Hey, you remember how in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, the more Frodo wears The Ring, the more he acts like Gollum? In the end, Frodo wants to keep The Ring and almost totally blows it?
Well, congrats, Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney! Youve been wearing The Ring for so long, youve officially turned into CASEY LUSKIN!!!!
YAY!
Bringing internet drama no one cares about into meatworld!
Bitching about how 'mean' people are in comments!
Why, I honestly cant tell you buxom brunettes apart!
Round of applause, everyone, for the happy threesome!!!
P.S.-- I hope you two enjoy my gift of Kwok! Its the least I can do, really!
- Log in to post comments
"I hope you two enjoy my gift of Kwok!"
It's the gift that just keeps on giving (well it does up until the point you get the restraining order).
But "professional concern troll" is such a good resume builder!
This is a sad story, and I wish that Chris and Sheril hadn't broken their mirror.
So, I think we are all fated to look forward to their next book when they write about how they are "working with" the Congresswomen from NM that just announced on UTube that the earth is 6,00 years old.
Casey will be very happy to work with them as well.
ps: Abbie - OK Senator Jim Inhofe's cousin Jack just called - He wants you, and all OK residents to kick his cousin in the Nutz ,(if he has any) for calling Al Franken a clown. Thanks.
After reading the blog post you linked to I can't decide who is worse, Kwak or Mooney. Though it is obvious who is the most dishonest.
Re PS: You, ma'am, are cruel.
But, hey!, better them than us.
I found it hillarious how the dude was bitching that bitch was not in the naughty world filter. And then exclaiming in joy when the word bitch, which he was previously bitching about, is now in the filter. Wow... when you can't hanlde the word bitch, it rather puts it in perspective on why he's BAAAAAWing about PZ's review, etc.
It's been a while since I've laughed this hard about something on SB.
Remember a while back when Sheril Kirshenbaum decided to manufacture some internet drama? Some "science hero" apparently made an awkward pass at her and she decided to threaten him with her blog, and then decided to blog about it anyway (but without releasing his name). Mostly this was calculated to stir up a frenzy of third-wave sanctimony and white knighting. It's as though being at the receiving end of a hamhanded pass diminished her ego just enough that she had to find a group of people to dogpile the issue until she had felt good about herself again. "Eeew. A nerd. Throw rocks at him," is apparently good framing.
Dude, I know you love Arnie and everything, but isn't the whole being PZ's bitpull with lipstick schtick getting old ERV?
The more internet fuck-ups they instigate, the more the framers remind me of the pro-Iraq-war faction of the British left.
Both groups have a habit of insulting their targets over and over until the people they're insulting snap back. They then use this loss of temper as 'evidence' that their opponents are aggressive and hysterical.
Both sides claim to be for something - science, for example, or liberal politics - but are much softer in their criticism of creationists or far-rightists than they are on members of their own side who have the unforgivable gall to disagree with them on something.
But most of all, they both have this maddening habit of treating meaningless drama on the internet or between unimportant cliques as examples of what the entire world thinks, says and feels.
Remember Randy Olson's Sizzle, how the framers defended it so? Randy was supposed to be making a film that would inform the general public about the science behind global warming, but he ended up making another wearying rant about how scientists are big meanies who only care about numbers and numbers are their best friend and they want to marry a number and and and -
NOBODY CARES. Nobody who wants to be informed about global warming cares about Randy's sour grapes over not being more popular, and nobody who wants to know why American culture is increasingly anti-scientific cares about Chris and Sheril's whiny little beefs with PZ. But they're so deep in their own internet drama that they can't see that.
And these are the people who are putting themselves up as being in touch with what the average person wants to hear?
Yes, becca, I suppose talking about PZ once every 11 months is getting a bit tiresome for readers.
*points to address bar*
Dustin-- I dont appreciate you taking that incident lightly. Having an ugly person ask you out is a thoroughly traumatic experience. Ugly AND old AND apparently a NERD, I dont even want to think about it. Im just glad she survived that ordeal.
That proves nothing Abbie. The first rule of being a PZ pitbull, you do not talk about PZ.
