogynist. At the risk of being rude myself, please reserve your shoe-pukingly righteous invective for those that deserve it.

  13. #13 PhysioProf
    April 9, 2008

    Otherwise, I won’t be commenting any further here, nor will I read any other post here.

    Hey, RSS! Yes, you, fuckwit! You posted the above comment at 8PM.

    Then at 9PM you posted another comment:

    Good-bye.

    What kind of pathetic compulsive dipshit swearz they are “never coming back to this blog!!!111111!!111!” and then comes back ONE HOUR LATER and posts a comment!?

    RSS, you win the “Ridiculous Obsessive Total Fucking Douchemonkey of the Week” award. Unfortunately, since you are “never coming back here”, you will never find out about your tremendous accomplishment.

    Long-time reader delurking to remind certain folks that the at-least-vaguely uncomfortable feeling you have in reading here just may be an indicator that you about to get a clue.

    Ed is a smart man. All you fucking douchewheels who can’t control your comment logorrhea should shut the fuck up for a minute or two and think about what Ed just said.

  14. #14 hm
    April 9, 2008

    RSS is still female, and she’s not an “Apologist” either. She’s just really, really, really, rude and ill-mannered.

    If you don’t like the feeds, then contact the Seed tech people.

    Which reminds me, I’m going to write my local newspaper and tell them that their format is really inconvenient because it includes things I don’t want to read. Maybe they can pre-cut out the stuff I find offensive so that my lily-white brain isn’t affected.

  15. #15 Todd
    April 9, 2008

    I need to read this blog more.

  16. #16 Julius
    April 10, 2008

    Zuska: You just demonstrated why RSS doesn’t want to have anything to do with you, with your response to her desire to this effect. She has the decency to avoid ideas and topics that are of no interest to her, you however, engage them by insulting them without any sound basis. Her approach is mature, yours is immature, bitter, and misandristic. You are a walking, talking hate crime.

  17. #17 ace
    April 10, 2008

    Zuska,

    Here’s what I want: I want to read this blog and 24.6 others on ScienceBlogs. Except on alternate Thursdays when I want to read two additional blogs.
    Make that happen will ya?

    And while you’re at it, could you rig the whole place such that I don’t have to read comments by this “Julius” person. He makes me puke all over my keyboard. (If you don’t fix this problem, I may have Apple send YOU the cleaning bills!)

    Now get started it on it girl!! I’m waiting!

  18. #18 PalMD
    April 10, 2008

    Well at least Julius only has one sockpuppet so far.

    there are 70 blogs at ScienceBlogs. I like or have no pressing problem with about 67 of them. This is the only blog at ScienceBlogs that I would actively go out of my way to avoid.

    Yes, and the library keeps annoying me with all the pesky books that aren’t written by Danielle Steele.

    Oh, and could you do something about saliva? I keep drooling.

  19. #19 Julius
    April 10, 2008

    Well at least Julius only has one sockpuppet so far.

    I hope you’re ready and able to prove that accusation, because not only is it completely untrue, it is defamatory and legally actionable.

  20. #20 PalMD
    April 10, 2008

    Julius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sockJulius has a sock

  21. #21 PalMD
    April 10, 2008

    BTW, since no one knows who you actually are, including myself, it’s hardly defamation.

  22. #22 PhysioProf
    April 10, 2008

    Julius is fucking nuts. But the police are going to bust us all for mocking him. We are totally fucking busted, and he’s got legal actions going against us. The cops are so totally on this, it’s not funny.

    –ttcc

  23. #23 PalMD
    April 10, 2008

    they’re coming for our precious bodily fluids

  24. #24 Brian
    April 11, 2008

    When I come across people like this, I have to wonder where they’re posting from. For Julius, I’m picturing a fortress of solitude where he rights the wrongs of the world. With his crack team of lawyers to stop people from slandering him.

    We need you, Julius! Please don’t ever stop with your beautiful vision of a world with equal opportunity for all and reverse discrimination for none! Sue for truth, justice, and penises!

  25. #25 Julius
    April 11, 2008

    I have socks, but I do not use alternative identities as sockpuppets. I demand an apology for that baseless defamation. And I think you will find, PalMD, that your defense of not personally knowing the victim you have violated may not hold up very well in court.

  26. #26 PhysioProf
    April 11, 2008

    the victim you have violated

    Dude, you are violating all of us with your egregious shitbag stupidity. We, however, are not living a bizarre world of demented fucking wackaloonery in which we expect the goddamn police to give a flying fuck.

  27. #27 PalMD
    April 11, 2008

    Julius, if I had “violated” you I think I’d remember—plus I’d have the bruise on my tush from the shots.

    I think you are a sock puppet of the Seed Overlords sent to drive up our hit count, because more an more people are coming by to watch you type inanities.

  28. #28 bsci
    April 11, 2008

    What’s amusing about the original complaint is that Zuska isn’t exactly the most prolific blogger. If someone couldn’t stand PZ Meyers, Greg Laden, or Coturnix who seem to have a new post every 5 minutes, I’d understand wanting an exclusionary option to clean up a larger RSS feed. Zuska seems to be publishing 3-4 times a week max. Those posts must be causing some severe emotional pain.

