Comments

  1. Esteleth says

    Aw, fuck, did I miss the rapture again?
    Dammit.

    And there’s personhood under my fingernails AGAIN.

  2. says

    You know, he’s really only rapturing brains. He says it’s to extract the souls from them, or their vicinity, but what are the odds that zombie Jesus is isn’t planning a zombie feast?

    Bon appetit, Jesus!

    Glen Davidson

  3. Esteleth says

    I’m reminded of a truly terrible joke I heard as an undergrad:
    Q: What to vegan zombies say?
    A: GRAAAAAINS

    Zombie Jesus, what with that whole hippieness, would totally be a vegan these days.

  4. The Ys says

    All I know is that I’m really freakin’ tired of having to keep rescheduling my End-of-the-World party and the subsequent post-Rapture looting.

    GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!!

  5. triskelethecat says

    The Evil Americans have won…I have corrupted Sili so that he is coming back next year to Rhinebeck (and to continue to check out my book shelves.) And last night I introduced him to Fish Tacos…

  6. StevoR says

    I’m rapturous that I forgot all about that nonsense and missed out on the lead up hype this time! ;-)

    Also rapturous to know in the very unlikely event there is a God S/(T)He(y) is far better and less pyschopathic than the diety imagined by ole whatsisname of the Rapture cult.

  7. Esteleth says

    Out of curiosity, I went hunting for the Horde FB page. I found this and “liked” it. Is that the right one?

    I’m given to understand that there’s a wall where there’s more endless threading. How do I get access to that?

    I promise not to get mud on the carpet.

  8. Paul W. says

    About the discussion of apes vs. “monkeys” (and humans) a few Episodes back.

    Katherine Lorraine mentioned Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale, and it made me curious, so I got a copy from the library. (While I was at it, I got Francisco Ayala’s Am I a Monkey?, which seemed obviously relevant from the title.)

    Dawkins puts scare quotes around ‘monkeys’ when he starts talking about the New World ‘monkeys,’ but then proceeds to consistently call them monkeys, including talking about their getting to the New World by monkeys rafting their way to the Americas.

    In discussing the Old World monkeys, he says a combination of things that strikes me as bizarre. He says that the the common ancestor of OWMs and apes probably had a tail, and that the earliest catarrhine (non-“monkey”) apes may have had tails, but it doesn’t much matter—all that matters is which side of the monkey/ape clades split they’re on.

    I myself would be strongly inclined to call the(catarrhine simian) common ancestor a monkey, whether it had a tail or not. I can’t figure out what the hell “apeness” is supposed to be that makes it exclusive of being a monkey too.

    Dawkins, though, suggests for similar reasons that maybe we should call the OW (catarrhine) monkeys tailed apes. He seems to think that ape should be the more inclusive word, including our close cousins the Old World monkeys, but not the so-called New World ‘monkeys.’

    That seems pretty messed up to me. I can see using “monkey” and “ape” as evolutionary grade terms—I don’t like it, but I can get the idea—but it’s pretty clear that OWM’s just haven’t made the grade. They’re just monkeys, and to call them “apes” and say that the NWM’s “aren’t monkeys” is just making a complete hash of the vernacular terms “monkey” and “ape,” for no good scientific reason I can discern.

    At least it’s clear that Dawkins doesn’t care so much about the vernacular words as the clades—he’s got no problem with being very closely related to OWM’s, and putting them in the same clade (“apes”) as us, even if he doesn’t do what I’d do and put us in the same vernacularly-named clade as them (“monkeys.”)

    Unfortunately, Dawkins doesn’t name the most important clade for this discussion at all—he doesn’t talk about “simians,” and how it basically means “monkeys, inclusive of New World ‘monkeys’ and Old World monkeys-and-apes.”

    I find that peculiar. In a book that explicitly talks about clades, and uses particular monkey clade names like “catarrhine” and “platyrrhine,” and even talks about their tailed common ancestor, it seems just strange that he doesn’t name the simian clade, whether he calls it “monkeys” or not. It almost seems like he’s talking around the subject of what monkeys (in the vernacular sense) have in common, and why we don’t just bow to the obvious cladistic facts and call all simians monkeys. (The way we call wildly varied barnacles “barnacles” whether they look like prototypical barnacles or not.)

    Then I looked at Ayala. Eurgh.

    His book is titled “Am I a Monkey?” and right off he says no, but doesn’t ever actually say why—he doesn’t say what actually makes a monkey a monkey, and how that makes humans not a monkey.

    Here are the first few sentences of the first chapter of Am I a Monkey?

    I am a primate. Monkeys are primates, but humans are not monkeys. Primates include monkeys, apes, and humans. Humans are more closely related by descent to apes than to monkeys. That is, the apes are our first cousins, so to speak, while the monkeys are our second or third cousins.

    Evidently, we’re just primates, not apes, and not specifically simians. We have common ancestors with apes, but they weren’t apes. The monkeys are more distant relations, and our common ancestor was just a primate, and somehow not a monkey.

    Bullshit. We aren’t just related to apes, we are apes, and our near ancestors were too. We aren’t just related to monkeys, we’re simians, and that means monkeys, not excluding the ape sub-clade. The nearest ancestor we share with the monkeys is the very same one they share, not some other “primate.”

    We have met the monkeys, and they is us.

    But of course a Templeton Award winner isn’t going to say that. He’s going to make it sound like our not being monkeys or even descended from monkeys is a simple scientific fact. We’re some not apes, or even descended from apes. Take his word for it.

    He’s not going to tell you what it could even mean for there to be a scientific fact of the matter, or that there’s any conceptual problem with the supposed non-monkeyness of the nearest common ancestor of the monkeys.

    That’s the convenient untruth he names his whole book for. Ew.

    Note to Ayala: you’re a fucking monkey, mate.

  13. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Chimpy? What?

    Watch the video at the points he’s singing about the sinners burning.

  15. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Soldiers burn copies of Bill O’Reilly’s book

    Some jerk sent us two boxes of this awful book (SPOILER ALERT: George Washington – Patriot; George Soros – Pinhead) instead of anything soldiers at a remote outpost in Afghanistan might need, like, say, food or soap. Just burned the whole lot of them on my Commander’s orders.

    I’ve read people’s squeamishness about setting books ablaze. I hear you. The motivation behind the order to burn them was not political. As mentioned in the original post, we are in an extraordinarily remote location. We don’t have a post office here, so sending them back wasn’t an option. Extra space is scarce and alternatives that a few mentioned, like recycling, are nonexistent. All waste is burned on the base and in town; wood and paper goes in that barrel. I was getting rid of a bunch of cardboard boxes and the books were in the burn pile. There were 20 of them. I saved one for the bookshelf. I’m aware of the historical implications of book-burning. I won’t say I didn’t take pleasure in removing a few copies of this bigoted twerp’s writings from circulation, but the reason for doing so was military necessity.

  16. onion girl, OM; imaginary lesbian says

    Esteleth: No, that’s not the group–it’s secret (oooh!) so it’s not actually listed. Email me at oniongirlsays at gmail dot com for more info.

    Semi-caught up, have five minutes of a break and then I’m working the rest of the weekend.

    And, back to work.

  20. triskelethecat says

    What triskelethecat isn’t telling you, is that I keep trying to play with her pussy

    And he wonders why the cat keeps running away from him…

  22. picool says

    Um, the fornicators do not appear to be thrusting into anything. I hate to be that person, but it was kinda jarring.
    Also: Lemmy?!

  23. says

    Paul W.: I’m no biologist, but surely this is just an issue of terminology? After all, the meanings of the words “monkey”, “ape” and “primate” are human linguistic constructs, not facts of nature. If it makes people happier to define the word “monkey” somewhat-arbitrarily so as to exclude humans, does it really matter?

    Of course there’s also a need for a degree of consensus as to how terms should be used; otherwise we run into Humpty-Dumptyism.* But beyond that, I don’t understand why it’s important. Though perhaps I’m missing the point.

    (*‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’)

  24. jacobfromlost says

    This is the way the world ends,
    this is the way the world ends,
    this is the way the world ends,
    not with a bang, but with the world pretty much going on like it always has looking exactly like nothing remarkable happened.

    So how do we know it didn’t end last week, last year, 1000 years ago? Or a 1000 years from now?

    I guess we just have to rely on people like Camping to tell us.

    (…and I feel fine, as the song goes…)

  26. Dianne says

    The rapture is notably missing here. It’s “tomorrow” already in Australia and I’ve heard nothing about a rapture occurring there. So I must conclude that I should go ahead with making plans for the weekend.

    Speaking of rapture, something I never quite understood about the “Left Behind” books…So the books take place AFTER the rapture. When all righteous people are gone. That means that the protagonist and his love interest are evil people who don’t deserve heaven, right? Even supposing the books have some explanation for that (miraculous clerical error? residual work to be done?), the series ends with the protagonist and his love interest getting married and having a kid. In the end times. After the rapture. Guaranteeing that the child will live a horrible life and go to hell. What sort of people are they? Well, see above, I suppose…(Note: I haven’t actually read the LB series and could have any number of misunderstandings about the plot.)

  27. roggg says

    Woohoo! I’ve been preparing for raptors ever since Jurassic Park. I knew boarding up the windows and reinforcing the doors would pay off some day. I dont think my defenses will stand up to T-Rex, but I should be able to handle raptors just fine. Booya!

  31. Paul W. says

    Walton:

    I’m no biologist, but surely this is just an issue of terminology? After all, the meanings of the words “monkey”, “ape” and “primate” are human linguistic constructs, not facts of nature.

    Scientific terminology is supposed to correspond to facts, not arbitrary conventions. It’s supposed to be informative.

    For example, suppose somebody defined “electron” in 1910, and that definition turned out not to correspond to actual electrons—say, nothing corresponding to that particular definition existed and was involved in electrical flows.

    It would not be correct for somebody using that definition to say that electrons don’t exist. It would be correct for them to say “we got the defintion wrong.”

    You don’t get to define words however you want. They’re supposed to refer to actual things in a sensible way, and if your definitions don’t fit the facts, “carving nature at its joints,” you’re supposed to change the definitions.

    If it makes people happier to define the word “monkey” somewhat-arbitrarily so as to exclude humans, does it really matter?

    Only if we want to tell the truth.

    We shouldn’t be telling people that we didn’t descend from monkeys, if we did descend from monkeys.

    Scientists have a responsibility not to take perfectly good vernacular words—like “monkey” in the inclusive sense—and thoroughly fuck them up, and proceed to use them to say things that sound like scientific facts but are actually scientifically false, due to an obscure terminological gotcha.

    Scientists should not pretend to define the vernacular term “monkey” if they not going to make it fit the basic scientific facts.

    They should not presume to tell people they’re wrong to use “monkey” to mean simian.

    Think about how scientists told people that the Earth is a planet—i.e., that it’s the same kind of thing as those wandering lights in the sky. Turns out that the Earth is the same kind of thing.

    Telling people that we apes didn’t descend from monkeys is like telling them that the Earth is not a planet. (On the basis of the Earth not being a planet by definition, because it’s “not a heavenly body”—it’s right down here, not up there, like the planets!)

    That’s the opposite of what scientists should do.

  33. says

    When I used to believe, I felt a bit embarrassed to label myself as a Christian, given what many said and did under that same label.

    I never expected to feel the same way as an atheist…

    Mocking religious doctrines of resurrection and eternal life not as unfounded or untestable, but… as describing zombies? That is no better than the most petty and fallacious things I’ve heard from theists.

  35. ChasCPeterson says

    surely this is just an issue of terminology?

    Of course.
    So we have 2 choices for the words ‘ape’ and ‘monkey’:
    1.) The scientific sense, in which valid taxonomic groups are monophyletic (include all of the descendants of a given common ancestor).
    2.) The vernacular sense, inwhich monkeys, apes, and humans are mutually exclusive sets. (In this case, ‘monkeys’ and ‘apes’ are paraphyletic groups, since they exclude some of the descendants of the common ancestor of the group).

    I am in a minority of biologists that see a useful role for paraphyletic vernacular groupings in informal conversation.

    However, all of this is primarily interesting because people object to the idea that ‘humans are descended from apes and/or monkeys’. In sense #1, this is uncontroversial because in this sense humans are apes, and in exactly the same way, they are monkeys (if ‘monkeys’ has the usual members, including the New World versions).

    Here’s the thing.
    Even if you prefer the second, informal, vernacular sense, it is still true that humans descended from apes and that humans descended from monkeys.

    PaulW’s problem with Dawkins and Ayala, and now mine, is that they are trying to weasel out of this straightforward truth with semantic bullshit, like OWMs as ‘tailed apes’. Yeah, that strikes me as really really stupid.

  36. ChasCPeterson says

    Mocking religious doctrines of resurrection and eternal life not as unfounded or untestable, but… as describing zombies?

    *GASP*
    It’s downright disrespectful!

  37. julian says

    Mocking religious doctrines of resurrection and eternal life not as unfounded or untestable, but… as describing zombies?

    You know, old school zombies, before they became some viral disease, were magic. They could cast spells, command creatures, bring others back from the dead, affect the environment, make swamps appear… The list goes on.

    Maybe you oughtta play a few table top rpgs. Get all that Romero junk out of your head.

  38. Erulóra Maikalambe says

    Dianne,

    I believe that according to the theology of the LB series, after the Rapture is not too late to be saved. Ah, the big book of multiple choice.

  40. Erulóra Maikalambe says

    When I used to believe, I felt a bit embarrassed to label myself as a Christian, given what many said and did under that same label.

    I never expected to feel the same way as an atheist…

    Atheists are people, too? Gah! Who knew? But yeah, I feel your pain. Accomadationists embarrass me too.

  41. Rey Fox says

    Raptors? Where?

    Look up in the sky for a while, you’ll probably see one before too long.

  42. BCskeptic says

    Hi-fuckin-larious!

    Just underscores how absolutely absurd these bronze-age beliefs are in the modern age. Oh-oh, I feel a lightning strike coming!

  43. Jules says

    SQB,
    I’m on LinkedIn. I had the fun experience of accidentally sending LinkedIn requests to every single person I’d ever emailed ever, thanks to their tricksy schemes on that site, so that was kinda awesome (it gave my ex-husband a handy way to try to get in touch with me again, the asshole).

    But I’ve forgiven them for that embarrassment. It’s under my real name, which I’d rather not post here (and my email address is also my real name). So I’m not sure how to handle that.

    I kinda wanna go for using a riddle…

  44. d cwilson says

    I just found out that Harold Camping’s middle name is Egbert.

    Yes, Egbert.

    (snicker)

  45. Algernon says

    as describing zombies

    What do you have against zombies? You racist or something? Zombies are a perfectly legitimate superstition.

  46. Jules says

    Dear Horde,
    Does anyone have any clue as to why all of my Audible uploads no longer have sound in the newest iTunes update? All of my podcasts and music still play, but my 20+ audiobooks are silent. The ticker shows that they’re playing, but there’s no sound.

    And I really love my audiobooks, so I’m about to cut a motherfucker over this.

  47. StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why says

    From the Occupy Vancouver page:

    “Science” is not neutral nor is it objective. It is a pardigmatic belief system based upon observations through a dogmatic cultural lens which is largely invisible due to the pervasiveness of the culture.

    I’m about to implode.

    I know the feeling. My local Occupy group (which I actually participate in) posted some pictures to their facebook page of notes they received in the “comment on the movement” box. One of the pictures was of a note that was ranting about how food is produced and was almost incoherent, but concluded with “Fuck GMOs”.
    I very much wanted to reply that the person who wrote that was a complete ignorant, privileged asshole, but I’m trying not to start too much shit with these people. It’s really difficult to stop myself with this kind of thing. Scientist and skeptics are hard to find among these people.

  48. Moggie says

    Algernon:

    What do you have against zombies? You racist or something? Zombies are a perfectly legitimate superstition.

    How dare you refer to my deeply held spiritual belief in zombies as a mere superstition!

  49. Esteleth says

    Egbert

    My Google-fu informs me that this means “bright edge.” Harold means “leader of the army.”

    Somehow, this is even more snark-worthy. Seriously, the Leader of the Army With a Bright Edge Goes Camping?

  50. Jules says

    What triskelethecat isn’t telling you, is that I keep trying to play with her pussy

    And he wonders why the cat keeps running away from him…

    I couldn’t get it to leave me alone when I was there.

  51. Mattir says

    Jules: because iTunes and audible are wildly annoying in conjunction? That would be my guess. I’ve had to download our library more than once, all 200 books of it.

    Sili, I have you beat – Last night DDMFM held mine on his lap. So there.

  52. Jules says

    Mattir, that does not sound pleasant.

    It really bugs me that I’m 3 hours from the end of a 20+ hour book, and now I’ll have to dig around again to find my spot.

  53. Jules says

    In my #52, I was, of course, referring to having to re-download a 200-book library.

    Having your pussy in DDMFM’s lap sounds quite lovely.

  54. Mattir says

    Anyone in the DC-Baltimore vicinity who would like to join the local Horde for a trip to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History next Saturday with the erudite David Marjanovic should email me at mattir 1 7 at gmail dot com or respond via the Baltimore-Washington yahoo group. I’ve been to the Smithsonian with him for an hour last year, and to the AMNH in NY for two days earlier this week, and it’s a rare treat.

    For that matter, anyone who is a regular poster who wishes for information on the FB group, email me and let me know who the heck you are. I will not respond to random friend requests with no message of who you are, and the endless thread FB group is deliberately non-searchable, so unless one of the admins invites you, you won’t find it. (Yes, it sounds paranoid, but it’s freaking FB.)

  55. Ray, rude-ass yankee says

    Introduced to fish tacos? Play with her pussy?
    I’m up for it! Where do I pitch my tent?

  58. First Approximation says

    Having your pussy in DDMFM’s lap sounds quite lovely.

    Can someone in meatspace show Dr. David Mother Fuckin’ Marjanović that comment and report what shade of red he turns?

  59. Ray, rude-ass yankee says

    Mattir@54, Damn, I would so like to get to meet others in the Horde! I’ve been to both the Smithsonian in Washington and the AMNH in New York but I’d go again in a heartbeat. I’m in Roanoke, VA but I work Saturdays and it takes an act of god (kidding) to get a day off. That would also be just too far for a day trip.

    I would like to join the FB group, but I’ve been leery of setting up a FB account. This makes it sound worthwhile though. I guess if I do get on FB I’ll e-mail then.

    DDMFM? I think I missed that one. What’s it mean?

  60. Sili says

    ” I couldn’t get it to leave me alone when I was there.”

    It must have been impressed by your expert handling of ejaculate.

    –o–

    If you want, you can now track down SQB through me

  61. Ray, rude-ass yankee says

    AAAAND I see the answer came up just before I post but before I refresh the comments! Now that’s service!

  63. says

    Back from the vet with an IV set up for sub-q fluids for Alfie, along with more antibiotics and pain meds for him. Chas was extremely upset to be back at the vet’s and spent the whole time on Mister’s shoulders, hiding under his hair.

  64. says

    Anyone interested in getting LinkedIn can send me an e-mail at my ‘nym at live dot nl.

    Jules, please don’t take this the wrong way, but you leave more hints about your identity here than you may realise. I remembered you mentioning a newspaper review you didn’t like. I found that comment with a well aimed Google search, and thus the review itself. From that I got your name. That gave me six hits on LinkedIn, one of which listed a university that looked familiar. So I’m gonna try and shoot you an invitation.

    I remember Rorschach’s real name being used, I remember learning (I think it was) nigelTheBold’s name from a link to a photo stream, I know some Pharyngulites use their real names on their blogs.

    I would make a great stalker, were I so inclined.

    If it’s any consolation, Sili and Oniongirl know my real name and Benjamin Geiger, Bill Dauphin and PZ Myers will learn it once they read their e-mail.

  66. Jules says

    It must have been impressed by your expert handling of ejaculate.

    Jack-of-all-trades that I am.

    SQB, I don’t necessarily mind that people are able to track me down from here; I just don’t want here to show up in a Google search of my name.

    But if it’s someone who follows TET closely enough to catch the clues, I’m not automatically bothered by it. Unless they turn out creepy. I’m pretty sure you’ll pass the noncreepster test.

    So, that’s your real name? Iiiinnnterrresting…

  67. Gregory Greenwood says

    Mattir @ 51;

    Sili, I have you beat – Last night DDMFM held mine on his lap. So there.

    Jules @ 53;

    Having your pussy in DDMFM’s lap sounds quite lovely.

    Its good to know David Marjanović and Mattir are… enjoying one another’s company.

    :-P

    First Approximation @ 58;

    Can someone in meatspace show Dr. David Mother Fuckin’ Marjanović that comment and report what shade of red he turns?

    Do we have a standard colour gradation chart set up for that? With the approximate correlation between level of embarrassment and shade acheived drawn from studies with a suitable sample size and control group? We should be rigorous, afterall…

    Based upon no data whatsoever, I predict that a shade of light beetroot will be the outcome, because of uncaused causes… or something.*

    * You see, I can argue like a theist too.

  68. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    I used to leave a lot more hints (I got rid of the link to my photoblog because it had pictures of me on it) but my hometown and my current location are still pretty frequently mentioned :/ I worry about it sometimes, but I’m not handy enough with internet detective work to figure out if it’s a problem.

  69. says

    Jules, the patents are not mine, but belong to a cousin. I am the one on C2 (hint: more information on me, there).

    My name is common in our family. It was my paternal grandfather’s name, and his paternal grandfather, and so on for about 300 years, give or take some.

  70. says

    SQB:

    I remember Rorschach’s real name being used, I remember learning (I think it was) nigelTheBold’s name from a link to a photo stream, I know some Pharyngulites use their real names on their blogs.

    Yeah, a lot of us can be tracked to our real info. Gee, what news. :eyeroll: Considering that quite a few of us, myself included, have been subject to stalkery behaviour by asshats lately, maybe you don’t need to go on and on about it.

    If people want to be ‘linkedin’ or whatever, I’m sure they can manage to let you know.

  71. says

    I’m hereby writing to protest that the endless allusions to wet pussies and fish tacos and ‘handling of ejaculate’ ITT are presenting me with well-nigh irresistible temptation to attempt to pull off my standard juvenile male-dumb-blond* routine, in which I attempt to imply strikingly improbable ignorance of all these allusions and ask naive questions like: ‘I don’t get it… Why would DMFM actually blush under these circumstances… Y’know, we get our share of wet pussies around here, and sure, it can get messy if they climb up on you, but, generally, it’s still nice that they’re so happy to see you…’

    … so stop that, everyone. I might have actually written such an abomination, otherwise.

    (*/I hereby claim I do an excellent one. And yes, dammit, I’m really doing it on purpose. With apologies in advance to any male blonds who genuinely feel persecuted or somethin’, and feel that I Am Not Helping, but I try to work with what I got, y’know?)

  72. says

    Classical Cipher, would you mind if I tried it? I like a challenge.

    I surprised some of my old classmates on a reunion, just by mentioning the information I got from Google searches — I hate the verb ‘googling’ — beforehand.

  73. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Caine, you’re absolutely right. Sorry everybody (and me) for being a big idiot :( SQB, I don’t mind if you try, but since Caine’s right, you can shoot me an email about it if you want rather than posting it here. I’m under my nym on google mail.

  74. says

    Considering that quite a few of us, myself included, have been subject to stalkery behaviour by asshats lately, maybe you don’t need to go on and on about it.

    I’m sorry, Caine. I meant it mostly as a word of caution. I will not mention it again.

  75. Algernon says

    I would make a great stalker, were I so inclined.

    You can find my home address with a little effort. Maybe you should stop by some time. I’ll introduce you to some of my friends.

  76. Gregory Greenwood says

    Ivan @ 33;

    Mocking religious doctrines of resurrection and eternal life not as unfounded or untestable, but… as describing zombies? That is no better than the most petty and fallacious things I’ve heard from theists.

    Sooo.. the magical resurrection of the dead to life.

    Hmmm.

    Exactly how is that not akin to necromancy? How is it, from a rational perspective, any less ridiculous than a belief in zombies?

    The christian belief in the resurrection, as described, bears several similarities to the zombie myth*. We point out this fact, and riff on it a bit because it is funny. Are you seriously suggesting that we should not in order to spare the feelings of theists?

    Tone above all, is it?

    * Feel free to substitute the vampire myth if you prefer. The catholic doctorine of transubstantiation is a particularly good fit for this one.

  78. Erulóra Maikalambe says

    A decade worth of hints is the reason I switched nyms when I came over to FTB. It’s just too easy to get from my old nym to my name, email and physical location. As well as my employer.