I can't believe I spent the bulk of the afternoon
getting caught up on "As the Blog Turns". But as
a future professional neo-atheist bigot, I guess
I should get used to it.
Being an ugly, old(er) nerd who's crushing on a young student, I can only agree with Abbie, it is indeed very disturbing and disgusting.
I see everyone has learnt the word "kenosis" today.
To me, the funniest thing about that whole excessively protracted brouhaha was that in all the white-knighting, nobody pointed out that the original remark — something like, "As a living, breathing male, I will be eager to read everything Sheril has to say" — was as heteronormative as it was sexist? I mean, if you want to make a big deal out of somebody being a dick on the Internet (ghasp! fetch me my fainting couch!), marginalizing non-straight guys is just as bad as marginalizing women, right? But no, everyone has their own indignation horizon, beyond which they do not care to see.
Yeah, whatever did happen to Sizzle? To the best of my recollection, it got screened at a couple crunchy-granola film festivals and then vanished. Just the sort of model real science communicators should follow!
I'd totally marry a number! I mean, have you seen Dr. Thirteen?
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the cheese dip, it's genetically modified!
The funniest bit about Chris' blog post and comments was when he claimed to be all busy with book stuff... couldn't monitor his blog, or correct his attribution or anything because he was just SO busy with book stuff...
... but, he somehow found the time not only read PZ's review but to read way down to at least 90 in the comments on PZ's review to cherrypick a comment to write a silly blog post on...
... just WAY too funny.
Oh fine.... tell me this after I went through all the trouble of setting you up on a blind date with Freeman Dyson.
BAllanJ-- Thats actually a classic Dembski move. When Billy D came to town, and I asked him about the disgusting behavior of UD commentors, his excuse was that he doesnt monitor his blog, therefore, its not his fault.
But apparently, PZ is supposed to thought-police his blog to prevent back-stabber quote-mining of his commentors.
Yeah. It's like the Roman centurions wandered into the crowd, pulled out a random guy and said, "No, you're Spartacus!" What gives?
Hmmm, the sidebar says I made a comment after ERV's, but it's not appearing on the page itself. Freaky.
I think SciBlogs burped. I was having trouble in MT just now too.
Also, LOL!
The real question is what do we call them? I mean, if we call Sheril "Sheriltits," then we'll just be big, bad sexists.
@Blake Stacey
What about the non-straight women? Are they not too being marginalized by not being included in the mouth-breathing that went on when Intersection moved? Although I admit I did share the enthusiasm about Sheril until I realized that what she wrote didn't really interest me.
It seems like SciBlogs has been gassy for, like, ever! Sigh.
You never did the kenosis, kid.
I suppose if they wanted their dose of self-righteous indignation, they'd be just as entitled.
I found her blogging largely uninteresting long before I saw a picture of her. Hey, there are millions of vertices on the Blogohedron I don't care to bother with. [shrug]
Personally, I've found a few things she writes interesting, but I'm starting to think Abbie's a better role model for my daughter x.x
ALRIGHT. I was going to go to bed, but this is a fantastically important subject that MUST be debated:
13? She's cute. Very cute. But... she's no Cuddy. *happy sigh*
I'm not sure attacking Sheril for that incident is fair when the real issue is that Chris and her are slowly writing their way into being as irrelevant and nutty a Matt Nisbet.
There's no way I'm going to be able to stay away from my blog for long with this kind of internet drama going on. I always have to get involved when there are butthurt, passive-aggressive whiners like TomJoe and McCarthaids ripe for trolling.
BAllanJ: "The funniest bit about Chris' blog post and comments was when he claimed to be all busy with book stuff... couldn't monitor his blog, or correct his attribution or anything because he was just SO busy with book stuff...
... but, he somehow found the time not only read PZ's review but to read way down to at least 90 in the comments on PZ's review to cherrypick a comment to write a silly blog post on..."
Right, because Mooney's schedule might not be composed of blocks of busy time that are hard to interrupt interspersed with blocks of down time where he can read stuff.
Details, details:
1) State legislator, not "Congresswoman."