  29. #29 Melinda Barton
    April 11, 2008

    This is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a while. That anyone could be so clueless is astounding. That you have two of them, both RSS and Julius, is mind-blowing. I think Julius should tell these things to the police. With all the stress they’re under, I’m sure they need the laugh.

    Julius, you might want to actually know the law before you go around threatening legal action. Calling someone the blogosphere equivalent of a doodie-head is not actionable and is by no means a hate crime. Hate crime by definition is action NOT speech. To compare the two is an insult to those of us who have actually been beaten in the streets for daring to exist.

  30. #30 Cherish
    April 11, 2008

    Maybe he’s a chat bot. If you ask the same thing over and over, you’ll get approximately the same reply.

  31. #31 Lab Cat
    April 11, 2008

    My take on this is that RSS is probably very young and so too immature to realize the rudeness and impropriety of her comments. This is also why she does not support “your brand of feminism”. She has not yet had to deal with the doofballs as an adult. I don’t know what Julius’s excuse is.

    Totally off topic, but this should cheer you up while dealing with such prats who fail to appreciate the benefit of work you are doing for women in science.

    I gave your blog an E rating! E for Excellent, of course.

  32. #32 Barn Owl
    April 11, 2008

    Zuska needs internet dingleberries threatening police intervention and legal action, like she needs another bad headache.

    If I had a virtual dollar for every internet dingleberry who threatens legal action any time it gets its cyberpanties in a bunch over a messageboard or blog commentary post, I’d have a lot of virtual dollars. And I could buy some virtual things…errr, cyberstuff…errr, e-commodities, in Second Life.

    Or whatever. They gotta be worth more than US dollars at the moment.

  33. #33 Stephen
    April 11, 2008

    Wow. RSS made a comment that was mildly rude at most. Most here have returned it to her and magnified it to the point of vitriol.

    I came here to listen to your point of view, and see that you and your clan can only give it while berating others. I read two posts, but will go elsewhere from now on.

  34. #34 PalMD
    April 11, 2008

    Oh, look…another sock…

  35. #35 Julius
    April 11, 2008

    PalMD: Your defamation continues unabated. Your insistence on making libelous statements without any evidence to back it up is completely unacceptable. Do you really want to escalate this situation?

  36. #36 J.
    April 11, 2008

    PalMD: Your defamation continues unabated. You clearly have no respect for the rights of others, and no compunctions about violating them. Do you really want to escalate this situation?

  37. #37 PhysioProf
    April 11, 2008

    Dude, you are a total fucking wackaloon. Why don’t you just move on with your life?

  38. #38 Melinda Barton
    April 11, 2008

    Yeah, PalMD, don’t make him whip out the third sock!

  39. #39 absinthe
    April 11, 2008

    If I had a virtual dollar for every internet dingleberry who threatens legal action any time it gets its cyberpanties in a bunch over a messageboard or blog commentary post, I’d have a lot of virtual dollars. And I could buy some virtual things…errr, cyberstuff…errr, e-commodities, in Second Life.
    Or whatever. They gotta be worth more than US dollars at the moment.

    Amen to that!

  40. #40 absinthe
    April 11, 2008

    I might add that this is the most thoroughly amusing comment thread I have read in quite a while. Truly, it is almost a work of art…

  41. #41 absinthe
    April 12, 2008

    I have one question (and I apologize if this reflects shocking ignorance on my part), but what does “you have a sock” or “you have a sock puppet” mean, and why would anyone find it libelous? Maybe I haven’t hung around the blog-o-sphere long enough to understand the terminology….

  42. #42 PhysioProf
    April 12, 2008

    Absinthe: This is from the Wikipedia page on “sock-puppet”:

    A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.[1]

    In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that “sock-puppeting” is defined as “the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.”[2]

    The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an “alt”) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.

    The reason that “Julius” (or “J”) considers it libelous is that he is a demented fucking wackaloon, and apparently has only a very tenuous grasp on reality.

  43. #43 J.
    April 12, 2008

    absinthe: Using sockpuppets is a disrespected activity online and cause of much derision. Accusations of using sockpuppets therefore easily qualify as libelous if unsubstantiated. PalMD will find this out for himself or herself soon enough.

  44. #44 absinthe
    April 12, 2008

    Thanks PhysioProf…good to know for future reference.

    The entertainment content of this comment thread just keeps giving and giving….
    ;-)

  45. #45 PhysioProf
    April 12, 2008

    Julius/J certainly is the gift of demented fucking wackaloonery that keeps on giving!

    I’ve seen a lot of hilarious shit on the Internet, but one pseudonymous blog commenter threatening another pseudonymous commenter with a libel suit for accusing him of using sockpuppets definitely ranks up there.