  79. says

    SQB:

    I remember Rorschach’s real name being used, I remember learning (I think it was) nigelTheBold’s name from a link to a photo stream, I know some Pharyngulites use their real names on their blogs.

    What, it’s a secret that my secret identity is Tony?

  80. Moggie says

    Here’s a rather lovely interview with David Attenborough, who is surely deserving of “national treasure” status, if anyone is. And the new series will probably be redubbed by Oprah when it hits the US…

  81. says

    And I won’t invite anyone (else) on LinkedIn who hasn’t made it clear they want to be invited beforehand, either. You’re right about that, too.

  82. Sally Strange, OM says

    I don’t often watch the videos on the Endless Thread, but I did for this one. Ivan inspired me. That was hilarious. And, I think, a pretty fair synopsis of Christian beliefs–apart from the idea that zombie Jesus would actually look like a traditional zombie, with blood spatters and rotting eyes and all.

  83. mattir says

    I’m pretty sure it’ll be a blushing competition between my kids and DM. Really, nothing untoward occurred. Really. And DM is actually allergic to cats, which is why I’m at the store buying claritin.

  84. Algernon says

    And I won’t invite anyone (else) on LinkedIn who hasn’t made it clear they want to be invited beforehand, either.

    FWIW, you are welcome to link to me. You will find my linked in info is annoyingly out of date and very boring.

  85. Sally Strange, OM says

    I’m into the LinkedIn thing. I’m going to email you from my real-name email address, SQB.

  87. Paul W. says

    ChasCPeterson:

    PaulW’s problem with Dawkins and Ayala, and now mine, is that they are trying to weasel out of this straightforward truth with semantic bullshit, like OWMs as ‘tailed apes’. Yeah, that strikes me as really really stupid.

    Actually, it’s not clear to me what Dawkins is trying to accomplish with the “tailed ape” thing—if anything much. It may just be that he’s pointing out our very close relationship to the Old World “monkeys,” and that it’s unclear that we should think the OWM/ape distinction is particularly important. (I agree with that.) And he might be avoiding the term “monkey” in discussing catarrhines generally because the New World “monkeys” make it confusing. I dunno.

    What does seem clear to me is that he’s not writing with his usual clarity. To be clear on this subject, you just have to talk about simians and make it clear that “simian” means exactly monkeys-of-all-kinds-not-excluding-apes, and the clade that clearly picks out. That’s the elephant in the room, which needs to be dealt with explicitly, to show why the distinction between apes and Old World “monkeys” is relatively minor.

    It does seem odd that Dawkins, of all people, would not address that clearly and head on. I can chalk that up to just not wanting to fight over the terminology and going ahead and describing the clades…

    Ayala, on the other hand, is pretty clearly trying just as hard as he can to avoid freaking religious people out with the truth, without being caught in an unambiguous lie. He’s happy to say flatly that we’re not descended from apes, much less monkeys, as though his mental reservation—about that meaning not extant, nonhuman apes, etc.—made it not a lie.

    (Never mind that if there’s anything you should know about evolution, it’s the whole Tree of Life thing, and Deep Time, and that the extant things are not necessarily representative of the more general, scientifically important things they happen to be the surviving examples of.)

    That just scabs my scientific ass. Scientists should never write like that, or what’s the point of having scientists write anything anyhow? It’s classic “framing” in the bad Mooney/Nisbet sense. Admit nothing that might be politically awkward, even if it’s the central scientific point at issue, and just needs a little bit of explaining.

    This is a particularly aggravating case, because whether or not you try to enlighten people about how ancestral or modern “apes” or “monkeys” are not necessarily representative of all apes or monkeys, our common ancestors probably are pretty representative. Our common ape ancestor would probably be indistinguishable from the general run of modern apes to the inexpert eye—some kind of “lesser ape”—and our common monkey (simian) ancestor would almost certainly be lost among the varied extant “monkeys.”

    (How many people can confidently tell you that a gibbon is an ape, not a monkey, but a Barbary macaque or mandrill is a monkey, not an ape? How many people can tell you that and how to distinguish any Old World monkey from any New World monkey? None, to a first and second approximation.)

    These are the really easy cases for evolutionary talk—“grandma” clearly was an ape, and “great great grandma” clearly was a fucking monkey—and we insist on getting them wrong on a technicality.

    How the fuck do we expect to be understood about evolution in general, when we’re habitually lying about the easy, generally interesting cases?

  88. says

    Setár #30 & 34 – You’re not giving me much to go on here. Is it the forum? I just signed up and am awaited anointed blessing from the Administrator.

  89. davidpacheco says

    6pm East Coast Time, October 21 2010. The Sin City of New York, and Florida, the location of about 90% of “Cops” episodes, have been Raptured, along with the rest of the East Coast. All communications have ceased, planes are falling out of the sky, cars are careening out of control, the pagans remain behind in confusion and chaos, asking what is to be done. Too late, pagans, too late.

  90. says

    I have a LinkedIn profile (having been invited to join it a couple of years back by one of my friends in the corporate world), but I don’t actually use it.

    And yeah, I’m very easy to find. I’m not secretive about my identity. (I only continue to use the pseudonym here because I’ve been “Walton” for so long that it would confuse people if I changed it, and to make my Pharyngula comments less easily googlable. Luckily, both my real name and my pseudonym are very common.)

  92. The Ys says

    Has anyone here seen that stupid “Fuck this, I’m going to be a stripper” .jpg that’s making the rounds? I just spotted it flying past on G+, and a woman said something about it. A rather stellar gentleman responded with this gem:

    “If I were a girl, I’d be a stripper. Easiest, quickest money f’n ever. Don’t act like women aren’t lucky as hell for having easy options like that.”

    Where can I go to bleach out my laptop? And my brain?

  93. says

    “If I were a girl, I’d be a stripper. Easiest, quickest money f’n ever. Don’t act like women aren’t lucky as hell for having easy options like that.”

    There aren’t enough *headdesks* in the world to cover this one.

    (Even the Onion presents a more realistic view of life than this guy.)

  94. Ray, rude-ass yankee says

    I’ve been trying to remember when I first came across Pharyngula. I remember reading a blurb in a magazine like Time or Newsweek or some-such about interesting blogs. I cannot find anything in searches so far (my google-fu is weak) but it must have been some time ago 2003/4 maybe?
    I’ve asked this once before, on some version of TET I think, but then couldn’t find it again to see if it was answered (see above about google-fu). Do any other commenters or our esteemed host know what I’m talking about?

    Thanks in advance for any help. I’m also going to bookmark this so I don’t lose it again.

  95. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    Awe, I didn’t get Raptured®. Crap.

    Watching all those Christian being levitated into space might have actually improved my shitty ass day.

  96. kristinc, ~delicate snowflake~ says

    Our car, she is broke.

    The battery was fine but the engine wouldn’t turn over. I said “I bet it’s the starter”. Mr Kristin fussed around for a couple hours putting water in the radiator, checking the oil and transmission fluids, and muttering about spark plugs before calling a (male) buddy, who said “If the battery is fine but the engine won’t turn over, it’s the starter.”

    At the garage, Mr Kristin texted me to say “Looks like my diagnosis was right, they say the starter is toast”.

    WTF!!

  97. says

    Bircher muesli experiments: successful. The current version has flaked almonds & mulberries; with apple juice, natural yoghurt & milk and a little honey used for the soak.

    Embarrassingly, for someone who was whinging about not being able to find a recipe, I still can’t write a recipe. Take rolled oats (& optional flaked almonds or coconut shreds), soak in stuff overnight, add fruit, eat. It’s like what cold porridge would be, if cold porridge were delicious instead of gross.

  98. The Ys says

    At the garage, Mr Kristin texted me to say “Looks like my diagnosis was right, they say the starter is toast”.

    WTF!!

    *face/palm*

    I’m sorry, Kristin. That’s really fucking annoying.

  99. Stevarious says

    It’s like what cold porridge would be, if cold porridge were delicious instead of gross.

    I’m pretty sure that cold porridge was meant to be a punishment, not a normal foodstuff.
    Nonetheless I will have to try this one.

    I recently obtained (as a gift…I’m wondering why I feel compelled to qualify this?) the Official Harry Potter Cookbook that has recipes for every single food item mentioned in any Harry Potter book. Some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious (and also delicious sounding). Some of this I had absolutely no idea what it even was until I saw it here. Does anyone ever actually eat blood pudding? eeeeewwwwwww……

    The author hilariously mentions that she did not actually try the recipe for haggis.

  100. cicely, Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac says

    Mocking religious doctrines of resurrection and eternal life not as unfounded or untestable, but… as describing zombies?

    There is a schism in the Undead Jesus camp; some see Him as a zombie, while others insist that He must be a vampire.

    I favor the Zombie Vampire interpretation, myself.
    –

  101. says

    Catching up (in no particular order):

    As god is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly, also, too, I will never get a flu shot again. I thought they prevented the flu.

    I was so fucking sick yesterday I not only didn’t go to work, I didn’t even get out of bed ’till around 8pm when I drank about a cup of cold canned soup. Which was all my appetite could handle. (I got up in time to go to work, but crawled back, literally, to bed, from the bathroom.

    I did read 2 books, but then I had a lotta time being in the bathroom or in bed wondering if I might have to go again.[/TMI])
    +++++++++++++++++++
    The Flu had left my body by Midnight, so I was in perfect shape today to successfully haul my boat … after a full day at work.

    I stuck the landing on the 2nd try, (It’s a little difficult to judge crosswind when your keel’s up and you’re aiming a 4500 lbs, 25 ft long, 8 ft wide object at a trailer that has about +/- 6 inches of clearance laterally. You also have to guage the forward momentum. And you only do it once a year. I did OK.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Caine, What’s it all about Alfie? I was so hoping it was just a cold, sorry to hear about the vet trip, but I’m glad it’s so soon.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    TLC, very nice knife handle. I find Magic Markers and indelible markers also make great dyes for highlights.

    Ya know, folks here who dye wool might be able to give you some excellent methods to dye wood inexpensively, (which means free … but labor intensive.) This is not to be contrued as a criticism at all, I really like your work.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Ogvorbis, I’ve bookmarked your steam locomotives seminar, but what’s the difference between the cylinders and the engine(s)?
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Mattir, if SonSpawn wants to play in teh shark tank, SonSpawn needs a tough hide. And this is the shallow end of the pool.

    I personally welcome him, but there are assholes here. They bite.
    ++++++++++++++++++
    FWIW, in the time it took me to write this, and correct my spelling thru spellczech and intent, another 100 posts and a portcullis have gone by.

  102. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The battery was fine but the engine wouldn’t turn over. I said “I bet it’s the starter”.

    Well DUH. Been there, replaced that. Crawling under a car in near zero weather to replace a bad starter on the bottom of the engine isn’t fun, but it worked…

  103. cicely, Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac says

    Caine, best of luck with your ailing rat. Is it age, or illness? I confess that I know very little about rats as pets.
    –

  104. kristinc, ~delicate snowflake~ says

    Nerd: I was astonished that Mr Kristin didn’t know it. I know about half an inch more than nothing about cars. But I was under the impression it was the sort of thing people sort of absorbed through osmosis if they even knew someone who owned a car: if it won’t turn over, it’s the starter.

  105. Fnerd says

    Harold Camping was right… the world has indeed ended today, but what he didn’t foresee is that it was supposed to be World of Wacraft.

    /kidding

  106. Ray, rude-ass yankee says

    The Sailor@101, Glad you were finally able to get your boat out, I know you’ve mentioned multiple attempts.
    I’ve only ever gotten sick with flu symptoms after a flu shot once, and they were mild. Sorry you had it rough. I don’t know how to send stuff through USB like some here, and “hugs” don’t seem appropriate. Soooo, Happy Monkey!

  107. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But I was under the impression it was the sort of thing people sort of absorbed through osmosis if they even knew someone who owned a car: if it won’t turn over, it’s the starter.

    It’s either the battery or the starter. Which makes it trivial to diagnose. *technical talk* The starter, essentially an electric motor, has a centrifugal clutch and a gear that engages the crankshaft, and some electrical component to modulate the process. When the starter goes, either the motor burns out, the electrical component goes (usual problem), or the centrifugal clutch goes. Nowadays, it is easier/cheaper to replace the unit instead of the components. And even easier if you can afford to pay your mechanic to replace it for you.

  108. says

    Nerd: That sucks; being on your back, trying to replace a starter, (I’m assuming it wasn’t just the solenoid, tho a lot of starters these days are a package deal), and dropping one down and trying to hoist the new one in the right position while someone can’t manage to hold the flashlight in position while you’re aligning the long bolts into position is the reason blasphemy was invented.

    The longer bolts are coming to get us.

  109. The Laughing Coyote (Papio Cynocephalus) says

    TLC, very nice knife handle. I find Magic Markers and indelible markers also make great dyes for highlights.

    I’ve thought of using markers for certain types before. I’ve always had a bit of interest in the native style carvings from the pacific northwest here, and one of the hallmarks of the best work (from my unprofessional perspective) is the controlled way they paint in the colors, leaving clear unpainted lines and areas to separate them. Painting the surfaces of details without letting the paint seep into the grooves separating them has always been difficult for me when I attempted the style, and I think magic markers would be a bit of an untraditional solution.

    Ya know, folks here who dye wool might be able to give you some excellent methods to dye wood inexpensively, (which means free … but labor intensive.) This is not to be contrued as a criticism at all, I really like your work.

    I like new ideas when it comes to carving. Some woodcarvers seem to specialize, on whittling ever longer chains, or ever more realistic decoys, or some other specialized aspect of the art. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, and people who carve this way are usually masters of their chosen art, but it’s not my style. I like to experiment and branch out, and try different things.

  110. says

    @Stevarious, yes, cold porridge is truly horrible. The comparison is partly for texture – it should be loose, like a nice creamy hot porridge, not solid and congealed. You need enough liquid to cover the oats well, and a splash more. I started the soak at dinner time and checked before bed – if too solid, add a splash of milk.

    I believe the liquid needs to be mildly acidic. Apple juice and yoghurt cover that aspect for me. I’ve seen more minimalist recipes that have lemon juice & water.

  111. says

    cicely:

    Caine, best of luck with your ailing rat. Is it age, or illness? I confess that I know very little about rats as pets.

    Neither do I. I just know that, should they turn into the person who betrayed your parents to their death, you should most likely kill him immediately.

  112. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nerd: That sucks; being on your back, trying to replace a starter, (I’m assuming it wasn’t just the solenoid, tho a lot of starters these days are a package deal), and dropping one down and trying to hoist the new one in the right position while someone can’t manage to hold the flashlight in position while you’re aligning the long bolts into position is the reason blasphemy was invented.

    This was on my ’80 Horizon, after I moved here, sometime in the early-mid ’90s, before I got an infusion of cash that allowed other people to do those things for me. Also, it was winter, and thin rubber gloves from work kept my fingers from freezing, but tactile enough to complete the job. Kept that car for 19.5 years before it became a Flintstonemobile. I had a great desire to drive it to the junkyard on its 20th anniversary…

  113. cicely, Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac says

    Neither do I. I just know that, should they turn into the person who betrayed your parents to their death, you should most likely kill him immediately.

    Yeah, but that only shortens up your book series and/or movie franchise, which could seriously (and negatively) impact your cash flow.
    –

  114. Tired of Redheads says

    Nerd: This was on my ’80 Horizon, after I moved here, sometime in the early-mid ’90s, before I got an infusion of cash that allowed other people to do those things for me.

    You were in your 40s before you could afford a mechanic?!? Dude, what’s with all the pretentious bullshit you puke up about being a real scientist?

  115. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You were in your 40s before you could afford a mechanic?!? Dude, what’s with all the pretentious bullshit you puke up about being a real scientist?

    I was in academia until the late ’80s. Nobody gets even comfortable working for a University at a low level.

  116. says

    You were in your 40s before you could afford a mechanic?!? Dude, what’s with all the pretentious bullshit you puke up about being a real scientist?

    WTF? What is that supposed to mean? Do you think that all “real scientists” are highly-paid? (If so, I can only assume you haven’t spent much time in academia…)

    What a bizarre personal attack. :-/

  117. Tethys says

    Oh joy, a stupid troll has come to piss on the rug.

    Monkey genes/slanted science/PaulG?

    It’s so stupid it can’t even decipher a nym correctly.

  118. Ichthyic says

    Dude, what’s with all the pretentious bullshit you puke up about being a real scientist?

    what’s how much money you spend on your fucking car got to do with being a scientist?

    oh, wait, you’re a moron.

    I get it now.

  119. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    The Sailor:
    You know, this was the first year I said to myself, “Self, you will get a flu shot.” Have I gotten one yet? Nope. Do I feel like I’m coming down with the flu as we speak (and it’s getting worse by the hour)? Oh, of course.

    Blarg.

  121. Dhorvath, OM says

    Some old friends came to visit and so I will have to miss the frivolity this weekend. Take care all, remember that the toilet is in the third door on the left, not the second door on the right.

  122. Father/Brother/Nephew/Cousin/ex-Mother-in-Law Ogvorbis, OM: Independently-Minded Baboon says

    Ogvorbis, I’ve bookmarked your steam locomotives seminar, but what’s the difference between the cylinders and the engine(s)?

    When one speaks of steam locomotives, there are multiple components and sets of components. Locomotive refers to the firebox, boiler, cyliners and pistons, drive train, and all controls and appurtenances required for the locomotive to work safely. The engine itself is the cylinders and pistons, valve gear (valve, valve rod, rocker, Johnson, Johnson bar, eccentric rod and eccentric crank), the drive train (piston, piston rod, crosshead, drive rod and connecting rod) and other parts (such as the crosshead guides) required to transfer the heat and pressure energy from the steam into mechanical energy. The cylinders are merely the chamber in which the transfer takes place.

    Using these definitions, a locomotive can be anything from a 20-tonne midget with 12-inch cylinders runnin with a 15-inch stroke, 20-inch drive wheels and only two axles, to a 600-ton behemoth with four 23 3/4-inch cylinders running with a 32-inch stroke, 68-inch drive wheels and eight drive axles. The locomotive is the entire unit required to move a train.

    The engine itself, in railroad parlance, is a part of the locomotive. Specifically, it is the part which makes the thing move. Inside the boiler of the locomotive, water is heated to well above atmospheric boiling point with concurrent high pressure (up to 300psi (no, I ain’t gonna translate into furrinerspeak!)). The only ways out of the boiler are cocks (which can be opened to bleed steam), the safety valves (usually three of them, set to three different pressures, and each one dropping the pressure even more than the last), and, via the throttle, dry pipe, manifold, superheater tubes, wye pipe, valves, cylinder, valves, steam chest, venturi, and smokestack, through the ‘engine’. Pressure (or the expansion of superheated steam) moves the piston, which moves the piston rod, crosshead, and drive rod which connects to the main drive wheel and, via connecting rods, to the secondary drive wheels.The cylinder itself is merely the chamber in which the energy transfer is accomplished.

    The cylinder is a part of the engine is a part of the locomotive. Another way to look at this is to compare the steam locomotive to an automobile. The 6 cylinders in my Taurus are a component of the engine in which the chemical energy of the gasoline is released. The engine is all of the shit that contains and directs the energy release into mechanical energy which moves the car down the road. And the car itself, like the locomotive, has the things needed to control, direct and use the energy produced by the drive train. Plus the stereo.

    —————-

    Caine:

    My sympathy for you and your pet. I understand how you feel. Sherman (the curmudgeon) is fading fast. No pain, but I can see him going downhill fast.

  123. says

    Having your pussy in DDMFM’s lap sounds quite lovely.

    Remind me to attend one of these Pharyngula meetups sometime, they sound, err, interesting. (oh, and please someone go and tag those pics on FB so one knows who everyone is)

    I would make a great stalker, were I so inclined.

    You’re sure giving a good imitation of one, how about not doing that ?

  124. triskelethecat says

    Well, Sili is on his way (via Paris) back to Denmark. A good time was had by all, and he states he will come back (not sure if the fish tacos, the cat, or the bookshelves are the primary attraction…).

    @Dr Audley: aack! So sorry to hear of the flu symptoms. Hope you avoid getting really ill.
    @The Sailor: I got the shot again this year, and for the first time, (out of 4 years), had no real reaction except for mild muscle aches, headache and sore arm for 2 days. Previous years have been much more miserable (the first year I really reacted to it).

  125. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    In the NC mountains for some fall color shooting. Hitting a Balloon festival tomorrow. Hopefully will get some good shots of the fly in and the Dusk Glow.

  126. Sally Strange, OM says

    Note to self: get flu shot.

    Good things that happened today: went to therapy appointment with therapist #2 (#1 was on Wednesday). I like her a lot better than therapist #1, who seemed to be doing it pretty much by rote. She’s younger and more engaged and less focused on paperwork.

    Also: drank beer, ate hot wings, noticed that Being Human, the original British version, is on Netflix now.

    Sucky things: I’m depressed and I miss StrangeBoyfriend. I’m having a hard time adjusting to not having him around, and it’s hard to stay focused on keeping my daily life in order.

    *sigh*

    Feel better, Audley. I may be passing through around the weekend of Nov. 12-13. Just a heads up.

  128. triskelethecat says

    @SallyStrange: if you are in Dr Audley’s area, let me know, too. That’s not too far for me to go and I would love to meet you (that’s if I don’t end up down in the DC area for Heatherly’s 11/11/11 party on the way to seeing Daughter #2 and discussing a wedding…)

  129. Mattir says

    Rorschach – here’s the scene at our house at the moment. Son is playing Call of Duty 4 online and emitting random one-sided conversations about grenades, DDMFM is doing some sort of paleontology stuff at the dining room table, DaughterSpawn is playing on FB, Mr. Mattir is whittling a walking stick, and I am switching back and forth between here and my new spinning wheel. Really, it’s pretty unexciting.

    Rhinebeck, on the other hand, was an orgy of discussions about the taxonomy of gnomes, jewelry making marathons, and dramatic readings from advice pamphlets on how Catholic men can handle their pron problems. Plus homebrewed beer.

    I am pleased to report that the first sip of beer my son had was Jack’s homebrew. Also pleased to report (given that he’s 15) that he didn’t care for it. Sorry, Jack, but give it a few years…

  130. Mattir says

    TLC – I think the best thing to get even paint borders would be some sort of resist on the surface to contain whatever color you’re using. Check out dharmatrading.com for supplies and advice. I don’t remember where you are in actual real life, but it would be fun to get together and do something with animal bits. While cleaning up for the Horde visitations last week, I did notice that we seem to have an alarming number of deer skulls, bones, and antlers around the place. (DaughterSpawn wears a vertebra as a necklace, just to look extra alarming to the mundanes.)

  132. chigau (almost) says

    Relatively Ogvorbis
    Write that Train Book! A big one, with pictures. I’ll buy one.
    —
    re: Sherman
    oh no.
    Does he drink rum?

  134. says

    Rhinebeck, on the other hand, was an orgy of discussions about the taxonomy of gnomes, jewelry making marathons, and dramatic readings from advice pamphlets on how Catholic men can handle their pron problems.

    Lots of good advice in that pamphlet – from telling everything to one’s priest (and they really mean everything), to praying to St Joseph, St Michael the Archangel and the Virgin Mary, to snapping a wristband against one’s wrist to punish oneself for impure thoughts, to wearing a crucifix and a Benedict medal at all times and sprinkling holy water liberally. All of these measures should, of course, be taken long before one confides in one’s wife, which is step 12. After all, one’s priest and St Michael the Archangel have far more need to know about one’s impure sexual thoughts than one’s wife does.

    (Admittedly, sprinkling holy water liberally over one’s computer might actually be efficacious in preventing one looking at porn. If only because it would probably break the keyboard.)

    I’m not sure which is better – the Catholic pamphlet, or its infamous Mormon counterpart, “Steps to Overcoming Masturbation”. (I guess it’s a pretty close tie between Catholicism and Mormonism in the whole instilling-guilt-and-self-hatred-about-one’s-sexuality stakes.)

  135. chigau (almost) says

    … telling everything to one’s priest (and they really mean everything) …

    This makes me want to go to church.
    I haven’t been to Confession in a LONG time.
    I have LOTS to say:
    “Bless me Father for I have sinned. It’s been 40 years since my last confession…”

  136. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Gee, I do think SS was trolling.

    But, I did find two types of academics/engineers. There was the theoreticians, who you kept away from tools, as they invariably destroyed everything trying to “fixit”, including themselves, and those practical folks who could do almost anything with tools and fix most problems. I am one of the latter, but a summer working in Sear’s small engine repair shop helped.