2) Arizona, not New Mexico.
Touchy subject, since I'm an Arizona native who will be moving to New Mexico as soon as circumstances allow.
I'm just sayin, ERV, there didn't seem to be a high percentage of "Internet Drama Nobody cares about!" that involved you. Maybe I missed it in the comments?
And your response to Dustin was why it is patently absurd to point at the address bar. If you would just stop being funny, I would leave.
@Blake Stacey and Egaeus- I, for one, am horribly offended over all the people left of the standard indignation horizon! I am especially offended by all the ways I, personally, have a right to be indignant that were ignored in that particular dramafest.
In fact, I shall complain loudly and obnoxiously, reveling in my self-righteous indignation to which I am so richly entitled, about how monogamist-centrist and anti-"non-straight women" (and we prefer the more encompassing "nonheteronormative Assigned Female At Birth persons", Egaeus) the whole thing was until I can marry both Dr. 13 and Sheril. And possibly Cuddy.
What a shame. I have to admit, I was sorta looking forward to reading Sheril's upcoming book on smooching. I shan't be buying it now.
I've always tried to remain Switzerland in the Myers/Mooney/Kirshenbaum/Nisbet row. But Chris and Sheril have really devolved to the point where they remind me of snotty little prisses playing "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you..." and whining to mommy when they get their hands slapped away.
becca-- Oh, we just have a running Drama Queen contest running on SciBlogs, and I am, and will always be, the winner.
I mean, none of my SciBlings are even close, but I do have to keep up appearances.
Isn't that what started the whole KerSherilFluffle?
I confess that the whole affair was a bit baffling to me since I think Chris' smile is about as nice as hers -- and I'm pretty sure that he's not my type.
:googles "Cuddy":
Aha ... I guess I I should find her more attracktive, given my age. Am I turning into AlanC?
Egaeus, the genderneutral referents must be Chris Mooneytits and Sheril Cockenbaum. (What's with the "i", by the way?)
Love,
- Sili-knickers-in-a-knot
Hmm. You're good, but I dunno. I think you and Isis have to meet up for a Joan Collins impersonation contest before we can declare a winner.
Only because Rob Knopp doesn't post here anymore.
That took aaaages! I went of to read through the links, the first two Id read at the time but that last one... Wow!
I only got the first ton of comments but suspect that mooney can't now back down on his misattribution. Itll make his sycophantic subjects look stupid for defending him.
And I hope Matt Penfold gets a Molly for his awsomeness there. MP and Glen D are more 'classic' or typical of pharyngula commenters.
Also: mooneytits - "aarrgghh! My eyebrows! They theyre growing!"
Ahh. We must be related.
As I said over at Chris' and Sheril's blog, I'd love if these debates would move away from people and into the realm of concepts, ideas, and strategies.
Whatever one thinks about Chris and Sheril they do have goals that's aligned with ours', so it would be great if we could work together rather than attack each other (this obviously goes both ways - Chris and Matt have been busy attacking other people in the framing debate, and apparently there is an entire chapter devoted to PZ in Chris' and Sheril's book).
That said, I think it's good that people point out that Chris' (not Sheril's) post using blog comments as representative of a blog is dishonest. It's what Malkin tried to do with Daily Kos, and it doesn't look good that Chris uses her strategy.
If Chris wants to complain to PZ about him allowing profanity in his comments - fine, but that's not what Chris tried to do.
Personally, I'd prefer for Chris to address the points raised by people like PZ and Ophelia Benson, and try to explain what he, and his allies, think the strategy should be, and why this would be more successful - yes, they might explain it in the book, but if they want to convince others to read the book, they need to also address it on their blogs.
One thing I do wish people in the framing crowd would keep in mind, is that so far, the vocal atheists seems to have a better track record. The four horsemen all hit the best-seller lists around the world, and (I'd claim) changed the tone of the debate in the US.
PZ has the most popular science blog in the world, with more than 1 million visitors each month. Unless they can point to someone on their side with similar track records, I think they need to evaluate their ideas a bit further (the people they often point to, e.g. Sagan, was as reviled back then as the so-called "new" atheists are now).