  46. #46 NotPalMD
    April 12, 2008

    I am NOT PalMD, I am Julius, and I will sue PalMD for all of his antique teacup collection, and his showtune LPs

  47. #47 J.
    April 12, 2008

    NotPalMD: I hope you realize that impersonating someone else in a way that confers benefit upon you or harm upon the victim is a criminal offense.

  48. #48 AlsoNotPalMD
    April 12, 2008

    When are the cops gonna be here? ’cause I’d rather not be inside when they pull up, but I know I’ll want to gawk.

  49. #49 IamTheRealJulius
    April 12, 2008

    You will also be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

  50. #50 Lost Clown
    April 12, 2008

    Quick! something is wrong on the internet!

    Seriously, saying that someone coming to a blog to comment about how they don’t want to read said blog is not mature as some have claimed.

  51. #51 PalMD
    April 12, 2008

    “Hello, thank you for calling the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Your call is very important to us. It will be answered AS SOON AS WE FUCKING FIND ALL THE DAMNED TERRORISTS, GUN-TOTING POLYGAMISTS, AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS.

    If you do not have information on one of these topic, please hang up and GET A FUCKING LIFE!”

  52. #52 Julius
    April 13, 2008

    Ahhh, there, that’s better. Okay, sorry, but I think my medication is finally kicking in.

    Now who was bringing who to court? And for what?

  53. #53 Julius
    April 13, 2008

    If I can offer another apology for my behavior, I will. I was distracted, thinking about blowing goats. I don’t, of course, actually blow goats (that would be legally actionable!), but I like to think about it. At length. Sometimes I draw pictures!

    That’s my explanation: I was an asshat, because I was too busy imagining my long-desired goat-blowing orgy to consider that I might be an idiot.

    Hey, sock puppetry is more fun than I ever imagined.

  54. #54 Carlie
    April 13, 2008

    Hey, I just discovered this blog thanks to the intriguing post title in the SciBlog top 5, and the amusing story of entitled RSS-person was enough to make me check it out further. Nice place – thanks, RSS-inept person!

  55. #55 notPalMD
    April 13, 2008

    Julius, you need help. That is sick. Those poor, little goats. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  56. #56 PhysioProf
    April 13, 2008

    We’ve had our fun with “Julius”/”J”, but perhaps it is time to start ignoring him and let him move on to greener pastures, so that the discussion can return to issues of gender equity in science and engineering, and not his wackaloonery.

  57. #57 PalMD
    April 13, 2008

    Hmmm…that gives me an idea…

  58. #58 J.
    April 14, 2008

    To the above commenters who are continuing their illegal behaviors: Does gender equity entail threatening and defaming those with whom you do not agree, on whatever grounds? Does it entail bullying, creating hostile environments, and mocking victims and victimization? Is such behavior consistent with feminism?

    To PalMD: Does the existence of other illegal activity make your behavior any less illegal? Does blaming the victim or telling the victim to “suck it up” dovetail with your understanding of feminism? Would you give the same advice to a rape victim? What if the rape victim were male?

  59. #59 Melinda Barton
    April 14, 2008

    I’m with PhysioProf, we should ignore Julius/J before he starts comparing comments threads to the Holocaust.

  60. #60 PhysioProf
    April 14, 2008

    Considering that somehow the discussion has turned in Julius/J’s sick twisted mind to male rape, I do indeed think we should ask ourselves whether it serves any purpose (other than encouraging and reinforcing his bitter disturbed thought processes) to engage any longer with that sort of gibbering imbecile.

  61. #61 PalMD
    April 14, 2008

    Actually, I kinda dig where J’s coming from now. I’ve commented on lots of blogs, and, having written one myself for some time, have been on the “receiving end” of some rather harsh criticism. While it is not physically and emotionally identical to being sodomized, it still kind of hurts a little.

  62. #62 Brandon
    April 15, 2008

    I assumed you were male because these are the kinds of things I usually get from male readers.

    Um, wow Zuska. Not hypocritical at all.

  63. #63 J.
    April 15, 2008

    PalMD: This is not merely about the pain, it’s about the illegality of your actions, and the hypocrisy of condemning censorship, aggression and violation on the one hand (typical feminist talking points) while engaging in the same against others. Blaming the victim for your own crimes against the victim further exposes your hypocrisy. You have no credibility left, and are merely a joke.

  64. #64 PhysioProf
    April 15, 2008

    Don’t answer him, please.

  65. #65 bsci
    April 15, 2008

    I’m not sure I’ve ever seen PhysioProf use the word “please.” It’s definitely not a 4-letter work or a contraction using a 4 letter word. This must be a sock-puppet and not the real PhysioProf.

  66. #66 PalMD
    April 15, 2008

    OK, PP, but only because I respect and fear you as the mouthpiece of the oppressive feminist hierarchy.

  67. #67 PhysioProf
    April 15, 2008

    Damn right! You fuck with me and I’ll oppress your sorry ass, real good!

  68. #68 Cherish
    April 15, 2008

    And here I had just accused him of being part of the oppressive male hierarchy. He must be sending mixed signals.