  137. Sally Strange, OM says

    Will do, triskelethecat! Illuminata lives near my folks’ place, and Esteleth said she lives somewhere in upstate too…

    Pharyngula ladies’ night out!

  138. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Rorschach,

    Remind me to attend one of these Pharyngula meetups sometime

    I thought you already have been to some. Or were there no orgies at those, so they technically don’t qualify as ‘Pharyngula meetups’?

  139. Mattir says

    Walton, the Mormon pamphlet is way worse. Seriously, tie yourself to your bed to prevent wanking in your sleep? Sleep clutching the Book of Mormon? Stop eating spicy food? Even the Catholics, loony as they may be, don’t think stuff done while unconscious is sinful.

    I particularly liked how you weren’t even supposed to pray about The Problem™ since that only made you think about The Problem™ more.

  140. chigau (almost) says

    If the cold porridge is sufficiently solid, it can be sliced and fried.
    In bacon fat.

  141. says

    “Bless me Father for I have sinned. It’s been 40 years since my last confession…”

    Wow. Now that confession might take a while.

    (Speaking of lengthy sacraments, I’ve sometimes wondered whether Berlusconi – who is, of course, ostensibly Catholic – ever goes to confession. And, if so, how long it takes.)

  142. says

    (Admittedly, sprinkling holy water liberally over one’s computer might actually be efficacious in preventing one looking at porn. If only because it would probably break the keyboard.)”

    No, it would short out the motherboard.

  143. says

    Walton, the Mormon pamphlet is way worse. Seriously, tie yourself to your bed to prevent wanking in your sleep? Sleep clutching the Book of Mormon? Stop eating spicy food? Even the Catholics, loony as they may be, don’t think stuff done while unconscious is sinful.

    True. And shaming people for masturbating (something which most people do) is likely to be significantly more damaging than shaming them for watching porn.

    And, of course, it should be added for the sake of completeness that there are real ethical concerns about the exploitative and sexist nature of much of the commercial porn industry. (I wouldn’t go as far as Catherine Mackinnon does, but she has a point.) Even so, while there may be coherent moral reasons to reconsider one’s porn-watching habits, I’d venture to suggest that the danger of incurring the displeasure of St Michael the Archangel is probably not among them.

  144. says

    And shaming people for masturbating (something which most people do) is likely to be significantly more damaging than shaming them for watching porn.

    Damn, that was a badly-constructed sentence. Oh well. The Walton is sleepy and needs to go to bed.

  145. Muse (evidently temptress of Pharyngula women) says

    The Walton is up at 11 at night. So is the Muse. We should both remedy this. I’m up watching Bones and making jewelry.

  146. says

    The Sailor, thanks for asking, it’s a serious infection, gone septic. I’ve now punched several holes in Alfie and feel like an utter shit for making him squeak in pain, got his fluids and meds done. Syringed water for him to drink and got him re-settled now with a heater set up, as he won’t cope with a heating pad.

    After causing him pain, he lay on my lap and boggled for me. Now I’m leaking tears and altogether too fucking upset, so I’m going to bed and hide under my quilt for the night. I *hate* this.

  148. says

    Or were there no orgies at those

    The closest I ever came to any orgy at Pharyngula meetups was watching football with Jadehawk. So I guess I’ve been to the wrong ones…:-)

  149. Tethys says

    Caine

    Do not beat yourself up. You ARE being a responsible and caring rat keeper.

    I do understand about feeling horrible for having to inflict pain in Alfies best interests. I’m sure he has already forgotten the pain, and will be feeling much better tomorrow.

    hugs/chocolate/wine if you want them.

  152. Hekuni Cat says

    Caine, I’m so sorry to hear that Alfie isn’t well. You are giving him the best care possible. He knows that. *hugs* for both of you. Take care of yourself too.

  153. Muse (evidently temptress of Pharyngula women) says

    Caine – I’m sorry, that’s really, really rough. Best wishes.

    @Tethys I’m doing wirework. Why?

  156. Tethys says

    Muse

    I carve stone into wearable sculpture, so I guess I’m just curious. Do you weave the wire, or do you do wire-wrapping?

    I have been experimenting with maille weaves to make chains.

  157. chigau (almost) says

    Muse
    Are you working on a rendition of a Dead-Porcupine-Lapel-Pin?
    I think that would work in wire.

  159. Hekuni Cat says

    Mr. Hekuni Cat, my sister-in-law, and I had an excellent day today. We visited four used bookstores–actually two of the stops were library book sales, one is a regular thing on Fridays and Saturdays in Warrenton, VA, the other we just happened to be in the neighborhood at the right time.

    I acquired many wonderful new treasures, including Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World, of which I have heard marvelous things but have yet read. It definitely falls into the pleasure to look forward to category. Now I just need a few Groundhog Days to whittle down my To Be Read Stack. (This is a separate grouping from my Books I Want to Read But Haven’t Yet list.)

  160. says

    Chigau, Tethys, Nigel, Hekuni Cat, Muse & Kristinc, thank you. Very much. I’m obviously not hiding under my quilt yet, Chas has some ideas about that. (He wants a cuddle. Now. If you’ve ever had a rat stuff their nose up your nostril, it’s effective at getting you up.) Alfie actually ate a bit of salad, which is excellent. I just seriously dislike having to hurt them. My first time doing an IV, too.

  161. Hekuni Cat says

    ChasCPeterson, I’m sorry your job. That’s got to be rough. Good luck in job searching.

  162. says

    ChasCPeterson, I’m sorry your job. That’s got to be rough. Good luck in job searching.

    I’ll second that (and should have said so on the last thread).

    ===

    Poor Alfie. :-(

  163. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Oh, Caine :( I’m so sorry to hear Alfie’s having such a hard time. Poor little guy. At least he has caring people to take care of him.

  165. Muse (evidently temptress of Pharyngula women) says

    Tethys – I’m doing work on pierced stones right now, so no wrapping needed. Fiddly little crap ::grin:: but it’s a present for a certain Horde member.

    Chas – good luck on the job thing working out as well as possible.

  166. says

    Walton, thanks. It’s a rough time for him.

    CC:

    Oh, Caine :( I’m so sorry to hear Alfie’s having such a hard time. Poor little guy. At least he has caring people to take care of him.

    Now youse guys are making me leak. Thank you. Times like these, I am so grateful for our vet clinic, they are fantastic and got us in with almost no notice. Good thing, too, our supply of antibiotics was exhausted yesterday. They go out of their way to work with us, being we’re so far away.

  167. kristinc, ~delicate snowflake~ says

    If you’ve ever had a rat stuff their nose up your nostril

    Yup. *grin*

  169. Hekuni Cat says

    Caine, your photo of the spider that you posted at 524 in the last thread was magnificent. If I didn’t have a player who really hates spiders, I might incorporate that beauty into an upcoming D&D campaign. But it would go so well with my Caine Caterpillars, so I might change my mind. I do have some miniatures I could use to represent them. It’s a slippery slope into evil plotting and scheming. And it definitely doesn’t take much to send this dungeon master’s mind off on tangents.

  170. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Gingrich in the Nth Republican debate*:

    Well, I think if the question is, does faith matter? Absolutely. How can you have a country which is founded on truths which begins we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights? How can you have the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which says religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters. That’s the order: religion, morality and knowledge.

    Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here I believe would agree.

    […]

    Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you’re endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America.
    [Emphasis added]

    I’d say I was really happy he doesn’t have a chance at getting the Republican nomination, but the alternatives aren’t much better (some have even managed somehow to be even worse). Anyway, it’s probably gonna be Romney.

    * Where N is a very large number.

  171. chigau (almost) says

    The Sailor

    With a dead porcupine I don’t think you actually need a pin.

    jeeez.
    I was suggesting a lovely, artistic rendition.
    Not an actual …. eeeww.
    (don’t you try to take-things-literally better than me)

  173. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    On second thought, I shouldn’t taken this out of that quote in #170:

    But I think all of us would also agree that there’s a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments, because then I’d wonder, where’s your judgment — how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?

  174. says

    The Sailor:

    It seems like Chas is concerned.

    He is. He’s been very upset that his partner in crime is ill. He wasn’t at all happy to be back at the vet today, either. Apparently, he’s holding quite the grudge over his previous visit. Goofball.

  175. Hekuni Cat says

    llewelly, congratulations on your new job, and good luck with completing your move. I understand you are unlikely to post much for a while, but I wanted you to know that I miss you and will look forward to those times when you can comment.

  176. chigau (almost) says

    “Bless me Father for I have sinned. It’s been 40 years since my last confession…”

    Wow. Now that confession might take a while.

    Not really.
    I’m pretty sure I haven’t committed a “sin” since I stopped being a Catholic.

  177. Tethys says

    Sailor

    A few of us had discussed coming up with pins or pendants in the dead porcupine motif as a secret symbol for pharyngulites.

    I can’t carve a porcupine out of stone. I think wire work or a casting would work best. Wax is much easier to carve.

    Sorry to hear you are sick.

  178. says

    Hekuni Cat:

    If I didn’t have a player who really hates spiders, I might incorporate that beauty into an upcoming D&D campaign.

    Oh, do it anyway! Just tell ’em the spiders made me do it!

    Kristinc:

    Yup. *grin*

    That’s a helluva thing, ennit? I think it makes the best alarm clock, ever.

  179. Hekuni Cat says

    Did you accidentally his job?

    I’m afraid I can only take credit for losing an “about” at 161: it should have read “I’m sorry about your job.” I would have given it back after I borrowed it otherwise.

  181. Hekuni Cat says

    Oh, do it anyway! Just tell ‘em the spiders made me do it!

    Good cover story. He’ll believe that. Hee hee hee. (I’d use bwa ha ha ha, or something similar, but I just can’t get the intonation right.)

  183. magistramarla says

    I just saw on the news that the Saudi crown prince died.
    It may not have been rapture day for the xians, but the last couple of days have sure been hell for a few muslims!

  184. Hekuni Cat says

    Aletha H. Claw, *hugs* if you want them. Try not to worry. (I know, I know, it’s so much easier to say than do.)

  186. says

    Jules:

    Alfie is lucky to have you.

    Thank you. I think I’m pretty lucky to have him. :) He’s all tucked in and sleeping now, I think I should follow his example. I have Roger Ebert to go to bed with tonight (Life Itself, A Memoir.)

  187. chigau (almost) says

    The Sailor

    3 strikes rule starts now?

    What?
    Who?
    I wasn’t snoring! It was deep-breathing exercises.
    And I was resting my eyes.

  188. Hekuni Cat says

    Good night, Caine.

    I’m about to call it a night too. Just need to do those shoulder exercises I have been putting off for the last half hour first.

    Tiny hugs to Alfie and Chas.

  189. cicely, Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac says

    *hugs* for Caine. Alfie is a lucky rat, having you to care for him.
    –

  190. julian says

    It’s a slippery slope into evil plotting and scheming.

    The DM’s job is evil plotting and scheming. Remember if your players are always at the cusp of negative hit points, out of spells per day and to terrified to open the entirely innoucous door to their tavern room, you’re doing it right!

    Creep your players out. It’s good character development and fun to watch a level 15 barbarian quake with fear at the sight of a small bug. Gives the wizard a chance to feel tough and the bard something to work into jokes for the rest of the campaign.

  191. Jules says

    Caine & co., sleep well :-)

    cicely, will I be seeing you again at Skepticon this year? Part of the reason I’ve venture back to TET despite only having my phone is that I wanted to be able to check in with you about it. Also I missed you (and the other nonfacebookers).

  192. cicely, Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac says

    cicely, will I be seeing you again at Skepticon this year?

    Hell yes! Unless I am, like, actively dead or something.

    Actually, if I’m actively dead, there’s still a fair chance that I will lurch-step that way. Passively dead would be another story entirely.

    I’ve been so pleased to see you here on Teh Thread these past coupla days! Missed you!
    (I fear the Horses have taken blf.)
    :(
    –

  193. Crudely Wrott says

    Wonderful spider capture, Caine.

    Truth is, your photo pushed me over the edge and made me open a Flickr account. I’ll be uploading some captures of my own pretty soon. I’m sure you will like the mama wolf spider with her babies riding in the rumble seat.

    Sure hope Chas makes a full recovery. If I were a rat I’d want to live with you.

    Brother Oggie, thanks so much for the train posts. I miss steam locomotives. What grand beasts they are.

    With a dead porcupine I don’t think you actually need a pin.

    Sailor, would you make that new keyboard in a charcoal color?

  194. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Announcement:
    SGBM is okay.
    —
    After a rather stressful middle-end to an otherwise lovely two days (I lost my debit card… summary of the lovely two days after the complaint), I’ve spent pretty much my entire night arguing with freakin’ bluharmony of all people over on the Pharynguwiki. Sigh. My head? Is screaming.
    —
    I got to go to the celebrity handprints! It was awesome. I saw a guy in a really excellent Captain Jack Sparrow costume, too. He was trying to get me to give him money to take a picture with him, which I probably would have under most circumstances because he had a REALLY good costume, but I felt and looked exhausted and disheveled so I just kind of ignored him. I also saw a guy in a deeply fuckin’ creepy Chuckie costume. That was nightmare fuel. He did that little marching/walking in place thing that some kids do when they’re excited, which would have been endearing if he weren’t the creepiest thing ever, which in turn made him even more creepy.

    Then! My grandparents and I were walking down Hollywood Boulevard, and we caught a glimpse of a bunch of Nightmare Before Christmas stuff. I was all excited, then I realized that the El Capitan theater was showing Nightmare Before Christmas 4D, the opening was that night, and the producer and the animator were both there for a panel! I’m so glad I went… There was an organist playing before the movie on a lovely old gold Wurlitzer organ, and the whole place was decorated with Christmas lights and Halloween decorations lit up in various colors in time with the movie. Plus, the theater had fog and snow(!!!) and smells and projections on the walls during various points in the movie. It was so cool. The panel was interesting, and we got to see a sneak preview of Frankenweenie, and and and *confetti explosion*!
    I came away from that feeling like I was all rested and refreshed and could take on anything… a feeling which was rather wasted, I’m afraid, on tonight’s drawn-out arguments… but I hope it will come back tomorrow.

  196. says

    Sailor, a certain small percentage of people who get flu shots are already coming down with the flu. A flu shot contains killed viruses. It sounds like you were one of the unlucky ones.

  197. says

    Classical Cipher, it’s possible to do hopscotch on the Hollywood Blvd sidewalks. The film stars are two feet, the radio stars are your left foot, and the TV stars are your right foot.

    It helps if it’s 2 in the morning and you’ve had some scotch.

  199. julian says

    Just started reading Hemant Mehta’s latest post on ‘Atheist Church,’ and the linked to piece by Leah Libresco, and already my nose is twitching.

    She answers the question of whether a Humanist group should have a leader or whether that makes us too “church-y”

    – The Friendly Atheist

    Was anyone arguing that humanist organizations shouldn’t have leaders?

  200. julian says

    Has anyone seen “Battle : LA” ? Worth watching ?

    If you’re an enlisted member of the armed services who gets a big fat stiffy at encredibly cheesy and poorly written war stories that have a generous sprinkling of already lame inside jokes.

  201. says

    If you’re an enlisted member of the armed services who gets a big fat stiffy at encredibly cheesy and poorly written war stories

    I see, thanks.

  206. says

    Hekuni Cat:

    Tiny hugs to Alfie and Chas.

    Delivered. ♥

    Cicely:

    *hugs* for Caine. Alfie is a lucky rat, having you to care for him.

    Thanks, Cicely.

    Crudely Wrott:

    Wonderful spider capture, Caine.

    Thank you!

    I’m sure you will like the mama wolf spider with her babies riding in the rumble seat.

    I would, I would.

    If I were a rat I’d want to live with you.

    Aaaw, thanks.

    CC:

    Announcement:
    SGBM is okay.

    Good! Thank you.

    Random Alfie update: still very weak, but he ate 4 lettuce leaves and a few steamed peas. It’s better than nothing. He is feeling feisty enough to move around a bit, even with his hind foot terribly swollen.

  207. SteveV says

    Caine:
    I know how hard it can be to cause a being that you love pain, especially when that being does not understand the reason, but still trusts you.
    Hot chocolate with marshmallow at bedtime if you need it.

  210. says

    Does anyone ever actually eat blood pudding? eeeeewwwwwww……

    Does anyone ever actually eat flesh? eeeeeeeeeewwwwwww… What’s the difference?

    Makes more sense to me to eat blood than flesh. You don’t have to kill the animal. Much better use of resources.
    The Masai bleed their cattle and mix it with milk. Nepalis place leeches on goats’ necks and then boil the leeches when they get full. Even blood pudding is made from the blood that would otherwise go down the drain.

    Heh. Haven’t commented for so long that I’ve forgotten my login details, had to do it via FB.

  211. says

    OK, haven’t read anything in this thread.
    I’m glad we missed the rapture again yesterday, because today is the little one’s birthday.

    SQB

    Apparently, you’re not allowed to make noise on Totensonntag, so a Rammstein show in München was cancelled. Totensonntag? Is that a bit like Halloween? And Rammstein? Sounds like a perfect match!

    “Totensonntag” is the day to comemorate the deaths in the Lutheran church. It has become “popular” amongst the catholics, too and is a “day of grief” in all States except Hamburg so special, stupid laws apply.
    It is considered bad taste to put up any christmas decoration before that day, so I always make sur to do so if I have any.
    You’re also not allowed to dance on Good Friday.
    Seperation of church and state? No thanx, we’re German

    Herman Caine
    I found his remark about abortions to safe the woman’s life quite as chilling: He said that in that case “the family would have to decide”.
    Fucking asshole, Women aren’t even allowed to decide about their very life in his book.
    Me? Pro-choice. I have no idea if or when I’d chose an abortion. The whole pregnancy-miscarriage-child-with-birth-defect thing has left me aware that I’ll only know when the rubber hits the road and then I want to have options.

  212. says

    I want to apologise again for my very poor choice of words yesterday. I’m still doing some soul searching, wondering what made me use that word, instead of saying, for instance, “I’d make a really great detective“. I wish I could assure you (pl.) of my good intentions, that curiosity just got the better of me, but other than keeping on saying this, I fear there’s little I can do.

    ====

    On a different subject, TLC’s knife handle, I wonder if you could use some sort of Batik like technique.

    ====

    Chas, I’m sorry about your job loss. Good luck with finding another one.

    ====

    Caine, my best wishes for both you and Alfie.

  214. julian says

    He said that in that case “the family would have to decide”.

    I don’t know if that’s him knowingly dismissing the woman’s life or just an example of his (hope I’m using this right) privilege. It sounded to me like he was trying to say he doesn’t want the mother to die but couldn’t bring himself to say he’d approve of abortion. So he said, as someone accustomed to speaking for women as head of the household, ‘the family would have to decide.’

    Doesn’t make it any better or him any less of a complete ass. Whether to abort a pregnancy is not the family’s decision. It’s the pregnant woman’s or girl’s and their’s alone. Give your child the facts if it happens to her (or better yet put her into contact with medical professionals who routinely perform this procedure) and let her decide if this is right for her.

  216. says

    Congratulations with the little one, Giliell!

    Seperation of church and state? No thanx, we’re German

    No shit. Did you know that the Netherlands is the only country in the EU to have a religious motto on the edge of the 2 euro coin? “God zij met ons” — “(May) God be with us”, or essentially, “Gott mit uns”. Even the freakin’ Vatican doesn’t do this! (And yes, they do have their own Euro coins).

  221. says

    Walton,

    from the last thread re freedom of movement in Asia:

    I didn’t mean human rights violations in general, but rather that restrictions to freedom of movement are common outside of the Western world too. And in (E&SE) Asia the nation-state is still much stronger than in Europe. I would even argue that the West is doing better than the East when it comes to

    For instance, it was clear for Germany that after you invited guest workers into the country, they would receive permanent residency after a while, and be able to be reunited with family members in Germany. Even though originally the idea was that the guest workers would all go home after a while (and many indeed did), it was never out of the question that they couldn’t be forced to leave.

    Japan, on the other hand, invites foreigners from developing countries in areas where their skills are needed, and relentlessly throws them out again after three years or so.*) Sometimes under the guise of “work experience”, which has the added bonus of paying those laborers only a pittance.

    Japan is also famous for the fact that it employs more government officials administering asylum seekers than there are asylum seekers (at least that was a joke among journalists). Various other governments in E/SE Asia have been adamant about deporting asylum seekers/refugees. In the case of China deporting North Korean refugees, the fate awaiting the deported is harsh, labor camp or even worse.

    ( *) Oh yes, if you are a nurse interested in staying in Japan, you’re welcome to take the same state exam as Japanese nursing students – naturally in Japanese. What, you don’t have a sufficient command of Japanese, especially the written language? Too bad, that’s not our problem.. You had your chance working three years in Japanese hospitals and senior homes as an “intern”)

    Since I don’t want to sound all gloomy. Once I heard a speech by an Indonesian diplomat, laying out their idea of what ASEAN should develop into. They indeed envision an area of free movement, including labour, maybe modeled in a sense after the EU minus the political components. Though as far as SE Asia goes, I’d advise an “I believe it when I see it” approach, if this should become reality within the next 10-15 years or so, that would be a great step forward.

  222. says

    Rorschach at 221,

    you’re joking right?

    Anyone born before, say 1985, knows these two bands.*) Heck, even foreigners studying German know them, as it’s an old language learning method to listen to good music in the language you’re studying….

    *) And NO, we’re not interested in hearing about Tokyo Hotel. It’s great the Foreign Office thinks they’re popular outside of Germany, maybe they should stay there :D

  224. says

    Herman Cain even walked back the bit about the family deciding:”Abortion should not be legal, that is clear. But if that family made a decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision, that’s all I’m trying to say,” he said.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Santorum: ““The battle we’re engaged in right now is same sex marriage, ultimately that is the very foundation of our country, the family, what the family structure is going to look like,” Santorum explained. “I’ll die on that hill.”
    […]
    “We’ll repeal Obamacare and get rid any idea that you have to have abortion coverage or contraceptive coverage,” he said. “One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.””
    +++++++++++++++++
    I’m glad Alfie’s feeling better.

  225. Sili says

    Hellooooooooo, Thread!

    I’m back in Denmark. Had a nice steak-dinner with my sister and brother-in-law. Had two thirds of a nice bottle of wine on my own in an attempt to kill this cold you’ve given me. Took the wrong train, do now I have to keep awake to change.

    Any Pharyngulistas in Hamburg in case I fall asleep?

  227. says

    privacy

    I’m paranoid about data privacy. So for Pharyngula, I created a user name I don’t use anywhere else on the web, and linked to an email address I use for blogging. Though I do believe that I have dropped enough hints that people would be able to identify me.

    But OTOH, if I ever were in the vicinity of an event, where many Pharyngulites would congregate, I’d love to go. Well, maybe I should open a Facebook account just for Pharyngula :D

    Totensonntag

    Oh yes, this is outrageous. This is also known as the “prohibition to dance”, and kinda reminds me of Puritan Massachusetts. This silence thing is not just about tomorrow, but also for a huge number of other holidays.

    I found a neat table on Wikipedia, but since it is in German, some translations are in order. Many laws are uniform across the entire country, but laws concerning holidays is a major states right in Germany. So the table shows the 16 states, and their different regulations regarding dancing on holidays.

    Green means no prohibition
    Yellow with a numeric range means prohibited during those times
    Red with a “G” means prohibited for the entire day.