Kristjan (if I may call you that!), I agree except for your original sentiment. It would be very nice to see more cooperation going on, but I think it's an almost entirely one-way problem right now. The critics of 'framing' and the framers' general points haven't been answered, not really. If they could just get to basic rationalism and stop flogging their sensationalist 'blame vocal scientist atheists!' message without, you know, supporting it, none of this would be an issue and Mooney would probably be touted by PZ as a good science journalist and that would be where the focus would stay. Perhaps sometimes they'd discuss strategies, but I think it'd be pretty mellow.
But of course, the framers can't let their pet project die, but they also can't address the substantive criticisms going their way, so *they* criticize without substance and are somehow indignant when they get more criticism. So much that even Orac, who was originally pretty 'meh' about the whole thing and sympathetic in general to their side, finally got fed up.
Personally, I'd like to have Chris and Sheril as allies, but they are explicitly setting themselves up to make that impossible.
You make a good point about Sagan. They'd like to invoke him on their side somehow, as what they'd like. However, there's two problems there:
1) like you said, Sagan was reviled as too atheist in many circles, particularly the ones Mooney would like to court.
2) They're criticizing both the status quo and the direction science literacy is going and has been going. However, we had Sagans and Goulds and deGrasse Tysons and Feynmans that whole time, so *cutting out* the *new* more atheistic message clearly is not the solution.
Blah, I've already talked too much about this. Chris and Sheril are afraid of dealing with criticism, plain and simple. Until they grow up (I'm younger than they are, so don't give me none of that condescension nonsense) and learn how to be academically honest, we should simply start dismissing them. Kinda like this awesome post :).
Rock on, ERV. :)
Kris-- Ive been criticizing Mooneys 'arguments' since 2006. Though he read those posts at old ERV (and commented), he has yet to address my problems with his message.
Three fucking years Ive been 'addressing Mooneys arguments', with no reciprocation.
Now he is personally attacking someone in a print book, who previously provided him support, encouragement, positive PR...
I will not be addressing Mooneys 'arguments' any more, at any point, in the future. Assuming Mooney and I were best buddies, I wouldnt be addressing his arguments, at any point, in the future. Why would you help someone who bites the hand that feeds?
Chris Mooney is an ungrateful, back-stabbing bitch, and he can go fuck himself.
Note to Chris: You can take this comment as a post 'representative' of ERV. I encourage you to post this comment as a blog entry on Intersection.
Wow, I tried following some of that crap on the Intersection last night. What a disappointing mess. Republican War on Science was such a promising start to a career; now he's basically found his equilibrium as the quintessential "King of My Blog" sort of personality. Using it as a soapbox for snitty little slapfights, haw-haw gotcha moments, and flat-out dishonesty -- there's no other way to describe it.
The "King of My Blog" attitude is the final sign that one has no other accomplishments of note and has slid into irrelevance. He deserves to stay there.
And it says a lot that his only loyal readers/supporters are cranks and irrelevant whiners like McCarthy, Cuckoo Kwok, Jon, and TomJoe. I suppose it's appropriate that a "science communicator" who can't communicate has readers who can't read.
Even under the most charitable interpretation, the "framers" remind me of what I've read about the "cold fusion" fiasco in 1989 and the residual cold fusion "research community." If there was ever a scientific component to Mooney/Nisbet/Kirshenbaum's theorizing on communications, it's long since become Pathological Science.
I haven't been here for a bit, so I may sound clueless. Did ERV just ban Kwok?
If so, thumbs up.
Could you get Amazon to do the same?
"..... it says a lot that his only loyal readers/supporters are cranks and irrelevant whiners like McCarthy, Cuckoo Kwok, Jon, and TomJoe."
Minimalist for the win!
Crap! What a rouge's gallery
A New Atheism conspiracy theorist who thinks Dawkins making fun of virgin birth will drive science back into the age of Torquemada.
A star trek raconteur and thesaurus fetishist driven to frothing madness by the indifference of a middle aged squid enthusiast.
A character assassin with the attention span of a Carolina anole on meth.
And my personal favorite.... a personal altar boy of the ever flaccid Terry "The Bar Room Bolshevik" Eagleton.
Wow.
I'll bet Kirshenbaum & Mooney get some amazing valentines cards.
Re Gary B
Ms. Smith banned the Kwok several months ago for cyberstalking her and generally being a pest. He has also been banned over at PZs' blog and is limited to one comment/day at Jason Rosenhouses' blog. I think it is quite clear that the Kwok doesn't have both oars in the water.
@50 writes: I think it is quite clear that the Kwok doesn't have both oars in the water.
I would have thought he has only one oar. But my real question would be what is he paddling it with :-)
(Yes, that's below the belt, but this pest is trying to take me on at The Intersection. (I'm not going to bother replying.))
It was nice of Dr Isis to totally misrepresent Abbie as having a problem with religious scientists. Otherwise I might have mistaken her for one of those literalist bible fundies who think it's wrong to bear false witness.
*shrug* My issues with Mooney have never been 'religious'. Ive always viewed him as a pussy poseur (I said that nice at first, but he kept trying to blow smoke up my ass, so there you go). Now hes a back-stabbing pussy poseur. Anyone can search old ERV for 'Mooney' and find that out for themselves.
September 23, 2006:
I dont mind Chris's lack of scientific credentials. He cited his sources and consulted appropriate experts and documents of the topics he addressed. What I have a problem with is his naive (hopefully not pretentious) attitude about how it is to be a scientist in the real world.
lol I was so right LOL!!!
#52 windy
"It was nice of Dr Isis to totally misrepresent Abbie as having a problem with religious scientists."
What the hell is going on over there?
I've tried to read that blog a couple of times and 90% of it reads like what happens when the gay divorce lawyers start trying to crack each other up with text messages during a long docket or the junk links that get posted in the chewing-the-fat section of local newspaper forums.
It is essentially the same joke with a thousand incarnations.
Does she ever write meaningfully about science or culture?
Not in my experience, but I admit that A) her tone and style and B) much of her preferred subject matter rub me the wrong way so hard that I have sought very little experience with her writing.
Oh lovely.
Sheril & Chris apparently just put on their kneepads for Francis Collins in Newsweek and are simultaneously self and mutually congratulating.
Kids.
They're so limber these days.
Oh for fucks sake.
Who invites them to do this stuff??? Thousands of scientists to ask... no, lets get a couple of random bitches instead!
"The critics, though, have it exactly backward: the United States needs more scientists like Collinsâresearchers who show by their prominence and their example that a good scientist can still retain religious beliefs."
Affirmative action for Theotards in science.
Interesting concept.
Indeed.
M&K have now thoroughly discredited themselves. The only good thing we can take from this latest round of interweb drama is that their book is a waste of our time and money. Seems that they have four important lessons to learn:
1. Support your claims with evidence. This is expected of scientists; it should be equally expected of science communicators and advocates.
2. Pay attention to what people have actually written and then quote them accurately.
3. UNDERSTAND WHO THE ENEMY IS. (Hint: it's neither Myers nor Dawkins nor Coyne.)
4. Grow a spine each and stop acting like whiny little brats the moment you're claims are challenged.
If they can't do the above, it's time for them to STFU and leave the job to the grown ups.
It's possible. It's just not funny.
On second thought, now I'm imagining Chris Mooney, a busy man who has just now finally gotten a few hours to respond to feedback about his new book -- and he spends them reading hundreds of comments on PZ's blog. I take it back. That is pretty effin' hilarious.
Agree.
*snicker*
(Jerry's right... the atheists are funnier: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/atheists-are-funnier/ )
(apologies for messing up the prometheus' quote)
..."affirmative action for theotards".... *tee-hee*
You people are nuts.
Those two pile of fluff little cutie pies have no down time, no research time, no time to write coherently.......none.
This is the natural consequence of not really being a working scientist just as Casey Luskin suffers the natural consequences of not really being a working lawyer.
They are public relations specialists i.e. star f*ckers.