    The holidays in sequential order

    – Neujahr (New Year)
    – Heilige Drei Könige (Epiphany)
    – Aschermittwoch (Ash Wednesday)
    – Gründonnerstag (Maundy Thursday)
    – Karfreitag (Good Friday)
    – Karsamstag (Holy Saturday)
    – Ostersonntag (Easter Sunday)
    – Ostermontag (Easter Monday)
    – Himmelfahrt (Ascension Thursday)
    – Pfingstsonntag (Whit Sunday)
    – Pfingstmontag (Whit Monday)
    – Fronleichnam (Corpus Christi)
    – Reformationstag (Lutheran Reformation Day)
    – Allerheiligen (All Saints: this means in Bavaria, Halloween parties have to end at midnight sharp, as All Saints is Nov 1)
    – Allerseelen (All Souls Day)
    – Volkstrauertag (Public Day of Mourning, commemorating the victims of war)
    – Buß- und Bettag (Lutheran Day of Repentance and Prayer)
    – Totensonntag (the Sunday of the Dead) Now Wikipedia is contradicting itself about whether Hamburg is the exception or not. The table references the state law from 1957 which clearly prohibits dancing between 6am and 5pm in Hamburg also. I don’t know where they got the exception thing from, it doesn’t seem to be sourced properly. It is true that all other states outlaw dancing on this day for a longer period, so in a sense, Hamburg is the most lenient state)
    – Heiligabend (Christmas Eve) I’ve gone out on Christmas Eve before. This is a major hint as to where my parents live :D
    – 1. Weihnachtstag (Christmas Day)
    – 2. Weihnachtstag (Boxing Day)

    So yes, yet another thing where there is no separation between church and state in Germany. I think I need to blog about this :D

    Euro coins

    SQB,

    No shit. Did you know that the Netherlands is the only country in the EU to have a religious motto on the edge of the 2 euro coin? “God zij met ons” — “(May) God be with us”, or essentially, “Gott mit uns”. Even the freakin’ Vatican doesn’t do this! (And yes, they do have their own Euro coins).

    two things

    1. do you have an idea why this is so? AFAIK, the Netherlands was the most atheistic country in Europe. Really quite ironic.

    2. The Vatican coins may not have Nobiscum Deus engraved, but they have the fricking pope in effigy on them! Now what would you say is worse!?

  229. says

    After a rather stressful middle-end to an otherwise lovely two days (I lost my debit card… summary of the lovely two days after the complaint), I’ve spent pretty much my entire night arguing with freakin’ bluharmony of all people over on the Pharynguwiki. Sigh. My head? Is screaming.

    I just looked at that page. Wait… what? If I’m understanding this correctly, she wants her page deleted from the Pharynguwiki, and it’s being kept up against her wishes?

    If someone requests that hir page be deleted from the wiki, xe gets hir page deleted. No questions asked. Pharynguwiki is not Wikipedia; it was meant to be a fun game for Pharyngulites, not a serious reference tool, and it is not ok to leave information up there that people want removed. This applies to trolls as much as it does to regulars.

    I’m going to delete the page, unless anyone can give me a damned good reason why I shouldn’t.

  231. Sili says

    Oh. And the youngish lady across from me knits very regularly with her thick yarn. Another Steiner kid?

    –o–

    Had a very sexy purser across the Atlantic, and the stewardess on the last leg coulda been a Bond-babe.

    CDG is a maze of passages, all alike, designed by Escher when he was high. Luckily the signs are (mostly) good.

    I walked, went on a train, walked some more, had my passport checked (painlessly), walked again, had to take a ten-minute bus, went through boarding and then had to take another bus onto the tarmac. And that’s not even counting the stairs.

    On the right train now. Have fun shaking the sacred lemons!

  232. says

    We decided right from the beginning that no one gets their comments or other information reposted on the Pharynguwiki without their consent.

    Even Piltdown has been allowed to edit his own page, and if he’d requested that it be taken down, I would have honoured his wishes.

  233. says

    Walton:

    it was meant to be a fun game for Pharyngulites, not a serious reference tool

    Well excuse the hell out of me for challenging the apparent king of the Pharyngula wiki, but it was also meant as a serious reference.

  234. says

    Well excuse the hell out of me for challenging the apparent king of the Pharyngula wiki, but it was also meant as a serious reference.

    Regardless of that, you may remember that we were very concerned to ensure that people not have any information put up there that they didn’t want there. (Cf discussion on this thread about Momeonts of Mormon Madness.) This is what I understood to be the policy, right from the beginning. If people want information about them taken down, it gets taken down. I am in favour of respecting people’s privacy.

  235. says

    Walton:

    We decided right from the beginning that no one gets their comments or other information reposted on the Pharynguwiki without their consent.

    References were given, that’s all I’ve seen. I’d leave this in the hands of Baines and Classical Cipher, they’re the ones dealing with it. Bluharmony has the same ability to edit as anyone else.

  238. says

    Walton:

    Regardless of that, you may remember that we were very concerned to ensure that people not have any information put up there that they didn’t want there.

    Sure, which is why edits are possible.

    I am in favour of respecting people’s privacy.

    Great. Then get into the discussion thread under Bluharmony’s entry, which would be the proper place to discuss your opinion and concerns.

  239. says

    References were given, that’s all I’ve seen. I’d leave this in the hands of Baines and Classical Cipher, they’re the ones dealing with it. Bluharmony has the same ability to edit as anyone else.

    Again, my understanding is that we have a policy of respecting people’s privacy, and refrain from posting anything about them that they do not want posted. All references to the “Moments of Mormon Madness” were removed for this reason, and rightly so. The subject of the article gets an absolute veto.

    What possible justification could there be for keeping the page on bluharmony up there against her wishes? What purpose does it serve?

  243. says

    Which you had no business doing without entering the discussion first. Asshole.</blockquote.

    Fuck you.

    bluharmony's edits were reverted by other editors. My point is that, just as we extend regulars the absolute freedom to have references to themselves removed from the wiki, my understanding was that this freedom applies to everyone equally. The subject of the article gets the final say. Always.

    I find this particularly ironic, since you were talking in the previous thread about how uncomfortable you find it when people dig around on the internet and post information about you that you don’t want posted. If you expect others to respect your privacy – as they should – then you also have an obligation to extend the same respect to others.

    As long as I have admin powers on the wiki, I will continue removing any information that the subject of the information does not want posted. If that means I lose my admin powers, I really don’t give a shit.

  245. says

    Walton,

    at least on Wikipedia, deletions are highly sensitive matters. Maybe instead of your speedy deletion (which on Wikipedia only applies to a certain subset of pages), you should have started a discussion process.

    You claim you were ethically obliged to do so, but yet I failed to find a policy to that effect on the site (maybe I didn’t look closely enough).

    Also crucially, a policy which wasn’t formulated by His Royal Highness Walton I. of Pharyngulawiki, but voted upon by the community.

    Actions such as that just taken by you have a potential of being damaging to the project. Wikis need consensus, not unilateral decisions.

    At least that’s my take. I haven’t had the time contribute on Pharyngulawiki yet, so it is an outsider’s view.

  246. says

    Caine, I apologize for saying “Fuck you”. It was unnecessary.

    However, I stand by my actions and the substance of everything I have said on this topic, and I will not reverse my own action.

  247. says

    As long as I have admin powers on the wiki, I will continue removing any information that the subject of the information does not want posted. If that means I lose my admin powers, I really don’t give a shit.

    This is definitely not the right attitude for a wiki project.

  248. says

    at least on Wikipedia, deletions are highly sensitive matters. Maybe instead of your speedy deletion (which on Wikipedia only applies to a certain subset of pages), you should have started a discussion process.

    I know that. I used to be an admin on Wikipedia. But Pharynguwiki is not Wikipedia. And “the project” of Pharynguwiki is far less important than the ethical obligation to respect people’s privacy.

    And there is no possible justification for keeping the page up, other than a desire to hurt Bluharmony.

    But fine. I’ve restored the page to start a discussion, but I am entirely prepared to delete it again if no one explains an actual substantive reason why it should stay up.

  249. says

    This is definitely not the right attitude for a wiki project.

    The “project” of Pharynguwiki matters far less than respecting people’s privacy.

  251. ChasCPeterson says

    Announcement:
    SGBM is okay.

    compared to what?
    (yust yokin’)

    I’ve deleted the Bluharmony article.

    Apparently not;

    Thank you to well-wishers. It’s not an immediate crisis; in academia we are either thoughtful or sadistic enough to basically fire people a year and a half in advance.
    And this time it was mostly my own damn fault, though of course that hardly makes it feel better.

  252. says

    I know that. I used to be an admin on Wikipedia. But Pharynguwiki is not Wikipedia. And “the project” of Pharynguwiki is far less important than the ethical obligation to respect people’s privacy.

    I know it isn’t Wikipedia. But nevertheless, these things need to be spelt out, and not par ordre du mufti. Maybe it would be good to have a page that lays out some guidelines. It would start out as a discussion, and hopefully some consensus will emerge that can be accepted by all contributors.

    Does Wikia allow pages to be locked? Maybe the moment a dispute arises, like an edit war etc., an admin could lock the page, and then initiate a discussion?

  253. says

    You claim you were ethically obliged to do so, but yet I failed to find a policy to that effect on the site (maybe I didn’t look closely enough).

    In the discussion when Pharynguwiki was started, back in January, we agreed not to post information about certain regulars because they requested that such information not be posted. It is clearly the case that this same principle must extend to everyone, not just to people we like.

  254. says

    I know it isn’t Wikipedia. But nevertheless, these things need to be spelt out, and not par ordre du mufti.

    Ha. Ironically, when I was a Wikipedia editor, I was strongly in favour of clear and consistent policies, and opposed to admins doing things unilaterally.

    But Wikipedia is a project aiming to create a serious reference tool. Pharynguwiki started as an in-joke. And since we have always honoured regulars’ requests to have information about them removed, my understanding was that the subject of an article on Pharynguwiki had an absolute veto over all content.

  255. says

    And since we have always honoured regulars’ requests to have information about them removed, my understanding was that the subject of an article on Pharynguwiki had an absolute veto over all content.

    If there is such a consensus, great. It just needs to be documented clearly, so it doesn’t hinge on what “my understanding” means.

  256. Algernon says

    *dropping in and out because I’m literally cleaning out my closet right now*

    FWIW, if people can have info about them kept up when they don’t want it please remove any reference to me on the wiki because I don’t want to be associated with the squabble.

    I have enough damned skeletons in google cache.

  257. ChasCPeterson says

    Yeah, there was something that was going to follow that semicolon, but it doesn’t matter, as now I know why the article was back up when I looked.

    Seems like a silly argument to me. Bluharmony wants the article about her taken down, why not take it down? Who benefits and how by leaving it up?
    (Yes, I suppose there’s a better place for the discussion. Just consider this not part of the discussion. Meta, as Morales would say.)

  258. says

    my understanding was that the subject of an article on Pharynguwiki had an absolute veto over all content.

    Yes.Therefore,

    pelamun,

    get the fuck off Walton’s back, will you. Thanks. Inform yourself about the history and culture here, and then come back and try again. FFS.

  259. Matt Penfold says

    If I recall from the Pharyngula Wiki there are articles about people who are not members of the wiki, and thus cannot edit their own entries. Indeed, they may very well be unaware there is an entry.

    Is it your contention Walton that those articles should also be deleted ?

  260. says

    FWIW, if people can have info about them kept up when they don’t want it please remove any reference to me on the wiki because I don’t want to be associated with the squabble.

    There is no page about you on the wiki. As I recall, you didn’t want one at the time.

    This is precisely my point, in fact. We respect the regulars’ choice not to have information about them put up on the wiki; we are obliged to do the same for everyone else.

    So far, no one has offered a substantive justification for keeping the article up there. There is clearly no such justification. I see no reason why it should not be deleted.

  261. says

    get the fuck off Walton’s back, will you. Thanks. Inform yourself about the history and culture here, and then come back and try again. FFS.

    Caine’s reaction seemed to indicate there was no consensus. If there is one, why don’t you fucking put it on the MAIN PAGE? I’m not gonna wade through hundreds of TETs to find out. Make it clear somewhere, and then it’s all good.

  262. says

    If I recall from the Pharyngula Wiki there are articles about people who are not members of the wiki, and thus cannot edit their own entries. Indeed, they may very well be unaware there is an entry.

    Is it your contention Walton that those articles should also be deleted ?

    In Piltdown’s case, he is aware of it, and has been allowed to edit his own article. If he wanted it deleted, I would honour his wishes, but he seems to be ok with its existence.

    I’m a little uncomfortable with the articles on Kw*k, P*te R**ke, and so on. Certainly, if any of them turned up demanding that the articles be deleted, I would advocate honouring their wishes.

  264. says

    No one, thus far, has even tried to make an argument that the page should stay up against bluharmony’s wishes. Indeed, I see no possible justification for keeping it up.

    The debate was about whether I should have unilaterally deleted it without first seeking consensus. Fine. I still maintain that I was ethically justified in doing so, but to head off that debate, I have restored the page so that we can have a discussion. Now would anyone like to provide any kind of argument as to why it should not be deleted?

  267. julian says

    In the discussion when Pharynguwiki was started, back in January, we agreed not to post information about certain regulars because they requested that such information not be posted.

    If that is the standard it seems entirely fair to extend the same rights over to those who’re dungeon entries. They have just as much right to privacy. If the intent is to communicate someone’s poor behavior a short summary followed by relevant links would do the job fine.

    That said, paryngulawiki seems a lot like encyclopedia drammatica; mostly there for comedy and poking fun at the happenings within the community. The subject of the posts shouldn’t take the article to seriously, imo. But if real offense has been caused, the offended do deserve some say in what goes up there.

  268. says

    I’m a bit bothered by this, too, although I try to keep out of the Pharynguwiki. What this suggests is that a very small number of people have complete control over the content of the site, and can unilaterally dictate what goes on it or not. That’s fine for a blog, not so fine for a community project.

    See? This is the problem with goddamned royalty.

  269. Matt Penfold says

    List of people unlikely to be aware of their entry:

    John Kwok.
    Paul Nelson
    Stephen Bishop
    Philippe Giordana
    Alan Clark
    Dennis (no David as I said earlier) Markuze.

  270. says

    I had forgotten that Mark*ze had an article. That’s not ideal.

    But bluharmony is in a different position, because she has explicitly requested that her page be taken down. If Mark*ze showed up and requested that his page be taken down, I would say that we should honour his wishes. We can have a discussion about whether it’s ok to have articles on trolls there in the first place, if you want; but it is clearly not ok to keep an article up after the subject of the article has explicitly and repeatedly requested that it be removed.

  271. says

    I dropped in here because I miss you guys. Lately the demands of real life have conspired to keep me from lurking, much less commenting. I just wanted to see how people are doing, and get a much-needed fix of wit and wisdom.

    I can see I came at a bad time. :o

    [*tiptoes back out*]

  272. Matt Penfold says

    Walton,

    If you do not tell people there is an article they cannot ask for it be removed can they ?

    I ask again. Who contacted the people I listed and informed them of their entry ?

  273. says

    I’m a bit bothered by this, too, although I try to keep out of the Pharynguwiki. What this suggests is that a very small number of people have complete control over the content of the site, and can unilaterally dictate what goes on it or not. That’s fine for a blog, not so fine for a community project.

    As I said, I have restored the article so that we can have a discussion. Because this is not about “is unilateral deletion appropriate?” or “is Walton an asshole who’s trying to make himself Emperor of the Universe?” Unilateral deletion may or may not be appropriate, and I may or may not be an asshole with imperial tendencies, but it’s irrelevant.

    The question that is actually important is whether we should keep articles up there against the subject of the article’s express wishes. I see no coherent justification for doing so. Especially as we have already adopted a policy of respecting the privacy of others.

  274. says

    Walton,

    If you do not tell people there is an article they cannot ask for it be removed can they ?

    I ask again. Who contacted the people I listed and informed them of their entry ?

    If you think those pages should all be deleted, I’m fine with that. I’m not going to argue with you. What is your point?

  275. says

    Yeah, those pages on Pharyngula trolls from way back are problematic. The Wiki is fine, but when it refers to real people with real names who have no way to respond or react, it becomes a problem. Also, when we dont see SGBM for months, who runs the thing ?

  276. Matt Penfold says

    If you think those pages should all be deleted, I’m fine with that. I’m not going to argue with you. What is your point?

    So why have you not already deleted them ?

    It seems you are being very selective in how you enforce the rules, and that is not good.

  277. Algernon says

    As I recall, you didn’t want one at the time.

    Good on me! Some times I respect myself!

  278. says

    FWIW, this is the first time in months that I have edited the wiki, and the first time I have exercised my admin powers (which I was given months ago and have not previously used). Markovbaines handles most of the admin work.

    So I am not, in fact, exercising personal control of the site, nor do I have any ambition to do so. I just do not believe that we should be posting information about people against their express wishes – and, indeed, we have deliberately refrained from doing so in the past.

  280. julian says

    not to step on the toes or stick my business where it doesn’t belong

    For example who has contacted David Markuze ?

    Mr. Markuze is a very different case. He’s someone who engaged in criminal activity and harassed the blog owner over several months as well as much of the atheist community . Because of his actions, he now very high profile within atheist circles and this status combined with his criminal activity diminish his rights in regard to what kind of information is written about him.

  281. Matt Penfold says

    Walton,

    You really can be a sanctimonious arsehole at times, and this is one of those times.

    You are playing a stupid came in claiming you will remove an entry is asked when you know full well some people will not ask because you never told them the entry existed in the first place.

    Now where is the evidence I asked for.

  282. says

    So why have you not already deleted them ?

    Considering the firestorm that one unilateral deletion – in a very clearly-justified case – has already caused, I’m not about to engage in any more.

    And as I said, I haven’t been active on the wiki in months and have never used my admin tools before. Nor do I plan to make a habit of doing so in future. But I cannot see any reasonable justification for opposing the deletion of Bluharmony’s page – nor have you tried to offer one.

    If you think the other troll-pages should also be deleted, we can discuss that (and I won’t argue with you). But in the meantime, can we please just delete Bluharmony’s page and put this matter to rest?

  283. Matt Penfold says

    Mr. Markuze is a very different case. He’s someone who engaged in criminal activity and harassed the blog owner over several months as well as much of the atheist community . Because of his actions, he now very high profile within atheist circles and this status combined with his criminal activity diminish his rights in regard to what kind of information is written about him.

    No, he is not a special case, since the agreement Walton is talking about allows exemptions.

    Either the rules should be applied to all, or not at all. You cannot just do it to those you like.

  284. says

    You really can be a sanctimonious arsehole at times, and this is one of those times.

    *shrugs* Maybe I can. But I’m still right.

    You are playing a stupid came in claiming you will remove an entry is asked when you know full well some people will not ask because you never told them the entry existed in the first place.

    As I’ve said about six times, I have hardly been involved in the wiki at all. See my logs. Other than a recipe correction in July, I haven’t edited since February, nor have I ever used the admin tools until today. I haven’t even visited the wiki in months.

    I think you’re probably right that the articles on Kw*k and suchlike should be removed. But are you going to offer any kind of argument as to why bluharmony’s page should stay there?

  285. Algernon says

    Walton, you might consider deleting *your* entries and backing away from admin duties for something that is a waste of your time, unappreciated, and has potential to damage your reputation.

    My unasked for two cents.

    I’m going now I promise, I just put up a shelf for my handbags and I’m going to go admire my handywork and drink some tea.

    Later.

  286. Matt Penfold says

    Walton,

    I am not bothered much one way or another. But since you want to enforce the rules all I ask is you do so consistently.

  287. says

    Either the rules should be applied to all, or not at all. You cannot just do it to those you like.

    Fine. As I’ve repeatedly said, if you think we should delete all the troll-articles, I don’t disagree. (Except Piltdown’s, since he’s evidently fine with it staying there.)

    But bluharmony has specifically requested that her page be deleted now. There is no possible justification for keeping it there, and no one has even tried to offer one.

  289. ChasCPeterson says

    It seems you are being very selective in how you enforce the rules

    wtf?
    You might have a point if anybody anywhere anytime had floated a rule like “post nothing about a person without that person’s consent.” But no.
    At the moment the discussion is actually about what to do about an explicit request for deletion.

    I know that Gi*rdano is aware of his entry, and I seem to remember some back-&-forth between him and strangegods about it. I don’t know if Phil was ever focused or cogent enough to ask for complete removal, but if he did there’s a precedent. His entry stands.

    Although why, I’m not sure.
    Is this supposed to be some kind of public shaming ritual?
    Or what?

  290. says

    Although why, I’m not sure.
    Is this supposed to be some kind of public shaming ritual?
    Or what?

    Indeed. The only explanation I can think of for keeping troll-pages up there, after the user has expressly requested their deletion, is as some kind of attempt to shame and punish trolls for the things they’ve said. I am not ok with that. It’s vindictive.

    I have no idea about the Gi*rdana thing, because I wasn’t around for it; as I said, I haven’t been on the wiki in months.

  291. ChasCPeterson says

    …although Walton has been arguing from a general position of ‘respecting privacy’, and taken literally that would indeed seem to require active consent.

  292. Matt Penfold says

    At the moment the discussion is actually about what to do about an explicit request for deletion.

    I have asked for evidence people have been made aware of their entry. Walton has not offered any, except for Rooke.

    Tell me, how the fuck is someone going to know that they can ask for their entry to be deleted unless 1) they know there in an entry in the first place and 2) they know they can request deletion.

    To rely on them asking when they do not know is sneaky and underhand. I thought we were supposed to be better than that. In the case of some of you I was wrong it seems.

  294. says

    Matt, you haven’t been reading what I’ve been posting. I agree with you that there are serious ethical issues in keeping the troll-pages up when we have not obtained consent from the subjects of the articles, and I think there’s a strong argument that they should be deleted. I haven’t paid attention to this in the past because I haven’t really been involved in the wiki for several months.

    But right now, let’s delete bluharmony’s page, given that she has explicitly and in-so-many-words requested that her page be deleted. Then we can talk about what to do with the others.

  295. says

    I do think this is an opportunity to discuss deletion guidelines.

    For instance, one idea could be that people PZ has referenced in blog entries could be regarded as a “public figure” wrt Pharyngulawiki, and thus entries about those people would not be deleted, though still subject to the “living persons” guidelines.

    That way, you’d be able to justify keeping the articles on the worst trolls in the dungeon, because if you have a wiki about Pharyngula, you’d probably want those in.

    Real names probably should not be mentioned unless the person uses them on Pharyngula. If they should change their mind later about using their real name, these wishes should be honoured.

    Just some ideas…

    @Algernon: I think the entry ON Walton actually is great FOR his reputation. YMMV

  296. says

    Should I be worried that I wasn’t sure if this was serious or not until right before they called him “the zombie Jew”?

  297. Matt Penfold says

    But right now, let’s delete bluharmony’s page, given that she has explicitly and in-so-many-words requested that her page be deleted. Then we can talk about what to do with the others.

    Just apply the rules fairly.

  298. says

    Allowing automatic deletion on request is also a problem. It means that criticism — self- and otherwise — is going to steadily drop away, leaving you with nothing but the pablum that everyone can agree with.

    Again, if it’s pablum you want, that’s your choice. But in case you hadn’t noticed, Pharyngula is not a happy safe kindergarten filled with flowers and bunnies. It’s a little weird to have a wiki about the place that is deliberately fangless.

  301. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Pharyngula is not a happy safe kindergarten filled with flowers and bunnies.

    The Poopyhead has spoken! Let’s get out there and be rude, crude and obnoxious.

  302. says

    We did, in fact, seek explicit consent from the regulars before reposting any of their contributions, or any information about them, on the wiki. This was partly for copyright / licensing reasons, but my understanding was that we were also interested in respecting people’s wishes regarding personal privacy. And we respected one regular’s express wish that information about her not be posted on there, and rightly so.

    I’m not sure how people concluded that it was ok to apply a different standard to trolls than to regulars, and I will be the first to accept that I should have said something about it at the time. But this is, as far as I know, the first time that someone has explicitly requested that their article be deleted and people have refused to honour their wishes.

  303. says

    Pharyngula is not a happy safe kindergarten filled with flowers and bunnies.

    Strawman. No one said it should be.

    If I wrote an article on one of the regulars without hir consent (using only information that xe has posted or linked to here) and refused to delete it at that person’s request, you would be pretty pissed off. And rightly so. Why is it somehow magically ok to do exactly the same thing to trolls?

  306. says

    I reiterate my proposal

    For instance, one idea could be that people PZ has referenced in blog entries could be regarded as a “public figure” wrt Pharyngulawiki, and thus entries about those people would not be deleted, though still subject to the “living persons” guidelines.

    That way, you’d be able to justify keeping the articles on the worst trolls in the dungeon, because if you have a wiki about Pharyngula, you’d probably want those in.

    It would be akin to the NOTABLE person standard on Wikipedia. I mean, one thing I think the Wiki could really be useful for is a documentation on trolls. Sometimes trolls that have been gone for months reemerge on this site, and it’d be helpful to have a place that documents them.

    Maybe, upon request one could delete all POTENTIALLY identifying info (whatever the legal term is). In the current case, the background info like educational info, occupation, location etc.

    Or one could create an entry on let’s say Elevator Gate and then list some egregious posts. That way, the focus would be less on the poster’s identity rather than their actions wrt Elevator Gate. I think Wikipedia has similar guidelines. If a person is in itself not notable enough, delete the article on the person, but move the bit about what they did/said to the article about the incident.

  307. says

    To put it another way:

    If one of the regulars requested the deletion of hir own article, saying “I’m sorry, but I feel uncomfortable having this information up because of [work issues / family issues / making me too easy for stalkers to track / any other reason]”, how many people here would seriously argue that we should deny such a request?

  309. ChasCPeterson says

    Piltdown isn’t Rooke.

    Or is he???

    And what do we really know about J*hn Kw*k???

    No, I’m now convinced that what’s needed here is not more privacy, but less! Let’s get stalking detectiving!

  310. says

    Or one could create an entry on let’s say Elevator Gate and then list some egregious posts. That way, the focus would be less on the poster’s identity rather than their actions wrt Elevator Gate. I think Wikipedia has similar guidelines. If a person is in itself not notable enough, delete the article on the person, but move the bit about what they did/said to the article about the incident.

    Yes. It’s called WP:BLP1E, and is a sensible policy.

    But I don’t see why we can’t, for now, adopt a policy of “if someone wants information about hir deleted, it gets deleted”. Again, as I said, we clearly would extend such a courtesy to the regulars; why would we not do so for everyone?

  311. says

    If one of the regulars requested the deletion of hir own article, saying “I’m sorry, but I feel uncomfortable having this information up because of [work issues / family issues / making me too easy for stalkers to track / any other reason]“, how many people here would seriously argue that we should deny such a request?

    Yes, but instead of an automatic deletion, we could have guidelines. To wit:

    1. Delete potentially identifying information upon request. Might define it more closely.

    2. Delete articles on NON-notable persons upon request. If however their actions/words were relevant to some notable event, move the documentation about their actions/words to the article on the event. Might define notability more closely.

    3. Never mention real names unless the person in question goes by their real name on Pharyngula. If they change their mind later about this, honour their wish in a non-confusing manner.

    I think these three points could be a point of departure…?

  312. Ing says

    Why is it somehow magically ok to do exactly the same thing to trolls?

    Because we don’t care about them being upset?

  313. says

    Because we don’t care about them being upset?

    Really? You want to go down the road of arguing that some people are more “deserving” of respect-for-boundaries than others, and that it’s legitimate to hurt someone in order to punish hir for being a troll? Because I am really not ok with that.

  314. julian says

    Is this supposed to be some kind of public shaming ritual?

    While I hope that isn’t what you guys are going for, ‘a public shaming’ isn’t necessarily a bad thing depending on the troll and what kind of shaming. For example, John Kw*k. He’s an individual that spent a great deal of time across multiple sites alienating even those who would have been on his side if he weren’t such an incredible ass. An appropriate ‘shaming’ could be holding up his behavior with a big “Do Not Do This” sign attached.

  315. says

    ‘a public shaming’ isn’t necessarily a bad thing

    Yes it fucking well is.

    I hope we’ve moved beyond the mentality of putting people in the pillory. Humiliating people deliberately is never ok.

  316. julian says

    Because we don’t care about them being upset?

    However accurately that may represent reality, it’s a royally fucked up way to determine who’s gets what.

  317. says

    But I don’t see why we can’t, for now, adopt a policy of “if someone wants information about hir deleted, it gets deleted”. Again, as I said, we clearly would extend such a courtesy to the regulars; why would we not do so for everyone?

    I don’t think a blanket deletion policy is a sensible thing.

    1. It demotivates contributors. Editors spend a lot of time writing articles, they need to have some assurance that there is a clear and fair process. Immediate deletion of EVERYTHING upon request would not constitute such a process.

    2. The pablum effect, as mentioned by PZ. I think striking a balance between respecting the privacy of individuals and documenting noteworthy facts about Pharyngula should be the goal here.

    3. We have to have a uniform policy, there is no easy way of differentiating regulars from non-regulars. Also, what if a regular that took a certain position in let’s say Elevator Gate, and what they said was really outrageous and upset a lot of people. Wouldn’t it then be useful to document this in the appropriate place? But if that hypothetical regular had their own entry, and were no longer happy with it, you could delete the entry (unless the person in question was NOTABLE enough), but why should you erase any documentation of what they said? Of course any controversial issue would need to good sourcing, with links to actual comments on Pharyngula for every statement.

  318. says

    pelamun, ffs. This is not a complicated issue. The Pharynguwiki “project” is not important. It was a bit of fun that some people invented on a weekend back in January for a laugh. If the “project” is now being used to hurt people and violate their boundaries, then that needs to stop.

    3. We have to have a uniform policy, there is no easy way of differentiating regulars from non-regulars.

    That’s exactly my fucking point! Which is why everyone should have an absolute veto over information about themselves being posted on there without their consent. Everyone. It’s not complicated. There is no need for “balance”. It is not an issue over which reasonable and decent people can disagree.

  320. says

    It is not an issue over which reasonable and decent people can disagree.

    FFS, you do not get to define who is reasonable and decent. You really can be sanctimonious at times.

  321. says

    FFS, you do not get to define who is reasonable and decent. You really can be sanctimonious at times.

    Whatever. I’ve had enough of this shit. This should not be a difficult or controversial issue.

  322. julian says

    I hope we’ve moved beyond the mentality of putting people in the pillory. Humiliating people deliberately is never ok.

    Maybe our definitions of public shaming aren’t the same, but I consider much of what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to do to be public shaming.

    I’m not saying be needlessly cruel or sadistic toward the person. Just that a high profile individual can rightfully be ridiculed so long as the mocking stays above the belt and is relevant.

  323. says

    Julian,

    Maybe our definitions of public shaming aren’t the same, but I consider much of what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to do to be public shaming.

    Yeah… I shouldn’t have reacted to you like that. I misinterpreted what you were saying. (I have a strong visceral negative reaction to words like “public shaming”, because I’ve spent so much time studying and writing about the penal system.) Apologies.

  324. says

    Whatever. I’ve had enough of this shit. This should not be a difficult or controversial issue.

    This self-righteousness is really hard to bear. If it weren’t an issue, we wouldn’t have spent considerable time discussing this. Idiot (I don’t like insulting people, but today I’m gonna make an exception. Congratulations.)

  325. says

    If I wrote an article on one of the regulars without hir consent (using only information that xe has posted or linked to here) and refused to delete it at that person’s request, you would be pretty pissed off.

    No, I wouldn’t. That’s pretty routine: you’re all namechecking (or pseudonymchecking) each other to varying degrees. As long as you’re using publicly available information, I have no objection to it being used. It’s when people dig up private info and try to use it to extort other people that I get pissed off.

    Shall I get rid of the dungeon because I say rude things about people? No. As long as I don’t start posting their address, phone #, and social security number, it’s fair commentary…since I’m confining myself to their public words and behavior. I completely disagree that people should have an absolute veto over public information posted about themselves; private info, yes, come down hard on anything like that.

    You’re either going to have to be somewhat serious about it all and have some standards for objectivity (BluHarmony’s article is NOT at all objective, for instance) but actually allow diverse opinions to stand, or you’re going to just have to let the project self-destruct as everyone with access starts deleting anything they object to.

    I’d also say that if your idea is that it just be a “fun” project for laughs, ripping out all the snark and mockery is antithetical to that, too.

  326. says

    This has seemed grotesque to me because, where the regulars and people-we-like are concerned, we have a very strong commitment to respecting boundaries and privacy, and we are all always very careful to avoid putting information about the regulars in places they don’t want it. If I posted a personal attack page on the wiki, or even on my own blog, about a Pharyngulite I didn’t like, and refused to remove it when asked, I would probably get banned – and rightly so.

    If you expect people to respect your boundaries, you are obliged to respect theirs. The people you don’t like are human too, and are entitled to no less consideration and respect than you demand for yourself.

  327. says

    Unless there’s anyone interested in actually debating my suggestions, that’ll be my last post on the matter.

    I do understand the position Walton and others hold, and I can accept it if there is consensus for it. However I do agree with PZ and others that this is the best of policies.

    What I can’t accept is sanctimonious crap as if it should be self-evident to any reasonable and decent human being that the position held by Walton is the ONLY acceptable one.

  328. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Allowing automatic deletion on request is also a problem. It means that criticism — self- and otherwise — is going to steadily drop away, leaving you with nothing but the pablum that everyone can agree with.

    Indeed. I can see the case for not wanting personal information publicized, but deletions of an entire article on request of the user seems to be going too far. It does end up silencing criticism. I imagine that if someone asked for a critical post here with their real name be deleted we would see that as ridiculous (actually, I don’t have to imagine, since such a thing happened and we did see it as ridiculous).

  330. says

    SORRY, there was a key word missing

    Unless there’s anyone interested in actually debating my suggestions, that’ll be my last post on the matter.

    I do understand the position Walton and others hold, and I can accept it if there is consensus for it. However I do agree with PZ and others that this is NOT the best of policies.

    What I can’t accept is sanctimonious crap as if it should be self-evident to any reasonable and decent human being that the position held by Walton is the ONLY acceptable one.

  331. says

    No, I wouldn’t. That’s pretty routine: you’re all namechecking (or pseudonymchecking) each other to varying degrees. As long as you’re using publicly available information, I have no objection to it being used.

    That’s just not true, in this context. Above, I linked to a post in January in which one of the regulars requested not to be referenced on the wiki, and that her (publicly-available) posts about a certain powerful religious group on the thread not be reposted there, in case it could have consequences in her real life (since she lives in an area heavily dominated by said religious group).

    If someone had ignored her wishes and posted an article about her anyway, risking damage to her personal and professional life, we would have banned that person. There is no question about it.

  332. says

    This has seemed grotesque to me because, where the regulars and people-we-like are concerned, we have a very strong commitment to respecting boundaries and privacy, and we are all always very careful to avoid putting information about the regulars in places they don’t want it. If I posted a personal attack page on the wiki, or even on my own blog, about a Pharyngulite I didn’t like, and refused to remove it when asked, I would probably get banned – and rightly so.

    No, you wouldn’t. As long as all you used was public information, that’s perfectly fair. I haven’t banned people who, in the past, have maintained fairly elaborate smear pages against me, because as long as they aren’t cluttering up threads here with that crap, I don’t care.

    You seem to have a problem recognizing boundaries yourself, between what is private and personal, and what is public and freely accessible. It’s the difference between blockquoting your words above and posting your real name and address.

  333. says

    in case it could have consequences in her real life

    That’s the operative phrase. Where there’s serious risk that something could bleed over into someone’s personal life, yeah, cut it.

    That’s precisely what I mean about the boundary you seem unable to recognize: between the open, public part of what we say and what we reserve to our private life.

  334. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Well, at the very least the information on Bluharmony’s occupation and schooling should go (though I suspect she added that information herself to make her look more favorable).

  335. says

    You seem to have a problem recognizing boundaries yourself, between what is private and personal, and what is public and freely accessible. It’s the difference between blockquoting your words above and posting your real name and address.

    The fact that something is publicly accessible does not mean it is ethical to repost it anywhere and everywhere. Many people use their real names on their blogs (some of which are linked directly here), Facebook pages, or other places where information on them is publicly accessible. That does not mean that it would be ok to out that person’s real name here if xe prefers to be pseudonymous. Indeed, you’ve banned people on several occasions (and rightly so) for doing precisely that.

    And as I’ve explicitly pointed out, we have, on numerous occasions, respected the regulars’ wishes not to have articles about them posted on the wiki. I understood that to be the general policy. As I said, one regular explicitly asked not to be referenced there because of potential real-life consequences, and we respected that wish.

  336. says

    Where there’s serious risk that something could bleed over into someone’s personal life, yeah, cut it.

    Who judges what constitutes a “serious risk”? The subject of the article in question certainly seems to believe that there is such a risk in her case: she’s said that it “threatens her job and her livelihood” as an attorney. She may or may not be being paranoid, but it is up to her, not to us, to judge that risk and to make that decision.

  337. says

    That does not mean that it would be ok to out that person’s real name here if xe prefers to be pseudonymous

    Private information. Like I’ve said repeatedly.

    Again, how can you respect people’s boundaries if you refuse to acknowledge that any boundaries even exist?

  338. says

    Who judges what constitutes a “serious risk”?

    As has already been determined, you do. And your definition is so loose that you won’t even recognize that other people might legitimately regard your actions as draconian.

  339. says

    PZ,

    That’s the operative phrase. Where there’s serious risk that something could bleed over into someone’s personal life, yeah, cut it.

    I’ll take this is as discussion of the guidelines ;)

    There would then also be room for debate what this means.
    Let’s take two hypothetical cases, A and B.
    A: an atheist is afraid of repercussions by theists
    B: a bigot made racist or sexist or any other kind of discriminatory remarks and is afraid of public shaming.

    Should A and B treated in the same manner.

    One could argue that treating A and B alike would water down the wiki. Of course it would be of utmost importance that cases of the type B would be documented accurately. I would also take into account the publicity on other media. The remarks made by Richard Dawkins regarding Elevator Gate for instance, were widely reported and are of a different notability than a pseudonymous poster on a single blog post on Pharyngula.

  340. says

    As has already been determined, you do. And your definition is so loose that you won’t even recognize that other people might legitimately regard your actions as draconian.

    What is this even supposed to mean? The subject of the wiki page in question thinks it will damage her real-life reputation. She may be wrong or right, but she is far better-placed than we are to make that determination; we don’t know better than she does what might or might not affec ther career. And we are therefore ethically obliged – under the standard of “serious risk that it might bleed over into one’s personal life” that you yourself just outlined – to take it down.

  341. Matt Penfold says

    Is the information posted on the Wiki about Bluharmony the result of the collation of information posted around the web, or is it just what she has posted her ?

    If it is the former then I see an argument for deletion. If it is just what posted her, then I see no justification at all. I might agree that deletion would be in order if the information was old and the person has subsequently changed their opinions on matters mentioned. I could also see grounds for deletion if the person is willing to undertake never to use the Internet again on the grounds they are too stupid.

  342. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    Jesus Christ.

    Anyway.

    Sally,
    If you’re passing through in Nov, just remind me a day or two in advance so I can get my shit in order. There’ll be beers and a couch to crash on (should you need it) with your name on. :)

    I survived the funeral and mass this morning. Mass was… weird.

  343. says

    Matt,

    it looks like the CV-like background info was added by her (probably an admin can tell by looking at the logs?). At the very least that should go, because that makes her potentially identifiable, and is not particularly relevant to the Elevator Gate discussion (even if it was her, I do think that potentially identifiable information should be removed on request in case of un-NOTABLE posters)

    Most of her quotes seem to be about Rebecca Watson, so I’d think the info on what the poster said about her should be moved to an article on Rebecca Watson / Elevator Gate.

  344. says

    So if someone claimed, out of shear spite and malice, that the Pharynguwiki as a whole damaged their real-world reputation, you’d take it all down? Seems a little unfair to the people who worked on it.

    There are boundaries. If you make them so thin that you effectively exclude all critical expression, you’ve got nothing but a flimsy bit of tissue paper that’s going to be of no interest to anyone. To succeed you need a balance, and absolutists aren’t very good at that.

    But if that’s the way it’s going to be, that’s the way it is. I can think of no better way to completely destroy a project than to turn it over to the capricious whims of whatever person wants to burn it to the ground. Even if it is in the name of ‘good intentions’.

  345. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Walton,

    The subject of the wiki page in question thinks it will damage her real-life reputation.

    Take the case I gave above of naturopath Christopher Maloney. His wife wrote PZ a letter asking him to take down a critical post (forget the poor legal justifications for the moment). She claimed the post would be “injuring [Maloney’s] reputation by calling him a quack”. Should that post have been taken down?

  346. says

    Private information. Like I’ve said repeatedly.

    Except that sometimes, people’s real names are public information. Mine is publicly viewable on my blog (which I link from my comments here), and I’m far from the only person in that position. Yet we all agree that posting someone’s real name here without their consent, even if it is publicly available and takes ten seconds to find, is creepy and stalkerish.

    Someone could easily find my real name, by clicking through to my blog, and add it to my Pharynguwiki article without my consent. Xe could also add links to all the embarrassing stuff I’ve ever said here (details of my ongoing mental health problems, the Conservatina-and-the-hot-guy-in-the-shower metaphor, and so forth). As it happens, I doubt this would harm my reputation all that much – but if I objected to it and wanted it taken down, are you seriously arguing that my wish should not be respected?

  347. says

    But if that’s the way it’s going to be, that’s the way it is. I can think of no better way to completely destroy a project than to turn it over to the capricious whims of whatever person wants to burn it to the ground. Even if it is in the name of ‘good intentions’.

    I’d be perfectly fine with getting rid of the wiki altogether. It was an in-joke months ago, and it’s now become far more trouble than it’s worth. If it’s going to be used as a platform for attacking people that are disliked, I have no desire to be a part of it.

    But I am fucking terrified by the precedent you’re setting. If I decided I wanted to quit Pharyngula for good, and wanted to remove the Pharynguwiki article on myself and all references to myself, are you seriously arguing that it would be ok for you to keep that information up there without my permission? People need to have the freedom to disappear if they want to.

  348. Dhorvath, OM says

    Is the Wiki a record or a polemic? It it there to make a point or to allow for us to more easily access key ideas from the site? I just don’t know, my intuition sides with Walton, we don’t need anything to be up there so if someone doesn’t want to be involved in our playtoy, I don’t see how we should force them to do so. To be honest, I thought the Wiki was for book recommendations, recipes, and memes.

  349. Matt Penfold says

    People need to have the freedom to disappear if they want to.

    If that is what they want, then why are they posting on the ‘net ?

  350. says

    Dhorvath,

    probably a good thing people started discussing the goals of the Wiki. I mean it’s quite normal that a community project evolves and new people come in, and old people go, and suddenly there is no-one left who knows the true and only original purpose of the thing. Which is why robust discussion and good documentation come in very handy here.

    I’ve come to use it as a reference for memes and info on trolls. I think documenting the big issues of Pharyngula would also be a worthwhile aim, as there are certain things that keep coming up.

    But also, certain trolls, they also keep coming here.

    Maybe there is a way to restrict access to the Wiki to registered users only? That way it shouldn’t appear in Google, I think. (might then need to move it from Wikia to some other site?)

    Seriously, when the MRA brigade comes flooding the site, it’s nice to have some kind of field guide.

  351. says

    If that is what they want, then why are they posting on the ‘net ?

    News flash: people sometimes post on the ‘net and then change their minds afterwards. And sometimes people post in one place, not contemplating the possibility that their posts might be later used against them in another place. This problem most often arises when newspapers or bloggers decide to spork stuff from a person’s FB profile, the person not having bothered to set hir privacy settings. (Remember the nurse in the UK who was wrongly accused of murder, and had her FB picture and posts splashed all over the press for a few days, before being released without charge due to lack of evidence?) The fact that information is publicly accessible does not mean it is morally ok to re-post it in ways that hurt the original poster.

    Of course you can take a libertarian-ish judgmental stance and say “well, it’s their own fault for posting things publicly in the first place, and they should just have to live with the consequences”. And that would be logically coherent, but it would also make you an asshole.

    I’m taking this stance not because I have very much sympathy with the wiki-subject in question – she’s a nasty Slimepit denizen – but because I don’t want to be part of a project that is in the business of doing this kind of thing generally.

  352. Matt Penfold says

    To stop a webpage from being archived by Google you just need to add the write code to the page headers, or use a robot.txt file.

  353. says

    But I am fucking terrified by the precedent you’re setting. If I decided I wanted to quit Pharyngula for good, and wanted to remove the Pharynguwiki article on myself and all references to myself, are you seriously arguing that it would be ok for you to keep that information up there without my permission?

    Flee the net now, then…although it’s already too late. Do you seriously believe you have the power to make all traces of yourself vanish?

    And no, if you announced you were leaving the blogosphere altogether sent me a nice polite request asking that I delete all of your comments on Pharyngula, I’d say no. They’re there to stay.

    I have had requests like that, and I turn them all down, flatly. A handful of times I’ve been willing to go back and remove private revelations from old posts, but that’s about it.

    I’m surprised that you think somehow you can dance on the web and not leave any footprints…or that we’ll obligingly go back and remove any missteps for you at your request. One life, one arrow, one public persona. Embrace it, because you don’t get do-overs.

  354. Dhorvath, OM says

    If it’s going to be used to document trolls, then I would it do so with quotes of what they actually said and not an attempt to get more barbs in. The site is for dialogue, at least that is how we use the comments here.

  355. says

    I wasn’t going to respond to Walton’s posts on this matter any more, but:

    Remember the nurse in the UK who was wrongly accused of murder, and had her FB picture and posts splashed all over the press for a few days, before being released without charge due to lack of evidence?

    Head -> desk.

    Analogy FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

  356. Sally Strange, OM says

    Whoa.

    Okay, so I was reading through and thinking, what the heck? I try to stay aware that everything I write here is public. What’s the big deal? So I actually went to the Wiki and there’s this:

    In the unlikely event that anybody cares, bluharmony would like to add that she is a practicing attorney in Seattle, Washington. She graduated from the University of Washington Law School in 1999 with an LLM in Tax Law. Prior to that, she received her JD from UW, as well as bachelor’s degrees in Russian language, psychology, and communications. Bluharmony is currently employed at a large international law firm downtown. Although her current work is mainly in the corporate arena, she is particularly interested in cases involving sexual harassment and discrimination.

    Okay, so it was stupid of bluharmony to post this much identifying information, but that’s no excuse. It does read as something designed to deliberately sabotage her reputation in the real world. There is a line, a standard to uphold, and this crosses it. Bluharmony’s contributions are worth a wiki entry not because she’s such an awful person, but because she’s an example of what sexism looks like when practiced by a woman, and now, because she is the subject of debate about how to respect boundaries and remain ethical people while still using public shaming to mock those who spread harmful ideas, like sexists and Howard Camping.

  357. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    The subject of the wiki page in question thinks it will damage her real-life reputation. She may be wrong or right, but she is far better-placed than we are to make that determination; we don’t know better than she does what might or might not affec ther career. And we are therefore ethically obliged – under the standard of “serious risk that it might bleed over into one’s personal life” that you yourself just outlined – to take it down.

    Really? The person being criticized should be the one to decide whether an article gets deleted? This sounds like a recipe for silencing any and all criticism.

    There are definitely scenarios where we should remove or not post certain information about a person, troll and regular. However, we can’t take those legitimate cases and make this simplistic rule that each person gets to delete whatever they don’t like that’s being said about them.

  358. says

    Flee the net now, then…although it’s already too late. Do you seriously believe you have the power to make all traces of yourself vanish?

    No. But that’s a bug in the system, not a feature, and it is morally wrong to deliberately make this problem worse.

    I have an enormous online footprint, most of which is very easily traceable to me, and which documents pretty much everything about my life. Someone who wanted to hurt me could easily dig up all the stupid and embarrassing things I’ve ever said anywhere, and compile them into an attack page. That would be entirely possible, and, in most jurisdictions, entirely legal. But it would be an asshole thing to do. And I am arguing that we should be working to make it easier for people to escape the shackles of their pasts.

    Head -> desk.

    Analogy FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

    I was not claiming that this situation is directly analogous to that one. It isn’t. I was talking about the fact that “publicly available information” does not equal “information that it is morally acceptable to repeat”.

  359. Matt Penfold says

    News flash: people sometimes post on the ‘net and then change their minds afterwards

    True, but so what ? We all say and do thing we later regret. It is part of growing up, and of life in general.

    And sometimes people post in one place, not contemplating the possibility that their posts might be later used against them in another place.

    So they should be using the ‘net then. If they are that stupid then offer to delete the information only of they make a sworn undertaking not to use the ‘net in future.

    This problem most often arises when newspapers or bloggers decide to spork stuff from a person’s FB profile, the person not having bothered to set hir privacy settings. (Remember the nurse in the UK who was wrongly accused of murder, and had her FB picture and posts splashed all over the press for a few days, before being released without charge due to lack of evidence?) The fact that information is publicly accessible does not mean it is morally ok to re-post it in ways that hurt the original poster.

    There is a difference between republishing information in an obscure wiki and splashing stuff across the front page of a tabloid. Not least in the UK because of the rules on pre-trial prejudice.

    Of course you can take a libertarian-ish judgmental stance and say “well, it’s their own fault for posting things publicly in the first place, and they should just have to live with the consequences”. And that would be logically coherent, but it would also make you an asshole.

    Sometimes people deserve to live with the consequences.

  360. D says

    I’m personally much more disturbed by the idea that people should just be able to disappear themselves. We are who we are because of our history. I can understand why a lot of people would want to erase their past. But I see quite a lot more harm done by being unable to know other peoples past in any way when it is relevant.