Any time they are not in front of a camera next to some celebrity of science (who has no goddamn idea who they are but they are adorable and sycophantic, so what the hell) M&K are hustling around setting up some congratulatory event with photo ops or trying to work some endowment etc to get named a fellow of this or that. They look like kind of like academic credentials and academics arenât going to read their stuff anyway.
They are everything that is wrong about people who write about science culture.
Sheril used to blog post cultural impact stories about Dora the Explorer for f*cks sake.
They are attention starved narcissistic infants. They arenât accommodationists at least not as I understand the accommodationist position, to wit: When you have time on your side and smaller numbers, direct confrontation can result in a loss so you adopt a fabian strategy( nibble at the ankles of the colossus until it topples).
These sprogs would make Neville Chamberlin face palm and it is time we started to shout tripe.
The Newsweek article makes it pretty clear what they are up to. These nasty things are what used to be called COLLABORATORS.
erv,
Saw your comment on their blog. Petty, even for a Truman grad. As someone who actually has to communicate science to lay people including the religious, I fully appreciate their perspective and agree with it. I see this as equating a republican senator professing to be a high-and-mighty christian while having an affair. By being irresponsible they hurt the image of that which they proclaim to represent. The same with you and your new group of friends. Anyhow, this all just reminds me of the episode of South Park when Stan goes goth.
BTW, any work you publish after being associated with this group will be tainted, and it will be damn near impossible for you to find work even with a grant in hand. Now that's burning bridges.
ERV, I take back my earlier comment. There is absolutely no facts, ideas, or anything else of substance to address in what Sheril an Chris is writing any more.
They just keep telling other people that they are harming the cause (spreading science), and that their own ideas are much better (but they won't tell what those ideas consist of - you'll have to read the book for that).
Now they are telling us that they left ScienceBlogs because of PZ and the whole cracker incident. Funny, I seem to recall them starting to attack him and other vocal atheists before then.
It's a pity, but I won't waste more time on them.
Saw your comment on their blog.
The comment:
"32. ERV Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
You are a disgusting, despicable creature, Chris Mooney.
Enjoy the warmth from the bridges youre burning now No one will build them with you again."
Who in their right mind would ever collaborate with a back-stabber?
Petty, even for a Truman grad.
I dont even know what this is supposed to mean, except as a dig at Truman. Except everyone who knows anything about Truman knows that the faculty are intensely supportive (many of us in the bio dept looked at them as parents away from home), and the bio students are highly sought after grad students.
Which means kicker either bitter about not getting into Truman (not likely-- they have a high acceptance rate), or he/she flunked out and had to go to Mizzou to finish (this happened to several friends in the bio dept).
Hmmm.
As someone who actually has to communicate science to lay people including the religious...
Doubtful. If you were a scientist, you would know that scientist interact with lay-people all the time. We do it whenever we are invited. Churches, schools, we love sharing our work.
So what do you do that makes you think you 'communicate science to lay people'
BTW, any work you publish after being associated with this group will be tainted, and it will be damn near impossible for you to find work even with a grant in hand. Now that's burning bridges.
Odd. Ive met almost all of my virology gods via this blog (not Varmus, *sigh*). Theyve all been incredibly supportive and excited.
Additionally, all of my professors, committee members, and school administrators know about and follow my blog. They just gave me the one open position on our NIH training grant.
Thanks for the wheelbarrow of fail, kicker!
Kristjan-- 'Part III' is mortifying. *sigh*
#63 kicker stopped playing WoW long enough to write:
"By being irresponsible they hurt the image of that which they proclaim to represent. The same with you and your new group of friends. Anyhow, this all just reminds me of the episode of South Park when Stan goes goth."
Boy, cultural reference is a dead giveaway isn't it?
How is your cellar BTW?
You had better conserve your energy, your mom won't be home from work for another three hours and you wouldn't want to run out of hot pockets.
:sigh:
I guess it's a 'good' thing that I have another woman to Kw*k over. Else I might seriously consider making awkward suggestions to you instead.