  361. Matt Penfold says

    No. But that’s a bug in the system, not a feature, and it is morally wrong to deliberately make this problem worse.

    Rubbish. The whole point of the World Wide Web was to stop information from being lost.

  362. says

    Sometimes people deserve to live with the consequences.

    No. You’re revealing a belief in contra-causal free will and in the idea that some people “deserve” to suffer. These are pre-rational, crypto-religious ideas that cannot be sustained in the context of a rational worldview.

  363. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Yeah, I can’t decide whether it was malice or stupidity that caused her to post her own occuputation and schooling there and then ask for that page to be deleted (I’m leaning towards the latter). In any case, that information should be removed.

  365. says

    I was not claiming that this situation is directly analogous to that one. It isn’t. I was talking about the fact that “publicly available information” does not equal “information that it is morally acceptable to repeat”.

    And this doesn’t fly because there is a clear standard of what private information means on Pharyngula. That’s what we’re talking about, not UK law.

    PZ just banned someone for posting Caine’s real first name, which is easily google-able. What can we learn from this? Real names not used by the poster on Pharyngula : private information.

    Similarly if someone posted a Facebook picture (since you can’t post pics in the comments, say a link to their Facebook profile) that would equally be a bannable offence.

    Your example fails on so many levels it takes my breath away.

    You really have serious trouble differentiating between different degrees of private and public…

  366. Matt Penfold says

    No. You’re revealing a belief in contra-causal free will and in the idea that some people “deserve” to suffer. These are pre-rational, crypto-religious ideas that cannot be sustained in the context of a rational worldview.

    Walton, people’s actions and words are not free of consequence. How can they be ?

  367. says

    Walton, people’s actions and words are not free of consequence. How can they be ?

    That isn’t what you said. You said that people “deserve” to suffer consequences. That’s a normative claim, not an empirical one.

    “Moral desert” is bullshit. No one “deserves” anything, good or bad. It’s an entirely meaningless concept. We should do good for people because good is good; “desert” cannot enter into it.

  368. says

    And this doesn’t fly because there is a clear standard of what private information means on Pharyngula.

    No there isn’t. There’s whimsical, case-by-case adjudication, and the standard applied to regulars appears to be higher than the standard applied to trolls.

  369. Matt Penfold says

    That isn’t what you said. You said that people “deserve” to suffer consequences. That’s a normative claim, not an empirical one.

    Oh for fuck’s sake.

    How fucking clueless are you today Walton ? Really, I have never seen you being quite such an idiot.

    If I did not know better I would think you were trolling.

    Be gone, at least until you come to your senses.

  371. says

    No there isn’t. There’s whimsical, case-by-case adjudication, and the standard applied to regulars appears to be higher than the standard applied to trolls.

    It’s not whimsical, there are guidelines to be found under Standards and Practices,*) which are applied to each case. My goodness, you were a Wikipedia editor! Of course on a website like this, the reputation of the online persona will be taken into account. A regular might be cut slack because there is the notion that they will learn from their mistakes, or because they’ve made contributions in the past.

    But show me a clear-cut case of where a double standard was applied. You’ve already used a weasel word like “appears”, so I’d be surprised if you had a case here.

    *) BTW, PZ, might be a good idea to link them more clearly in a tab or something, right now they’re buried under Dungeon, from where you have to follow a link to a Scienceblog post.

  372. says

    Would you believe if I said this time actually used Preview and didn’t notice…

    My goodness, you were a Wikipedia editor admin

  373. says

    How fucking clueless are you today Walton ? Really, I have never seen you being quite such an idiot.

    This is your usual response when you are unable to respond to the substance of my posts. (Like what happened on the burqa-ban thread, in which you spent hours and hours attacking me personally merely because I pointed out that the French ban on the burqa would make life far shittier for Muslim women.)

  374. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    Can we at least agree that her city, schooling and occupation should be deleted from the article? (Even if it looks like she was the one who added it.)

  376. says

    First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace,

    Can we at least agree that her city, schooling and occupation should be deleted from the article? (Even if it looks like she was the one who added it.)

    Yes. I don’t think there is anyone here who would be against that. If she really put it up herself, that wasn’t the best move.

    But it’s not Richard Dawkins we’re talking about, the poster in question is only noteworthy regarding her comments on Elevator Gate.

  377. says

    It’s not whimsical, there are guidelines to be found under Standards and Practices,*)

    All the guidelines say on the subject is:

    Violating privacy. It takes very bad behavior to get me to expose a poster’s identity; you aren’t allowed to do it at all. Posting phone numbers or addresses, unveiling real names behind pseudonyms…the banhammer comes down, along with comment deletion.

    That’s not relevant to this type of case. The problem in bluharmony’s case is not that her RL identity or contact information has been revealed (it hasn’t), but that she thinks the presence of the page may damage her personal reputation. My point is that we have, in the past, respected regulars’ wishes not to have pages on the wiki for precisely this reason; yet we are apparently unwilling to extend the same courtesy to trolls.

    Of course on a website like this, the reputation of the online persona will be taken into account. A regular might be cut slack because there is the notion that they will learn from their mistakes, or because they’ve made contributions in the past.

    I should have been clearer: I meant that the standard applied to protection of regulars’ information appears to be higher than that applied to protection of trolls’ information.

    But show me a clear-cut case of where a double standard was applied. You’ve already used a weasel word like “appears”, so I’d be surprised if you had a case here.

    I have already pointed out that we explicitly respected one regular’s wish (rightly) not to be written about on the wiki, because of potential consequences for her real life. (I won’t link it again, because I don’t want to draw lots of attention to something she wishes to keep private, but I linked it upThread.) By contrast, we have just openly flouted a troll’s wish not to be written about on the wiki, because of potential consequences for her real life.

  378. says

    This is your usual response when you are unable to respond to the substance of my posts

    It won’t surprise you that I’d side with Matt here. I think you acted in bad faith (also a Wikipedia policy) when you interpreted his use of “deserve” in the worst way possible. I’m pretty sure Matt wasn’t making a argument from the p.o.v. of legal philosophy. Context and pragmatics do matter.

  379. says

    Walton,

    we were talking about PZ’s application of the guidelines here. You haven’t given me any examples where he might have applied these in an inconsistent manner, hence your argument will be regarded as bogus, until proven otherwise.

    Regarding your other arguments from the Wiki, I refer you to post 341. And also 347 as hypothetical case C.

    You know, A, B and C are NOT the same. It is entirely possible to have guidelines that take different situations into account.

  380. says

    Yet we all agree that posting someone’s real name here without their consent, even if it is publicly available and takes ten seconds to find, is creepy and stalkerish.

    *whistles*

    Or even just mentioning it is easy to find.

    ====

    So I actually went to the Wiki and there’s this:

    <snip content=”Bluharmony’s info”/>

    Well, that makes the whole point moot, now doesn’t it? As of now, it’s as good as etched in stone.

  381. Matt Penfold says

    This is your usual response when you are unable to respond to the substance of my posts.

    No, it is how I respond to those too stupid, or who are being wilfully obtuse, to understand my point. Now I suspect you are just being wilfully obtuse, so stop. Also, for you to claim the post I was replying had any substance suggests you are deluding yourself. Wilful misunderstanding does not make for posts with substance.

    If you really think that it is sometimes appropriate that things people have said and done in the past cause them problems in the present, then I can I conclude is that you have gone crazy.

    You really are being very tiresome.

  382. says

    Is there anything wrong with having a single “Notable Trolls” page with brief descriptions of characters who might, after all, show up again, but identifying them only by pseudonym?

  383. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Hi. I’m the one who wrote much but not all of blu’s article. That identifying information about her, she put up, and I absolutely do think it would be best if it were taken down because the information is MUCH too personal, but since she put it on the Wiki herself I actually figured that was what she wanted up and I didn’t want to remove it.

    I am opposed to its total deletion because I think it is a useful reference in the case that blu returns here. (In blu’s specific case, last time she was here when I wrote the post there was a great deal of dishonesty and disingenuousness about what she had previously posted here and elsewhere. For that reason, having an easily accessible page compiling and referencing the things she’s said here and at the Slimepit would be useful.) And I don’t think people can demand that their online behavior not be written about online by people they affected. For instance, if someone’s nym appeared in one of PZ’s posts links to their comments with criticism of their stances, would it be okay for them to demand that the post be taken down? Would PZ do it? (I doubt it, but if I’m wrong, I’m sure I’ll find out.)

    I do think that it’s a lovely idea to remove such potentially identifying information as her hometown and college, and if the general consensus is that that should be taken down (which, oddly, I think might constitute going against her wishes), I’ll do it myself with clear explanation to her of why that’s happening.

  384. Matt Penfold says

    It won’t surprise you that I’d side with Matt here. I think you acted in bad faith (also a Wikipedia policy) when you interpreted his use of “deserve” in the worst way possible. I’m pretty sure Matt wasn’t making a argument from the p.o.v. of legal philosophy. Context and pragmatics do matter.

    Correct, I wasn’t. I was merely pointing out that if you do and say things others do not like, you have no right to expect them to 1) not pay attention to what you say and and do and 2) change how they view and treat you as a result.

    I am unsure whether Walton really does think there should be no consequences to people’s words and actions or not.

  385. says

    Ok, pelamun…

    Let’s take two hypothetical cases, A and B.
    A: an atheist is afraid of repercussions by theists
    B: a bigot made racist or sexist or any other kind of discriminatory remarks and is afraid of public shaming.

    Should A and B treated in the same manner.

    This is not an accurate analysis of the situation. By her own account, the subject of the wiki-article in question is not just afraid of “public shaming”, she is afraid of repercussions in her professional life.

    The potential harm is exactly the same. The only way to draw a distinction between the two, then, is to say that people who say racist, sexist or other discriminatory things “deserve” to suffer deleterious consequences. That’s punitivism, and I reject punitivism as a basis for our actions.

  386. Part-Time Insomniac, Zombie Porcupine Nox Arcana Fan says

    Please tell me bluharmony posted all that in a fit of temporary insanity. That’s like the first rule people learn about being on the internet: Don’t post very specific information about yourself!

  387. julian says

    Um… maybe you guys oughtta try and narrow the argument a bit. Seems like (and I know I’ve missed a few posts) you’re starting to spread out all over the place.

    Well, I’ve wasted my entire Saturday morning arguing about this shit.

    All the more reason to see it through! (joking… kinda sorta…)

  388. Matt Penfold says

    Walton,

    Has it not occurred to that there are sometimes consequences to a person’s professional life based on what they have said and done that are quite justified ?

    For example, should a police officer making racist comments online, even if in his or her own time, not expect that if their employer find out they may well face disciplinary action ? And that it is quite reasonable that they should face such action ?

  389. says

    Monado,

    a great idea. Though I’d wait with that until we get a consensus for some guidelines.

    Classical Cipher,

    For instance, if someone’s nym appeared in one of PZ’s posts links to their comments with criticism of their stances, would it be okay for them to demand that the post be taken down? Would PZ do it? (I doubt it, but if I’m wrong, I’m sure I’ll find out.)

    See posts 347, and notably, 355, by PZ himself.

    Regarding the other parts of your post, full agreement.

  390. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    I like Monado’s idea. ^

    Walton, I’m listening, but I think it might be relevant that bluharmony thinks that at least partially based on faulty information. When she Googles her nym, for reasons I’m not sure I understand but sg thinks it’s linked to Google’s learning algorithm, her Pharynguwiki page comes up first. For me, it’s somewhere down the second page, and for sg it was at the top of the third page. Blu mistakenly thinks that her Pharynguwiki is the first thing that comes up when someone googles her nym.

  391. Matt Penfold says

    With regards Google searches, if you are logged into Google as a matter of course for Google Reader, Mail or whatever then Google will order the results of your search based on your previous search history and your location.

    I am not sure if that also applied when not logged in by using a cookie, but if so it can be deal with by deleting the cookie. I am pretty sure you can turn off the personalised search ordering as well.

  392. says

    When she Googles her nym, for reasons I’m not sure I understand but sg thinks it’s linked to Google’s learning algorithm, her Pharynguwiki page comes up first.

    I just tried it (from Google.com, which often gives different results from Google.co.uk) and the Pharynguwiki entry was part-way down the second page. Not first, but not difficult to find either. (And many of the first page of results seem to be blogs and user profiles in various places.) So it could be traced to her (albeit not as easily as she thinks) and could conceivably damage her in some way.

    Why not just respect her wishes and get rid of the damn thing? Seriously? What do we need a “reference” about trolls for?

  393. chigau (almost) says

    So, I’m going to try to preserve the last of the parsley.
    In the past I’ve tried both freezing and drying.
    Neither is really very good.
    Any other suggestions?

  395. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    (which, oddly, I think might constitute going against her wishes)

    I suspect this as well. Anyway, I already deleted it. She has been complaining to Wikia and with that info gone her case is weaker.

    It was very odd for her to add that much information about her career to the article and then ask for the article to be deleted because it would hurt her career reputation.

    Is there anything wrong with having a single “Notable Trolls” page with brief descriptions of characters who might, after all, show up again, but identifying them only by pseudonym?

    How about people like Kw*k who go by their real name?

  396. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Please tell me bluharmony posted all that in a fit of temporary insanity. That’s like the first rule people learn about being on the internet: Don’t post very specific information about yourself!

    She has the ability to edit it out and she always has. She put it up, and I did not revert it for the reasons I stated above. I’m assuming that’s why SG hasn’t reverted it either.

  397. Dhorvath, OM says

    Walton,
    I might note that you just made an argument against Matt P by referring to a previous argument that the two of you had. Not all of us have your ability to remember conversations and dig them up as evidence in current conversations. That’s what a wiki is good at though, finding related information more easily than by searching old comments. Is it okay or not to bring up previous conversations in a current one?

  398. Matt Penfold says

    chigau,

    Pasely is almost impossible to preserve by drying or freezing without loosing all the flavour.

    The way I have done it, which is not brilliant but the best I found, is to get an ice cube tray, put chopped parsley in each section and top up with water and freeze. When you want to use in stews and soups etc, just add the ice cubes direct.

  399. chigau (almost) says

    Matt Penfold
    I’ve heard of that.
    I think I’ll try it.
    But first I’ll have to get all the pesto out of the ice cube trays.

  400. says

    Not all of us have your ability to remember conversations and dig them up as evidence in current conversations.

    Fair point. I hadn’t even thought of that. But it doesn’t seem to me to be necessary to have a reference-page on a troll, and it certainly doesn’t outweigh the person’s interest in keeping their name off the wiki.

    It was very odd for her to add that much information about her career to the article and then ask for the article to be deleted because it would hurt her career reputation.

    I get the impression that she added the information because she felt like she was being unjustly demonized and attacked. Whether she was, I can’t say; I’m not inclined to have much sympathy with anyone who willingly joins in with the ERV Slimepit. But I am uncomfortable with the idea that we can keep an article on the wiki without the article-subject’s consent – especially as we have expressly decided not to do that on previous occasions, when regulars rather than trolls were involved.

  401. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    Walton @394:
    Seriously? What do we need any reference for, when it comes down to it? With that attitude, you might as well delete the whole fucking wiki.

    (Fuck the ‘Droid and my complete inability to copypasta at the moment.)

  402. says

    With that attitude, you might as well delete the whole fucking wiki.

    Yes. At this point I actually think we should. It’s more trouble than it’s worth.

  403. Sally Strange, OM says

    Wow. This is bizarre. Bluharmony insisted on including that information? Why? It’s like she was trying to ensure that any comments about her would be associated with a description of her professional biography. And yes, it was stupid of me to re-post bluharmony’s info given that I don’t think it’s relevant to her wiki, nor fair to include in a wiki entry. I guess it is set in virtual stone now. It was thoughtless of me, I fucked up. I don’t feel as bad about it knowing that it was she who put it there, but still.

    So… I gather then that she is requesting other types of information about her taken down? Like the editorializing? Yeah, good luck with that one.

  404. says

    The potential harm is exactly the same. The only way to draw a distinction between the two, then, is to say that people who say racist, sexist or other discriminatory things “deserve” to suffer deleterious consequences. That’s punitivism, and I reject punitivism as a basis for our actions.

    Sure many things can be similar if you really want them to. (but I won’t go into detail about that). You’re overlooking something crucial, and I think that is also what Matt was alluding to.

    Words have consequences. In the Free Speech doctrine, IIRC, it is never held that you should be PROTECTED against the consequences your speech might have. TO Godwin this thread, you’re free to express your admiration of Adolf Hitler at the water cooler, but you’re not protected against being fired if your company takes offence at that.

    Coming back to cases A and B:
    I mean it wasn’t us who made those utterances. They did. And likewise, it isn’t us who would be punishing them. So it is not up to us to punish the posters A or B, it is up to their professional environment (or whoever might deal out these repercussions). Now, what we can do is to choose to help A or B. We wouldn’t be obliged in either case to help, but because to us (or some of us), intent does matter, we choose to help the atheist, but not the bigot.

    And I personally find it gratifying that it seems to be the consensus here that the potentially identifying information should go EVEN THOUGH it was the poster herself who added the information. I do think that’s the decent thing to do. But not to erase the entire thing.

  406. says

    So, are there any technical issues about restricting viewing the wiki to registered users only? I think a lot of the issues would go away if we did that?

  407. says

    Also, pro-tip for paranoid internet users:

    If you’re afraid of your activities on Pharyngula coming back to haunt you, create an account EXCLUSIVE to it. DO NOT USE IT FOR ANYTHING ELSE.
    If you must promote your blog at the same time, make sure it only shows what you want people here to know.

    Still no 100% safety of course, but alas there is no eraser for the internet….

  408. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    I have no idea how we would do that, pelamun, but maybe someone else does.

  409. First Approximation, Much Cooler In Cyberspace says

    So… I gather then that she is requesting other types of information about her taken down? Like the editorializing? Yeah, good luck with that one.

    Yep, this is all about her trying to take down criticisms of what she’s written in public blogs.

  410. says

    I think that’s the degenerate (trivial) case where nym=name.

    A page for people with long, involved, and troublesome histories.

    I’d be OK with making the wiki private to registered Pharyngula users or to a whitelist that people could get added to by e-mailing the admin. Wikis may be “for all” but that all is often everyone in a private domain. It’s our history, our memory, our inside jokes.

  411. says

    And likewise, it isn’t us who would be punishing them.

    By posting information on a site that someone doesn’t want there, and that xe finds offensive and hurtful, we are, by definition, hurting them.

    Of course, there are times when hurting people is justified, as a way of fighting back. Rick Santorum might find it offensive and hurtful to be called a homophobic bigot, but it’s necessary to point out that he is, in fact, a homophobic bigot, because he is a person with political power whose actions are actively hurting people, and it’s necessary to fight back.

    But this doesn’t mean that it’s necessary or justified to mete out the same treatment to every obscure person on the internet who has ever said something bigoted. When we’re talking about a private individual rather than a politician, the effect of our words on hir online footprint is proportionally much greater. And the power-differential is different. Rick Santorum is powerful, and our attacking him is an act of justified resistance to a hegemony; there is no such power-differential when we’re talking about a random person on the internet who has no political status or influence.

    I’ll give you a much more egregious example than anything that’s been mentioned on this thread. Ed Brayton periodically mocks an obscure far-right blogger called “Pat”, a long-term-unemployed former truck driver with apparent mental problems who periodically posts racist, homophobic and clueless rants. I am annoyed and upset about this; because Pat has no power and no influence, his posts are making no difference to anything, and it seems to me that Ed’s mockery and pillorying of him (which, by Ed’s own admission, is purely for his own amusement) are completely pointless and cruel. Attacking a bigot in Congress is justified as an act of resistance to power; attacking a random obscure blogger who has no power cannot be justified in the same way. I’ve said this at Dispatches several times, and Ed just laughs my criticisms off (hence why I no longer comment on his blog regularly).

    Now, I am certainly not saying that keeping the wiki-article in question is comparable in gravity to the way Ed treats Pat. It’s nowhere near the same situation. But I think we need to avoid inflicting harm unnecessarily on anyone. In this case, this just doesn’t seem to me to be necessary or justified.

  412. says

    Actually SQB, if you’re doing it anyways, could you include me in your little study? My email can be found at the About page of my blog.

  414. says

    And I can’t believe I’ve wasted most of my Saturday on this when I have two papers to write, and that I’ve managed to completely ruin my own weekend and cause myself all this stress and anxiety over something that I’m making zero difference to. I am so stupid. (Or just OCD-afflicted.) Oh well.

  415. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    Walton:
    It’s really starting to sound like you want people to be free from being criticized.

    What total bullshit.

  416. says

    By posting information on a site that someone doesn’t want there, and that xe finds offensive and hurtful, we are, by definition, hurting them.

    I agree as long as it is reasonable. So many people now have tried to explain to you that the best way to stifle criticism is to leave it up to the criticised to define what is acceptable and what is not. This is getting tedious.

    Thus the need for guidelines. I’m not gonna repeat myself, as I’ve proposed some.

    The Ed Brayton example, if it doesn’t fall under the Notability clause (like a one-liner with other known trolls, might be more appropriate) could be taken care of by formulating a guideline to the effect EXERCISE UTMOST CONSIDERATION TOWARDS PEOPLE WITH KNOWN HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS, UNLESS THEY HAVE MADE THREATS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE (that would leave the truck driver out, but M*b*ze in)

  417. says

    EXERCISE UTMOST CONSIDERATION TOWARDS PEOPLE WITH KNOWN HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS, UNLESS THEY HAVE MADE THREATS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE

    You’re missing the point. I don’t know whether Pat is mentally ill; he appears to have mental problems of some kind, but I am not qualified to judge whether he has a diagnosable mental disorder. But it’s irrelevant. The point is that he is a person with less power and lower social status than Ed, and with no ability to influence anything. There was no point in Ed attacking him, therefore, other than personal enjoyment – and attacking someone for personal enjoyment is always wrong.

    Now, I do not think that this wiki page is the same situation at all. (For one thing, there was no mockery comparable to the way Ed has treated Pat; for another thing, there was no comparable power or status differential; and third, there was an actual reason for it, so it wasn’t an act of cruelty.) But Pat is an extreme example of why, in some cases, one should refrain from attacking even people who say egregiously bigoted things. The fact that someone puts themselves out there on the internet does not make them fair game for attack.

    ===

    It’s really starting to sound like you want people to be free from being criticized.

    No. Sometimes there is a good reason to criticize someone. Cf what I wrote above:

    Of course, there are times when hurting people is justified, as a way of fighting back. Rick Santorum might find it offensive and hurtful to be called a homophobic bigot, but it’s necessary to point out that he is, in fact, a homophobic bigot, because he is a person with political power whose actions are actively hurting people, and it’s necessary to fight back.

    But this doesn’t mean that it’s necessary or justified to mete out the same treatment to every obscure person on the internet who has ever said something bigoted. When we’re talking about a private individual rather than a politician, the effect of our words on hir online footprint is proportionally much greater. And the power-differential is different. Rick Santorum is powerful, and our attacking him is an act of justified resistance to a hegemony; there is no such power-differential when we’re talking about a random person on the internet who has no political status or influence.

  418. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    By posting information on a site that someone doesn’t want there, and that xe finds offensive and hurtful, we are, by definition, hurting them.

    And by arguing against people and insulting them in a way that they find offensive and hurtful, we are by definition hurting them. Does that mean we should be nice to all the bigots who come here, because they’re not politicians?

  419. says

    You’re missing the point. I don’t know whether Pat is mentally ill; he appears to have mental problems of some kind, but I am not qualified to judge whether he has a diagnosable mental disorder. But it’s irrelevant. The point is that he is a person with less power and lower social status than Ed, and with no ability to influence anything. There was no point in Ed attacking him, therefore, other than personal enjoyment – and attacking someone for personal enjoyment is always wrong.

    I don’t know much about Ed’s blog. Also, it’s a wiki for Pharyngula. And PZ doesn’t do what Ed does, at least not that I know of.

    So seems like the one missing the point is you.

  420. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    *sigh* I should know better than to get involved, but I’m on a long car ride home and I’ve got nothing better to do*. (I left my book at home, so I have no reading material…. AAAAAARGH!)

    Am I to assume that you also disagree with PZ posting “I get email”?

    *And apparently I’m enough of a masochist to do battle with my stupid phone’s stupid autocorrect (which, like the popup blocker, can be turned off, but resets itself to the default settings regularly).

  422. says

    Classical Cipher, @410
    I think my posts regarding alternatives to wikia were held up in moderation due to excessive links. So sorry PZ, if I post again, this time sans links.

    0. Wikia does not seem to allow restrictions like that.

    Thus we have 3 options

    1. Someone supernice at freethoughtsblogs.com could create a wiki on this server which is restricted to users in both viewing and editing. Setting up a MediaWiki or MoinMoiNWiki installation shouldn’t be too problematic (I’m not an IT expert, I could be wrong about this, but from what I’ve seen about wiki usage in academic entities it looks that way).

    2. Someone has a private server, and does the same. Costs would be incurred.

    3. There are other Wiki platforms which offer private wikiing starting at $5/mo.

    if someone were to take initiative and had a P.O. box, I’d be happy to send $10 their way.

  423. says

    pelamun, thanks for that list. If I ever move to Germany, I’ll choose Berlin over Bayern or Baden-Württemberg, that’s for sure. I was quite surprised that a lot of stores in Berlin were closed on Sunday, when we were there last November. Great city, that is. We took a Trabi tour, now that was fun!

    1. do you have an idea why this is so? AFAIK, the Netherlands was the most atheistic country in Europe. Really quite ironic.

    Perhaps its populace, but not its laws. We still have blasphemy laws on the books and although they haven’t been enforced since the infamous donkey trial, recent attempts to strike it have come to nothing.
    It’s historical, it was on our Guilders as well, so it stuck around.

    2. The Vatican coins may not have Nobiscum Deus engraved, but they have the fricking pope in effigy on them! Now what would you say is worse!?

    Well, the pope is their head of state, so I really consider ours worse.

  424. Algernon says

    Yes. At this point I actually think we should. It’s more trouble than it’s worth.

    Or maybe it’s just not your thing and you should leave it for the people who want it their way to have it their way and relinquish the accident that gives you more than you can deal with right now.

    I’m sad to see this has lasted all day.

    I’m exhausted. I have two more shelves in my closet now though, and the space is already nice (but already filling up too) which is amazing. I’m about to pass out though and I haven’t even put the clothes back in yet.

    Just shoes and bags right now. I’m weeding out some stuff (it is very very hard for me to let go of these things so I have things that go back to my childhood that I’ve managed to carry around with me an amazingly long time) and replacing the cheap hangers where I can.

    But I got about four hours of sleep because I went out with some coworkers to see one of them off back to UK (it was totally worth staying up late and spending way too much because that scene got funny)

    Ugh… why does everything have to get done on the weekend?

  425. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    Pelamun,
    I’m using the Android OS. I’ve changed the auto correct settings in, er, “keyboard settings” menu but that doesn’t necessarily mean I won’t be autocorrected.

    Autocorrect for a phone with a physical keyboard is fucking moronic, IMHO.

  426. says

    Dr. Audley,

    then I can’t relate (yet). As far as small mobile devices go, I’ve mostly typed on Nokias (also one with a keyboard, I called it the “poor man’s Blackberry”) and iPod Touches, which should be the same as the iPhone.

  427. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    I think Monado’s idea was a really constructive one. I’m concerned about trolls who really have become part of the culture here – the Kw*k, for instance, who is the subject of like a lot of memes, and Mark*ze, for the same reason – and I think those should retain their separate pages, with links to the other listing. (Think SS might merit one too, since he comes back so very often to annoy us.) But for lesser trolls like blu and Phil, a short entry in a list with a few links for reference to notable comments and conversations would be sufficient.

  428. First Approximation says

    I might note that you just made an argument against Matt P by referring to a previous argument that the two of you had.

    It’s okay to criticize and reference a poster’s previous remarks if it’s done in a blog comment. If it’s done on a wiki, apparently it’s stalkerish, public-shaming and career-damaging (or something) and should be taken down by request.

  429. says

    I’m sorry for getting so worked up about this. There are reasons (to do with my own past behaviour and current mental health issues) why this affects me so much emotionally, but I don’t want to go into that right now. (After all, I’ve just been warned to be more careful about my privacy online…)

  430. says

    pelamun, thanks for that list. If I ever move to Germany, I’ll choose Berlin over Bayern or Baden-Württemberg, that’s for sure. I was quite surprised that a lot of stores in Berlin were closed on Sunday, when we were there last November. Great city, that is. We took a Trabi tour, now that was fun!

    Hehe, you do know that in the 80s, all shops had to close at 6.30pm on weekdays and 4pm on Saturdays? Now opening hours for shops is yet another policy area that has been devolved to the state level. Some states have adopted a 24/6 model. Yes 6, not 7, because Sunday is holy. It is yet again another example of left-right consensus. The right wants the Sunday protected for religious reasons, and the left due to workers rights.

    However, there are exceptions:

    – gas stations sell stuff 24/7, but with higher prices, of course.
    – tourist spots can have supermarkets open on Sundays also. Usually these are spas, or beach towns, and also supermarkets in underground malls at major train stations. (I don’t know if Berlin has that kind of thing yet, but Frankfurt definitely does)
    – exceptions many state laws allow for the state association of merchants to declare so-called “Open for sale Sundays”, I think it might be like 5-10 times a year. Probably wasn’t one when you were in Berlin.

    But definitely, Berlin is one of the most godless places in Germany. For instance, the Bremen clause (allowing states to keep out the churches out of schools) is valid there too.

    Perhaps its populace, but not its laws. We still have blasphemy laws on the books and although they haven’t been enforced since the infamous donkey trial, recent attempts to strike it have come to nothing.
    It’s historical, it was on our Guilders as well, so it stuck around.

    From what I know about the Netherlands, I did have a feeling that the Catholic areas are more religious still, I hope my impression is correct. There were similar cases in Bavaria too, I think.

    But what about privileges of the churches? Is there a website that lists them all? I’d be interested to take a look. It’s ok if the website is in Dutch only.

    Regarding the Vatican: to have such a theocracy in the midst of Europe is such a bizarre anachronistic idiocy, I do think that’s hard to top.

  431. says

    I’m not doing any little studies any more, I’m staying as far away from that as possible. Sorry Classical Cipher, I’m not trying your ‘nym either, any more.

    Anyone still wanting to get LinkedIn can reach me at my ‘nym at live dot NL — and learn my real name.

  432. says

    Regarding the Vatican: to have such a theocracy in the midst of Europe is such a bizarre anachronistic idiocy, I do think that’s hard to top.

    Well, technically — oh, Waaaaaalton — all monarchs in Europe are supposed to be chosen or appointed by God, or derive their power in some way from religion. At least the pope is elected!

  433. says

    If DDMFM sees this, or any other person from Austria:

    I just read that Good Friday is not a public holiday there. Only for Protestants, Methodists and Old Catholics (a Catholic splinter group). But not for Roman Catholic Austrians.

    How is that possible? Or is there some back door like most companies grant this day off anyways?

    Or is it merely a reflection of the secularisation of Austria? I’m just shocked because Good Friday is a public holiday in many European countries (even in Indonesia!)

  434. says

    all monarchs in Europe are supposed to be chosen or appointed by God, or derive their power in some way from religion. At least the pope is elected!

    Well, the king*) of the Holy Roman Empire was elected too. But there were only seven voters, four princes and three bishops. Democracy for nobles!

    *) and traditionally, the King would then be crowned Emperor, often by the Pope in Rome or wherever the pope was at the time.

  435. says

    (Note)

    Holy Roman Empire

    despite its confusing name, it was mostly an empire comprising most of today’s Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Austria and northern Italy, steadily shrinking through time until its implosion in 1806.

  436. says

    It isn’t necessarily a religion issue to have all businesses closing on one day a week. It can be a labour policy that there should be one day when families or friends can get together, and Sunday has the momentum here.

  438. says

    Monado,

    if you’re referring to the Sunday shop closure law, yes as I said there’s a left-right consensus.

    However, the protection of Sundays and the dance prohibition for certain holidays all go back to the specific provisions in the Basic Law which makes reference to the privileged status of the two State Churches in Germany.

    Thus, even if the workers movement was fine with the protected status of Sundays, constitutionally it remains a case of religious privilege.

  439. says

    That’s why Christmas is a *secular* holiday. It’s a day off for workers, not a religious day.

    Pelamun, I think that’s power-sharing for nobles.

  440. Esteleth says

    I’ve missed most of this – sleeping until noon and then spending 3 hours surfing TVTropes will do that – but in my opinion the pharyngulwiki issue comes down to a simple issue:
    There is a real difference between pseudonymity and anonymity. Neither is the same as using one’s real name.
    Bluharmony is unhappy that if you Google search her pseudonym, then the pharyngulwiki page shows up at some point in the results. Well, that’s what happens when a pseudonym is used. Welcome to the Age of Google.
    I’m pretty sure that someone could, with a certain amount of googling, figure out Bluharmony’s real name, SSN, employer, etc. If this info was put on the pharyngulwiki page, that would be bad, I agree.
    But that’s not what this situation is.

    If you act like an ass using your real name or a consistent pseudonym, I’m not going to be sympathetic if you face consequences for this that are connected to the name you used.

    Oh, and Walton’s argument about how it’s fair to call Rick Santorum a bigot (because he’s a public figure) but wrong to call Random Internet Douchenozzle a bigot (because xe’s not a public figure) is spurious.

  442. says

    That’s why Christmas is a *secular* holiday. It’s a day off for workers, not a religious day.

    I’m fine with Christmas. In Europe it has become a tradition similar to that of Thanksgiving for Americans, just with presents on top of that (and added stress :D). It’s THE main holiday of the year. Conversely, in Christianity, I believe Easter was the more important one.
    Easter has become a long weekend Friday to Monday, maybe an opportunity for gift-giving for little kids, fine.
    Ascension Day in Germany, as it falls on a Thursday, has become another long weekend opportunity with taking Friday off. Strangely enough, it is also known as Father’s Day, though AFAIK it’s not so much about fathers than about young males getting drunk.
    Then there’s Pentencost. No-one remembers what that holiday is for (actually acc to studies many people also get Easter wrong). But you get Monday off nevertheless.

    Probably there is a case to be made for long weekend creating opportunities for people to relax and go on short trips, or work on neglected household projects or what have you. Just wish one would have gone the American route and defined secular holidays that fall on Mondays or Fridays. Because the one thing that Christian holidays have going for them is that they’re mobile, they fall on Thursdays, Fridays or Mondays. While secular holidays fall on specific dates, like Jan 1, Oct 3 or what have you.

    Pelamun, I think that’s power-sharing for nobles.

    That was a joke.

  443. First Approximation says

    despite its confusing name, it was mostly an empire comprising most of today’s Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Austria and northern Italy, steadily shrinking through time until its implosion in 1806.

    As Voltaire famously wrote: “This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.”

  444. says

    Pelamun, thanks for the explanation. And governments aren’t willing to delete the religious part and keep the labour part?

    This is what frustrates me so much about the situation in Europe. Europe has come so far in reducing the role of religion in society, but religious privileges persist as part of the constitutional framework of many countries. Constitutions, laws, treaties (those famous Konkordats), they all have created a situation in which the population is turning its back on the churches yet their privileges remain securely in place.

    As for many cases of the left-right consensus, trying to do something about it is considered rocking the boat and just not done. It has become normal to not talk about religion. A politician trying to invoke God would be frowned upon, but the same thing for a politician trying to scale back those remaining religious privileges.

  445. Esteleth says

    Monado, the difficulty with deleting the religious part of Christmas is that, uh, it’s a religious holiday. Full stop. Even if you use secular modes of observation, the fact remains that the ‘secular’ holiday is totally coincidentally on the same day as a religious holiday.

    This is how even in an ostensibly secular culture, one religion is privileged. I mean, if a worker could, with equal ease, get Yom Kippur, Christams, or Eid al-Adha off and not get any crap for it, then no problem. But that’s not what happens.

    Oh, and in the US, Christians complain about how Christmas is getting degraded by being secularized.

  446. says

    Esteleth,

    I do think a case could be made for Christmas that it falls around the Winter Solstice. I don’t know if it’s an urban legend or not, but I think this was also used to convert the Teutons – Easter and Christmas would fall on their traditional holidays tied to the seasons.

    I do think that in Europe at least the secularisation of Christmas has progressed to such a degree that it reminds me more of New Year’s in Japan (New Year’s there has the same function Christmas has in Europe), the religious decorations have become mere decoration, like the shrines and temples in Japan.
    Interesting enough, in moderate Muslim countries, you can see similar development regarding the Eid. Of course denounced by conservative mullahs as Christianisation of Islam, or something.

    (I’ve never spent Christmas in the US, so I can’t tell, but I do know Thanksgiving from own experience)

  447. ad hominum salvator ॐ sg says

    feck, are all my comments going into moderation? I took the links out. Is there a length limit?

  448. says

    one “decoration” too many”

    I do think that in Europe at least the secularisation of Christmas has progressed to such a degree that it reminds me more of New Year’s in Japan (New Year’s there has the same function Christmas has in Europe), the religious elements have become mere decoration, like the shrines and temples in Japan.

  449. says

    But what about privileges of the churches? Is there a website that lists them all? I’d be interested to take a look. It’s ok if the website is in Dutch only.

    Well, the Dutch Pft! has something to say about it. I was shocked by the civil prayer. I didn’t know they were doing that shit. For all you USAnians, prayer during town hall meetings? Yeah, we do it, apparently. For shame.

  450. says

    Actually, has anyone ever written a what if novel if Islam would have conquered Europe, and then gone on to be the dominant global culture?

    For instance in Saudi Arabia today, the weekend is Thursday-Friday, and they use the Islamic calendar. And moderate Islamic countries celebrate the Eids, and the Ramadan etc.

    I’ve spent some significant time in various non-Western countries, Islamic and not, and while they have their cultural traditions and distinctions, there is no country that has escaped Western influence. So it’d be interesting if one turned the tables as it were, for a novel.

    A scenario where the dominant global culture would have been Arabic and Muslim, rather than European and Christian. They would have undergone secularisation to a similar degree as Europe has in reality, so Arab and Muslim customs would be the cultural foundation of those secular societies (and similarly to secular European societies today, mosques would be empty, people would blatantly eat in front of others during the fasting period etc). I think it has been done for a Chinese scenario, but such a novel with a dominant Arab-Muslim global culture would be an interesting read for a culturally privileged Westerner.

    Or is my idea totally boring? I don’t know..

  451. Esteleth says

    pelamun, I’m not disagreeing with you about the Winter Solstice timing and history of Christmas.

    I also 100% agree that the observance here in the US, which is what I know, has been largely secularized.

    What I’m saying is this: whatever its timing, state of secularization, etc: Christmas is a religious holiday.

    As you’ve said yourself – even in the ostensibly secular culture of Europe, Christians and Christianity are privileged. Of course, you’re going to get Christmas off – do you even have to ask? You can spend it going to church or getting hammered, whatever. You get it off. This gives observant Christians (however small their numbers are) a privilege. Observant Jews and Muslims, having to ask (and risk getting denied or facing social stigma) getting their days off are not receiving this privilege. This is a bad thing.

    I mean, if Christmas WAS a purely secular holiday, would Christian nutters get all bent out of shape at the idea of it not receiving state support? No, of course not – because it is still their fucking holiday.

  452. Dhorvath, OM says

    I would caution that no, of course you don’t get it off. It may well be the most likely day of the year that you get off, but that tends to be those with certain vocations which tend to align well with payscale. Plenty of people can’t afford not to work Christmas, like waitstaff for instance.

  453. says

    Esteleth

    Agreed. In the US, religious observance of holidays is higher across all faiths, and so religious minorities end up getting discriminated.

    In Europe, where secularisation has been more pervasive, it might be more like an argument from cultural privilege. Immigrants with other traditions find less acceptance, but probably not due to strong Christian feelings, but rather due to xenophobia.

    Anecdotally speaking, seeing that true believers have become so rare in a country like Germany, true believers are actually looked upon as strange and even distrusted. For one, they might violate the societal consensus not to talk publicly about their religious feelings, and second, there is the general idea that they might be fanatics or ignorant.

    But you’re right, what little is left of parish life, if they can stand to remaining members of one of the two state churches, they get to benefit from the religious privileges the churches enjoy (for true believers, these two are often too soft, they tend to leaver and form their own congregations that are not affiliated with the state churches and thus less privileged).

  454. First Approximation says

    Actually, has anyone ever written a what if novel if Islam would have conquered Europe, and then gone on to be the dominant global culture?

    I’m not sure if anyone has written a novel about it, but Arthur C. Clarke briefly mentioned something like that in Fountains of Paradise:

    Almost all the Alternative History computer simulations suggested that the Battle of Tours (A.D. 732) was one of the crucial disasters of mankind. Had Charles Martel been defeated, Islam might have resolved the internal differences that were tearing it apart and gone on to conquer Europe. Thus centuries of Christian barbarism might have been avoided, the Industrial Revolution would have started almost a thousand years earlier, and by now we would have reached the nearer stars instead of merely the farther planets….

  455. says

    Dhorvath,

    in all the laws on holidays, there are exceptions for essential staff, like police, fire brigade etc, and restaurants. But that’s about Sunday.

    Christmas Eve, not so much. Though no law prohibits it, it’s like trying to find a restaurant on Thanksgiving in the States. More often than not, you end up at the Chinese restaurant. Same thing in Germany.

    Also, trade unions have fought for extra pay surcharges (it’s not like overtime, but you get more money for the same amount of work) if you have to work on Sundays or important holidays. Same thing for state of the art just in time factories that have to be run 24/7. These also provide incentives for workers.

  456. Ze Madmax says

    pelamun @ #452:

    Actually, has anyone ever written a what if novel if Islam would have conquered Europe, and then gone on to be the dominant global culture?

    The closest thing I can think of is The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson, where the Black Plague wipes out 95% of Europe. Because of this, Islam ends up conquering most of Europe, but the world develops with Islam and China being the two hegemonic powers.

    Great read, by the way.

  458. says

    I’m sorry for reacting so emotionally to this issue. (And pelamun and Matt, I’m sorry if I was needlessly harsh to you personally.) I will not say anything else about the subject; I’ve expressed my view, and will leave it to other people to sort it out.

  459. Dhorvath, OM says

    pelamun,
    Just speaking from my experiences at average jobs where the best I could hope for was a shift premium. Holidays did not mean the business closed, just that it cost extra for it to stay open. Of course, that’s a regional thing too.

  460. Tethys says

    So, blu is claiming that posting links to her actual posts on public blogs is lying? What an interesting interpretation.

    IMO it falls under the simple adage: Be careful about the words you use, for you may have to eat them. Any lawyer knows this and should act accordingly.

    I do agree with removing information that could be used to locate that person, IF they are trying to stay anonymous. Judging from my own quick search, blu isn’t really too concerned about maintaining anonymity on the web.

    It seems she now realizes that her posts were way out of line, especially for someone who claims to work in the area of women’s rights.

  461. says

    Thanks for the book suggestions, I’ll have a look. The Battle of Tours would indeed be the turning point.

    Ideally, the author would be well-versed not only in world history, but above all in the development of the different Islamic fiqhs, and would possess enough imagination how these fiqhs would have developed in a modern secular world.

    SQB,

    well, if that’s all, then that’s great.

    I trust in the Netherlands

    – the salary of archbishops is NOT paid by the state
    – religious education is NOT mandatory in public schools
    – the churches DO NOT have supervision about theology departments in the public universities which educate theologians AND religious studies teachers*)
    – if you’re a member of a state church, the church tax is NOT collected by the state on behalf on the churches. (The state is compensated but with far less than the actual costs that are incurred.)
    – there are NOT various tax exemptions, like on property taxes
    – military chaplains are NOT paid by the state

    I could go on, but then I’d get depressed.

    Oh,

    De Winkeltijdenwet verbiedt openstelling van winkels op de zondag. Wel mogen gemeenteraden maximaal 12 koopzondagen per jaar instellen. Ook mogen zij een bepaald gebied aanwijzen als toeristisch gebied, waarvoor dit verbod niet geldt.

    This sounds exactly like the German exceptions I told you about upthread. Koopzondagen would be Verkaufsoffene Sonntage in German. So why were you surprised that Berlin was similar to the Netherlands? You didn’t really think that Berlin was more progressive than Amsterdam, did you ;)

    *) Anecdote: the Catholic Church may fire tenured religious studies high school teachers if their lifestyle doesn’t conform with Catholic doctrine. A friend of mine told me that she was held up by her university instructor as a model to her fellow students because unlike some who dared to live together with their unwed significant other, she was living with a female roommate. Little did the church types know that that roommate was actually her girlfriend.

  462. Socratic Titmouse says

    re: The Wiki and Google

    “Ah, but,” interposed, more softly, a young wife, holding a child by the hand, “let her cover the mark as she will, the pang of it will be always in her heart.”
    —-from the Scarlet Letter

    I think it’s far too easy and self righteous to position yourself at an emotional distance from those who are mocked. The wiki serves as your own Scarlet Letter to the world, with you as judge and jury. It’s a childish, irresponsible and manipulative internet prank, at the expense of others.

    Not to mention Pilgrim hats just look out of place these days.

    In this community, sure, the ethics and standards discussed above are what is appropriate, here. But the ripple effect should be reconsidered.

    Imagine that this village sits next to a village that finally gets tired of looking at their own tribes scalps hung on this communities fence posts?

    Then, instead of scalping in retaliation, they go out into the prairie, and start a shoot and burn campaign using your nyms, or even real names on forums for bestiality, butt plugs, and blogs about hemorrhoid fetishes, or santorum slurping?

    Or setting up entire accounts at other blogs that parody your own positions? How about signing online petitions for the NRA, or NAMBLA using what they have about you in your names?

    Not everyone has the same ethical basis, after all, and acts of war cannot reasonably expect moderate responses in return–after all, tribal identity is only ensured by ferocity in battle.

    So, what then of the individual actor who spoke out of turn, or in the heat of a moment; in an emotional battle, or from mentall illness? The random passerby, who for whatever reason stopped in, and found your tribe to be cloistered and offensive; possibly cannibal?

    Does that merit a scalp on a post?

    Ethics, and tribal identities aren’t determined by one tribe alone, or one persons sense of what should or should not be publicized, and ‘mocked’ or ‘shamed’ or parodied.

    And some tribes, and individuals, might just enjoy fresh scalps, and retaliatory lolz more than other tribes, or the taste of a good self righteous laugh curling from their bloody teeth.

  463. says

    Dhorvath,

    Just speaking from my experiences at average jobs where the best I could hope for was a shift premium. Holidays did not mean the business closed, just that it cost extra for it to stay open. Of course, that’s a regional thing too.

    I’m not sure where, and I won’t ask you where for privacy reasons, but it’s been my experience that European countries regulate these things much more than the States, with the exception of alcohol distribution. Just relatively speaking. Many businesses in the US are open on federal holidays, while in many European countries they would be forbidden from doing so. With the exception of certain businesses, AND TRUE, in the last decades, the list of exceptions has been growing longer and longer.

    Walton,

    Apology accepted.

    I really do think that a private Wiki would solve most of our problems. That way nothing would turn up on Google once Google has done its next Dance (Pharyngulawiki seems to be absent from the internet archive as well), and like someone said, these things on Pharyngulawiki should be open to Pharyngulites only.

    So a freethoughblogs.com/pharyngula/wiki would be the best solution I think.

  464. Dhorvath, OM says

    pelamun,
    I make no mystery about living on Vancouver Island in Canada, although most of my working life I lived in southern Ontario which was markedly more twenty four hours a day three hundred and sixty five days a year, at least for the things that I did. I just get nervous when people say, ‘of course you get Christmas off,’ when I and many I knew did not have that luxury.

  465. DemetriusOfPharos says

    I’m lacking context on the article in question, but I want to add my opinion on the general idea of deletion-on-request: No.

    PZ has a disclaimer that he reserves the right to post email publicly without identifying information. The same should go for the wiki. (I understand the article in question has some personal info, and if so, the info should be edited out if the subject requests it.)

    First Approximation brought up the Streisand Effect – I’ve always liked this idea. There are those who seem to think that they can post a comment on a blog article or news article with no consequences or repercussions. Bollocks. Just as in real life, your actions and words have consequences that you ought to be adult enough to recognize and deal with. I happen to like the fact that these consequences exist: it makes me think twice about the wording of my reply. I see no reason why this shouldn’t be standard operating procedure for anyone posting on the Internet – indeed, I see no reason why that shouldn’t be SOP for life in general.