I'm trying to become a better cook (failed an omelette again tonight, though), but I don't mind cleaing and washing. And I can learn to love Arnie.
kicker @ #63:
Even though I've just finished reading the tragically feeble third part of MooneyBaum's response to PZ, I can safely say that you've written the most pathetic thing I've seen all day.
Sili@#68
I've made quails eggs in aspic in the shape of Ostia Harbor and I think omelets are tricky.
Video jug rocks.
Behold the love....
http://www.videojug.com/webvideo/how-to-make-an-omelette-2
Thanks, Prometheus,
She makes it look so easy. I need to practise with the heat more - cholesterol be damned!
I'd completely mistunderstood the bit about pulling the edge, though. (And I was using too much filling, but I was hungry.)
She didn't fold it by wacking the pan, though.
Why would you do that?
I'm hoping to have friends over for a leg of venison soon. I finally had it delivered this weekend.
Does that mean you'd be willing to go another bout with Dr. Charles Jackson?
As another Truman grad, no shit. (Insert my "Abbie went to Truman too? Sqeee!" here.)I had amazing prep for grad school and a science career there, and I still adore the bio faculty who taught me.
Carlie-- Seriously. I dont know how other departments are at Truman, but everyone I know that made it through bio loved it.
And I cant count how many times Ive been chatting with a visiting PI, and they say 'Oh! My grandaughters going to Truman!' 'Oh! My brothers going to Truman!' There are lots of things about me you can poke fun at, but Truman isnt one of em.
Which is why I think its likely my little visiting troll either flunked out, or got shitty grades-->lost his/her scholarship-->dropped out, thus was bitter enough to bring it up in a random comment.
Sili @#70
"I'm hoping to have friends over for a leg of venison soon. I finally had it delivered this weekend."
THE BRIDE keeps demanding fodder for my collection of weird eighteenth century family game recipes.
I love and fear THE BRIDE and have presented her with quail, doves, pheasants, elk tenderloin, wild turkey, feral pig parts etc..
Like Ishtar she must kill and kill and kill to thrive.
I have managed delay venison but know it is inevitable so here is the thuringian marinade to screw up your kitchen before I screw up mine...again:
Roll leg roast in cracked black pepper and thyme. Overlay with fresh woodruff if you can find it. If you can't (which is probable) wine sap apple peels. Wrap the whole affair in cheesecloth and soak with 3 parts buttermilk to 1 part May wine. Rest 8 hours minimum.
Roast.
Put on Pickelhaube, drink schnapps until blind.
Ooooh - sounds fancy. I was gonna go for something simpler, but I think I should at least look up what those ingredients are.
I think what my mother used to do was just roast it on a bed of sliced spuds to soak up the lovely juices. Obviously some kind of seasoning too, but I haven't checked the book, yet.
(THE BRIDE sounds nice. Any recommendations on how to get one? Kw*kking pretty obviously doesn't work.)
Not a lot that's relevant, unfortunately. ;/
Oh dear, Azkyroth (what's that name from, btw?),
Now we're really gonna get in trouble with the feministas.
Anyway - I don't think such physical means works on the internet.
And - unfortunately - I'm not in the market for a Russian mailorder bride.
Jesus Fuck, I seem to be whining about my hormone everywhere these days.
Are you sure this isn't simply a case of girl jealousy? After all, it's not yet 3 years when a certain guy said:
to which a certain girl replied
Maybe you're problem is more with Sheril than Chris. I could be wrong...but search your heart and you might find a little Princess Leia weeping all alone. Tell her it's ok to move on. There will be others. And if that doesn't work, whisper gently: "Luke is your brother."
This sucks. I'm not good at dealing with confrontation (seriously - I get all twitchy when posting responses on creationist websites). This whole soap opera between a number of my favorite bloggers is going to send me to the fridge to finish off that sixpack of Smithwick's Irish ale I brought home earlier today.
I wonder how long before everyone gets back to fighting the common enemy of ignorance (AKA: the Discovery Institute).
As long as it takes to finish making an example of the people who pretend to be on our side, then pop up to tell us we should surrender to them, I guess. (And who commit willful blindness with regard to the fact that the course of action they advocate IS surrender. And complain about being called on it. And...)