    Walton brings up the idea of deleting articles on trolls on request of the troll. Might I add a hearty “Hell no!” to that idea. I don’t care if they do come to regret it, I don’t care if they change their minds, I don’t care if they call for Smithers to release the hounds – they made their feelings public, and so long as there is no private information on the article, there is no reason to delete the article. Certain names have become rather infamous on this blog and others as well as old Usenet discussions – akin to becoming a public figure by, in effect, being a pundit. A pundit cannot request a deletion of their article on Wiki proper, to my knowledge (only request private or inaccurate info be deleted), and that’s as it should be.

    tl;dr (teal;deer) version:
    Deletion-on-request should be limited to personal info. Articles on known trolls should stay under the public figure clause. People can and should be held accountable for their words and actions, and in this case the Pharynguwiki serves that purpose as well as providing a rather valuable documentation resource.

    Also, I appear to be rather long-winded and opinionated on this subject.

  466. Dhorvath, OM says

    Also, I appear to be rather long-winded and opinionated on this subject.

    We will just make sure to note that on the Wiki.

  467. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Your metaphors are overextended and annoying and they shed no light, ST. State what you mean and argue for it.
    Also I don’t know who you are. Who are you?

  468. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Demetrius, the personal information formerly in the article was added by the subject of the article herself. It has been removed by consensus, not by blu’s request.

  469. says

    Dhorvath,

    I’m never sure about Canada and Australia. In many ways they seem to be inbetween the US and Western Europe, though that might also be too simplistic.

    Let’s look at supermarket employees, Christmas Eve in Europe v. Thanksgiving in America.

    The German model: by law, shops have to close by 1pm pr whatever
    The American model: I believe in most states there is no law prohibiting stores to be open on that day. Yet due to the fact that the vast majority of Americans spend Thanksgiving with their families at home, a supermarket in an urban area that would have been open until 10pm or even later, exceptionally closes at 5pm.

    Thus if you’re a native born American, the cultural preference of your bosses considers the fact that you and many other coworkers want to go home early on that day to celebrate Thanksgiving. But this is a business decision.

    In Europe, if you’re a native born German, for you Christmas is equally important. The state has already enacted a law that prohibits your bosses to open the store past 1pm, so after you do the closing procedures you can be on your way home by 2pm.

    The European model probably works better in more homogeneous societies. Now with the influx of immigrants, European societies have to adapt, probably their laws as well. It’s one of the most important social issues facing European countries today.

  470. says

    A thought, as I was looking at Piltdown Man’s comments on his own article:

    on Wikipedia, people are usually barred from editing articles about themselves. But I’d suggest to deviate from that principle on PharyngulaWiki in the following way:

    People can comment on their own articles, in a form that makes it clear that it is them responding to the contents of the article. If an article is a stub, the format chosen by Piltdown Man should be fine, in brackets, in italics. If the article is more developed and clearly sourced, and appears detailed, accurate and as objective as possible, maybe give them a section called “Statement” or “Rebuttal” further down in the Wiki. So their own opinion on all of this can be heard too.

  472. DemetriusOfPharos says

    Dhorvath:

    We will just make sure to note that on the Wiki.

    Well played indeed.

    *****

    Classical Cipher:

    Demetrius, the personal information formerly in the article was added by the subject of the article herself. It has been removed by consensus, not by blu’s request.

    Ah, well, that muddies the water a bit in this case, doesn’t it? Although if the general policy is “no personal info”, than it naturally follows. I think the rest of my rant stands, on the general policy and on trolls specifically.

  473. says

    Holy cow!

    I’ve missed this whole thing. It’ll take me some time to catch up here And at the wiki, but I’ll say two things for now:

    1) bluharmony has said several things about me and my comments that are patently, demonstrably untrue. That these statements are false and mischaracterizations has been pointed out to her repeatedly, including even by some of the other ERV commenters, and yet she has not corrected them. This continues in the wiki discussion (and thank you, Classical Cipher). I don’t know what’s causing it. I dropped it because I simply couldn’t – and still can’t – imagine that anyone takes her statements about me or anything else seriously at this point.

    2) I’ve known who bluharmony is for quite a while. It came up in a search months ago. I don’t care. I’ve never used her “real” name, and never would unless she started using it and wanted others to. I don’t care who she “really” is, but I do want her pseudonymous self to stop telling falsehoods about me and threatening litigation on the basis of said falsehoods.

  474. says

    Dammit. I told myself and told myself and told myself that I would not comment on this again, and that I wouldn’t even read the thread. But I cannot help responding to this.

    There are those who seem to think that they can post a comment on a blog article or news article with no consequences or repercussions. Bollocks. Just as in real life, your actions and words have consequences that you ought to be adult enough to recognize and deal with. I happen to like the fact that these consequences exist: it makes me think twice about the wording of my reply. I see no reason why this shouldn’t be standard operating procedure for anyone posting on the Internet – indeed, I see no reason why that shouldn’t be SOP for life in general.

    Walton brings up the idea of deleting articles on trolls on request of the troll. Might I add a hearty “Hell no!” to that idea. I don’t care if they do come to regret it, I don’t care if they change their minds, I don’t care if they call for Smithers to release the hounds – they made their feelings public, and so long as there is no private information on the article, there is no reason to delete the article.

    So you think people should be held responsible for the rest of their lives for bad things they’ve done or said in the past? Even things they’ve come to regret and repudiate?

    This is something that matters a great deal to me emotionally. As a teen, I used to be a complete asshole; misogynistic, homophobic, ultra-right-wing, and so on. (Mostly in my pre-internet days, but I said some really stupid things online a few years ago.) I already live with a huge amount of guilt (exacerbated by my pre-existing OCD and anxiety disorder) about the way I used to behave and the kind of person I used to be. It hurts, really, personally, when people say things like “people are responsible forever for the consequences of their actions”. None of us can change the past. But people should be given the freedom to escape their pasts.

    I’m not even talking about the specific issue of Internet posts. I’ve moved way beyond that now. (Indeed, this is utterly irrelevant to bluharmony’s post, since as far as I know she hasn’t recanted any of the things she said.) But as a society, we really, really need compassion and forgiveness, even for people who have done terrible things. Your post suggests that you think people should never be able to escape the stigma of having done something bad in the past.

  475. ad hominum salvator ॐ sg says

    1) bluharmony has said several things about me and my comments that are patently, demonstrably untrue. That these statements are false and mischaracterizations has been pointed out to her repeatedly, including even by some of the other ERV commenters, and yet she has not corrected them.

    She finally did last night. See pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/User:Markovbaines and Ctrl-F for “holy geez”.

    +++++
    I’m nearly caught up with this subthread so I’m going to try reposting my lost comments in shorter chunks. Wish me luck.

  476. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    SC, for what it’s worth, I think that Markovbaines and I have finally managed to convince her that at least that particular bit about dyslexia which she was clinging to so very persistently wasn’t actually true. At least, she made a comment to that effect over here. (It’s pretty far down that discussion.) I’m glad you didn’t mind my bringing it up. (I had a bit of information about that on the page too, with links, but it was taken down by someone else after she admitted that it wasn’t true and claimed to have been mistaken.) I was concerned about it, since someone pointed out to me that you might prefer to avoid attention from that crowd.

  477. ad hominum salvator ॐ says

    I’d leave this in the hands of Baines and Classical Cipher, they’re the ones dealing with it.

    Admins have admin tools so that they can use them according to their judgment. It’s nigh impossible to break anything permanently there, so if any admin makes a judgment call that is disputed (like deleting a page prior to discussion) it can be undone (like restoring the page for discussion). In my opinion it is not a problem for any uninvolved wiki user, whether an admin or not, to get involved in any public dispute (tl;dr: “it’s a wiki”). There is ever the opportunity for someone to step over what another considers a boundary, but we’ll work those things out as we go along, as now.

    Does Wikia allow pages to be locked? Maybe the moment a dispute arises, like an edit war etc., an admin could lock the page, and then initiate a discussion?

    It does, but in this case I’ve just semiprotected the page (locked out only IP and new (jargon: not yet autoconfirmed)) users in order to allow bluharmony one route to edit the page (the account at [[User:Bluharmony]] is implicitly autoconfirmed because it is a Facebook Connect account).

    Most edit wars do not require immediate page protection, and can be worked out by asking the people involved to slow down and try to reach an agreement among themselves.

    Seems like a silly argument to me. Bluharmony wants the article about her taken down, why not take it down?

    Classical Cipher started the article and doesn’t want it deleted, and I’m not comfortable outright deleting a page that someone else worked on without either getting that person’s agreement or hearing a general sentiment for deletion from the horde first.

  479. ad hominum salvator ॐ says

    If I recall from the Pharyngula Wiki there are articles about people who are not members of the wiki, and thus cannot edit their own entries.

    There’s no technical barrier to registration, and IPs can edit without registering.

    Indeed, they may very well be unaware there is an entry.

    That’s another matter, yes. I have no generalizable opinion on that.

    For example who has contacted David Markuze ?

    He is aware of it, and has edited the article in the past. I allowed his edits to stay until he started disrupting other pages. I personally don’t want that article to exist, but I didn’t make it.

    I’m a bit bothered by this, too, although I try to keep out of the Pharynguwiki. What this suggests is that a very small number of people have complete control over the content of the site, and can unilaterally dictate what goes on it or not. That’s fine for a blog, not so fine for a community project.

    There are a very small number of people who bother to be involved and happen to be around when something is disputed. Most admins are not very active ( /wiki/Special:ListUsers/sysop ). More to the point, the settlements of many potential disagreements can be enacted by non-admin editors, and would not even potentially involve the use of admin tools. This is only the second such disagreement. (The first was between me and Phil.)

    This is to say that the potential problem you identify tends to be resolved by bringing in more opinions, as right now.

  480. ad hominum salvator ॐ says

    “second such disagreement [that potentially involves the use of admin tools].”

    Also, when we dont see SGBM for months, who runs the thing ?

    In practice, there’s not much running to be done. Much can be handled by regular users. When needed, there’s all our other Pharyngula-specific admins who can be contacted, plus there’s Wikia-wide volunteer admins ( community.wikia dot com/wiki/Help:Volunteers_and_Helpers ) who can be called on, and Wikia staff ( community.wikia dot com/wiki/Community_Central:Staff ) for anything the volunteers can’t do. Our Pharyngula admins all have the same technical abilities as me, except the ability to make more admins. If it happens that you need more admins and I’m not around, Wikia policy (IIRC) is that if I’m not active for six weeks you can vote on another Bureaucrat and they will appoint whoever they gauge has the trust of this community.

    I know that Gi*rdano is aware of his entry, and I seem to remember some back-&-forth between him and strangegods about it. I don’t know if Phil was ever focused or cogent enough to ask for complete removal, but if he did there’s a precedent. His entry stands.

    He did, I laughed, and no one else felt like arguing with me about it. Not much precedent in there, really.

    Although why, I’m not sure. Is this supposed to be some kind of public shaming ritual?

    The article is his quotes, and he hates it, and this amuses me. It’s nothing high-minded.

  481. ad hominum salvator ॐ says

    The only explanation I can think of for keeping troll-pages up there, after the user has expressly requested their deletion, is as some kind of attempt to shame and punish trolls for the things they’ve said. I am not ok with that. It’s vindictive.

    It is vindictive, and I am ok with that. There is of course a question about the magnitude of the offense. It is arguable that bluharmony has “served her time”.

    To rely on them asking when they do not know is sneaky and underhand. I thought we were supposed to be better than that. In the case of some of you I was wrong it seems.

    I think you are over-attributing intent here, Matt. These articles were all started by different Pharyngula commenters on some whim or another, and there has never been a discussion on what to do about them. Walton wasn’t thinking about this. He’s expressing an opinion he has not previously had to formulate, and so there can be no reasonable expectation that he could show you evidence of having planned ahead about it; he just hasn’t. No one has.

    I don’t think a blanket deletion policy is a sensible thing. 1. It demotivates contributors. Editors spend a lot of time writing articles, they need to have some assurance that there is a clear and fair process. Immediate deletion of EVERYTHING upon request would not constitute such a process.

    This is my major concern. My cynicism learned at Wikipedia leads me to say that I don’t really think it’s possible to have a clear process—if you peel open the page histories there, you’ll see that even the “policy” pages are constantly being edited to serve one or another faction’s political purposes—but I do think that an unstructured discussion, like this one, can lead to an outcome which is widely felt as fair because everyone was heard.

    Such a process:

    1) do what you want (WP:BEBOLD).
    2) if you disagree with what someone did, talk to them about it and try to reach an agreement.
    3) if you can’t reach an agreement, bring others into the discussion.
    (repeat)

    So I’m not concerned with a quick action to delete something if the deletion is expected to be uncontroversial, but if in retrospect it turns out to be controversial then we should argue about it so that everybody gets a fair hearing.

    As has already been determined, you do. And your definition is so loose that you won’t even recognize that other people might legitimately regard your actions as draconian.

    Meh. He restored the page for discussion. I think that evinces an awareness of disagreements.

    If Walton does something that people get mad at him for, his is not necessarily the final word on the subject. (Technically, mine is, but that’s why I’m trying not to involve myself too much.)

  482. Mattir says

    I have spent the entire day dealing with “mystical vibrations” Native American woo, accompanied by annoying children with plastic flutes, a whole lot of HOORAYUSA!11! flag waving (which seemed odd for a Native American cultural festival) and numerous prayers to someone named Grandfather. Several people asked me where purple sheep were from, since I was spinning purple wool. (No, moron, ever heard of the expression “dyed in the wool?”)

    Some days I am just not up for edumacating the public.

    And I check in on TET to discover that it has exploded. Sigh.

    Now off to the Boy Scout Court of Honor for the second part of my daily dose of Stupid. The only redeeming part of this second dose is that I’ll have DDMFM with me as a cultural observer.

  483. ad hominum salvator ॐ says

    so I’d think the info on what the poster said about her should be moved to an article on Rebecca Watson / Elevator Gate.

    Zomg, please no. We don’t need another rehashing of the elevator thing. The discussion becomes too much stress on people who really don’t need it.

    People need to have the freedom to disappear if they want to.

    If that is what they want, then why are they posting on the ‘net ?

    Yes, we’ll all be wondering that in a few decades. The internet defies humans’ evolved social intuitions, and I don’t think that “you misused a strange and unpredictable technology” is a great justification for anything.

    But also, certain trolls, they also keep coming here.

    FWIW, bluharmony says she won’t be coming back.

    Rubbish. The whole point of the World Wide Web was to stop information from being lost.

    Eh. One person’s technical feature is another’s social bug.

    People here have mentioned how rereading an old argument is just as infuriating as the first time around. But the other participants aren’t getting similarly emotionally involved during your rereading. And offline, people tend to talk about events less as a function of time, while online the quantity of talk continually accumulates. It’s very bizarre, and I do not believe the corresponding social rules are settled yet.

    I think you acted in bad faith (also a Wikipedia policy) when you interpreted his use of “deserve” in the worst way possible. I’m pretty sure Matt wasn’t making a argument from the p.o.v. of legal philosophy. Context and pragmatics do matter.

    There isn’t another concept of “deserve” that does not rely in some way on the question of free will. I’m not going to bother with that argument because its results are so far removed from people’s moral intuitions that everybody walks away thinking “huh. interesting. I guess I’ll just keep on doing what I’m doing, though.” But Walton wasn’t acting in bad faith; he was heading toward a subargument that can rationally be expected to occur.

  484. Esteleth says

    Walton,
    If someone were to show up and say, “Well, 10 years ago Walton said [misogynistic quote]” and could prove it, so what?
    That you’ve moved on is obvious. You’re not who you were then. Anyone that cared could find evidence that you’ve repudiated those beliefs.

    Many people have skeletons in their closets. It’s part of being human and having lived.

    Another thing: many – myself included – find the testimony of converts especially compelling. After all – the person who can say truthfully, “I used to believe [bad thing], but now I know that it isn’t right and [good thing] is true instead,” is a powerful symbol of the brokenness of that ideology.

    Don’t try to hide the shit that you did ages ago. Revel in how far you’ve come from then.

  485. ad hominum salvator ॐ says

    I am opposed to its total deletion because I think it is a useful reference in the case that blu returns here

    She did say she’s not coming back. If this was widely agreed upon as the primary value of the page, it could be undeleted if she breaks her word.

    So, are there any technical issues about restricting viewing the wiki to registered users only? I think a lot of the issues would go away if we did that?

    Technical issue: Wikia just doesn’t work that way. Social issue: we probably want the recipes, book recommendations, Pharyngula memes and such to be publicly available, so that newcomers have easy access, because logging in is a PITA for oldtimers, and so that some things are intentionally googleable (here I’m thinking of the Stephen Bishop article).

    +++++
    Now to catch up again.

  486. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    She did say she’s not coming back.

    I don’t believe her at all. *shrug*

    If this was widely agreed upon as the primary value of the page, it could be undeleted if she breaks her word.

    Hmm. That’s interesting. How far back can you go to undelete things?

  487. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The only redeeming part of this second dose is that I’ll have DDMFM with me as a cultural observer.

    Can’t ask for anything more redeeming that. I hope he’s enjoying his visit….

  488. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    And SG, what do you think about Monado’s idea above? That was one I thought would work nicely.

  489. Carlie says

    I’m late to this argument, but my two cents’ worth:

    I don’t think there’s any problem at all highlighting someone’s statements and using the pseudonym they use with those statements. If they’re statements that the person no longer disagrees with, however, I would want them to be able to add an addendum to explain (such as “this was before I learned about x, and my views have now changed to y, and I regret having ever said this”)

    I do not agree with posting any other identifying information about that person other than their pseudonym without explicit consent from that person, and I’d go so far as to say that no one should be able to add that information except that person. If they then later want it removed, it should be removed. A lot of people don’t care much about their google results at some points in their lives and then realize later that there are things they’d rather not see there.

  490. DemetriusOfPharos says

    Walton:

    But as a society, we really, really need compassion and forgiveness, even for people who have done terrible things. Your post suggests that you think people should never be able to escape the stigma of having done something bad in the past.

    I wasn’t suggesting people shouldn’t be forgiven, but that doesn’t mean the transgression should be erased as if it never happened. I have many incidents in my past – Internet and meatspace – that I am not proud of (as I’m sure we all do), but I’m not trying to erase them from existence. In the cases where it is possible, I am trying to make up for it directly, and in all other cases I own it when I’m called on it and I’ve just generally attempted to be a better person than I once was. That’s all anyone can expect.

    Everyone does stupid things when they are young. Legally, most crimes committed as a juvenile are later ignored (in America anyway, I can’t speak for any other country). (IANAL.) On the Internet, that might be ideal but isn’t exactly feasible.

    You say my post suggested people should be able to escape the stigma of past misdeeds – if that is the impression my post gives, it is perhaps poorly worded. I merely wanted to convey that it should not be forgotten, and that consequences should remain.

    If I may use Dan Barker as an example: he is one of the most prominent atheist speakers in America, co-president of one of the FFRF, writer, etc. Yet the fact remains that he is an ex-preacher, an occupation many (especially here) find distasteful. Should we merely wipe out his past because of his present? I hardly think so, it has given him common ground with believers. The same could be true of ex-trolls were they so inclined. Of course, even this gets abused, as we’ve seen in fundies (“I used to do drugs/be an atheist/be in porn/kill/rape/steal and now I’ve seen the light!”) However, there remains no reason I can think of that someone’s past should be ignored or erased. Forgiven, sure, if the person in question redeems themselves. I do not wish to be the judge of what is or isn’t “redeemed”, I merely don’t think the past should be erased. Is that more clear?

  492. Jules says

    So you think people should be held responsible for the rest of their lives for bad things they’ve done or said in the past? Even things they’ve come to regret and repudiate?

    In the event that she repudiates her previous stance, we can debate the actions reflecting that on the wiki.

    I think privacy is extremely important. But if the articles are written only with information from here, and the wiki is a quick reference tool for here, how is it wrong to maintain them? Again, we don’t want to interfere in people’s personal lives. But that’s why we stick to their public life.

    If a civil rights attorney came into a public forum blasting racist screeds, wouldn’t that person need to be held accountable for it? Why is this different?

    Newspaper articles go much further than the little wiki we have, which you have to either already know what Pharyngula is or know a nym used in it to find. And they don’t only cover public figures.

    People should be held permanently accountable for their words, actions, and ideas. The repercussions don’t disappear simply because we want them to, and it’s the least we can do to remind ourselves that we’ve grown (in the best case scenario; worst case scenario, it keeps assholes more in line and protects potential victims).

  493. says

    John Lithgow is on Prairie Home Companion.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    I don’t think the wiki should have spilled over into here, but I appreciate Walton’s POV. (Yeah, yeah, I know, nothing is OT here.)

  494. Carlie says

    The idea of how the internet messes with what we have as social conventions is a very interesting one, and was also touched on in a talk about internet privacy I attended recently. It’s one thing to have live conversations that are just that; live, ephemeral conversations. It’s another thing entirely to have them archived the way they are on the net. Sure, it’s all stuff you’ve said in public, but wouldn’t you be at least a bit creeped out if you were arguing with someone and they pulled out a list of everything you had ever said to them or anyone else on the subject ever?

    It’s the same problem I have with facebook’s timeline. It’s just…weird… to have people you know now be able to sift through all of the detritus of all of your social interactions. Sure, it’s stuff that you said and put out there, but there’s nothing that says that we as a society ought to endorse a system that allows it to be so easily searchable and usable by others. One example in the talk I was at was that in the 1970s, the laws on reporting campaign contributions was passed in the US (making candidates for election report where they had received their contributions). At the time, technology was such that it was impossible to even imagine turning those reports around backwards to easily see to whom individuals contributed. Now? Three or four clicks in a database and you can see the entire giving history of specific individuals. That’s an unintended consequence, and raises some troubling issues of how information can be collated and used. Just food for thought.

  495. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    I do not agree with posting any other identifying information about that person other than their pseudonym without explicit consent from that person, and I’d go so far as to say that no one should be able to add that information except that person.

    I know I’m repeating myself but I just want to make sure everybody is clear on this: All identifying information about bluharmony that was previously on bluharmony’s Pharynguwiki page was added by bluharmony herself and was removed by consensus, not by her request. She made no request whatsoever for that information to be removed.

    In the event that she repudiates her previous stance, we can debate the actions reflecting that on the wiki.

    This is my preference for how that should be handled.

  496. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    This is my preference for how that should be handled.

    Amen brother…

  497. Dhorvath, OM says

    Pelamun,
    Well, S.Ont. was not the most cosmopolitan culture, but it sure had a fairly broad spectrum and that no doubt contributed to the all go all the time notion. My original caveat was that the closer you came to corporate, the more likely you were to have that time off, so for me in transportation I worked Christmas eve every year and several Christmas days as well. My brother who was a table server worked every Christmas for all of university and about a decade thereafter and even now can’t count on having more than one of the late december holidays despite having moved into a different industry.

  498. says

    Newspaper articles go much further than the little wiki we have, which you have to either already know what Pharyngula is or know a nym used in it to find. And they don’t only cover public figures.

    Yes, but that’s a bug, not a feature. The press engages in horrific character-assassination; I don’t know how it is in the US (since I don’t read newspapers here), but in the UK, whenever anyone is investigated for a crime, the newspapers tend to print hir full name, place of residence, photo, complete life story, and any information they could spork from hir FB page. The result is that the person’s reputation is ruined, whether xe proves to be innocent or guilty. It’s one of the many reasons I hate newspapers and refuse to pay to read them (I only read the online versions, and even then I resent giving them the ad-traffic). I’d like it if the names and identifying details of people involved in criminal investigations were routinely redacted from news reports (as they already are, by law, if the person is a juvenile; in such cases the newspapers normally replace the name with “…who cannot be named for legal reasons”). Unfortunately, such a law would probably be unenforceable in the age of the Internet, and in the US it might also be unconstitutional (it’s an arguable point).

    Again, this has no direct bearing on the issue at hand; it’s just a hobby-horse of mine. The general lack of respect for privacy and reputation in our society is awful, and the mass media are the worst offenders.

  499. Tethys says

    Walton

    So you think people should be held responsible for the rest of their lives for bad things they’ve done or said in the past? Even things they’ve come to regret and repudiate?

    Absolutely not, if they have recognized and repudiated the bad things.

    Everybody makes mistakes. Adults acknowledge and take responsibility for their mistakes, and change their behavior accordingly.

  500. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Sure, it’s all stuff you’ve said in public, but wouldn’t you be at least a bit creeped out if you were arguing with someone and they pulled out a list of everything you had ever said to them or anyone else on the subject ever?

    I think I do this to people in person occasionally. I had at one point a really really excellent memory for conversations held in text. (I don’t know what happened to that. *grumble*) I used to be able to tell people word-for-word or close to it what they had previously said about a topic and in what context. It probably was creepy, now that I think about it…