The story so far: Thunderf00t/Phil Mason was invited to join our blog network last month. All he wrote during the short week he was here was incoherent, unprofessional rages against feminism and the whole network he was on; we could not understand why he even accepted the offer to join us if he hated us so much, and his inane rants certainly weren’t going to persuade us that we were wrong, so we kicked him off. And ever since he has been obsessed with howling about our perfidy.
The latest development is that it turns out that almost as soon as he’d been evicted, he snuck back onto our mailing list and has been reading all the confidential discussions we’ve been having. He has leaked these to third parties as well. When we shut down the security hole last week, he then tried to hack back in, to no avail. We have logs of all of this computer activity on his part.
He doesn’t have anything of actionable substance — we really haven’t been planning the overthrow of the government or any bank heists or anything nefarious — but he does have personal information about some of the contributors to FtB who want their privacy respected. That is his threat, and it’s not something we can trust him on, given that he’s already sent some emails to other people. And there was no legitimate reason for him to even need to be browsing our private email.
I’ll be compiling the responses to Thunderf00t’s lack of basic decency and ethics here, but first I have to highlight this, from Ed Brayton:
I really do find this outraged declaration that he does not “doc drop” to be almost laughably deluded. It’s like someone who breaks into your house because you forgot to latch a window. He comes into your house and steals your china and jewelry, then reacts in mock outrage when you suggest that he might steal your TV too. In fact, he screams “I do not steal TVs!” at the top of his lungs to the neighbors while he’s handing your other possessions out the door to someone else. And then he expects that declaration to be credible and to provide some assurance of his character.
Phil Mason also doesn’t seem to realize that his declaration that he broke in is in fact a confession. It’s not just that he’s violated our confidence, but that he’s so goddamn stupid that he’s announced it to the world.
Here’s the current list of blog posts protesting Thunderf00t’s inexcusable behavior. I’ll add to it as more come in, but I’m also going to be traveling a bit today, so my access may be spotty.
-
Jason Thibeault (includes technical evidence for Mason’s hack)
- Dana Hunter
-
Matt Dillahunty
-
Richard Coughlan (NSFW, and very sarcastic)
The galling thing is how he apparently thinks all this makes him some sort of free speech hero.
PZ, you may not be able to answer this, but did TF sign any agreements related to the mailing list? E-mail signatures are, generally, not legally binding.
O.o
what the fuck did I just wake up to?
Never thought that I’d cite the Bible when talking about him but: “Oh, how the mighty have fallen in battle! Thunderfoot lies slain on YouTube.”
Guess it’s time to unsub from that once great channel that brought us WDPLAC ….
So, you’re daring him to doc drop people’s real names BY USING HIS REAL NAME IN SEVERAL FTB POSTS?? This is the HEIGHT of cis privilege!
Oh FFS, will you all grow the F up? You (FTB/Skepchick) and you (tf00t) are not the center of the world, I read all of you because I agree with some of what you say (and disagree with some), but I really:
1. Don’t care at all about your bickering (yes, it’s plain old high-school level bickering at this point).
2. Am getting tired about all of this personal sh*t between members of the community.
It’s no longer disagreements on one point or another: it’s all out war. F you, ALL of you, for making our lives so miserable that we have to endure all this crap.
For my part, I’m tuning out of the FTP/Skepchick/tf00t space altogether. Maybe in a few months, people will have gone back to being able to disagree without acting like 2 year olds.
holy fucking shit! what a creep.
rogi — do you not fucking listen to people? Thunderf00t’s real name has been PUBLIC FUCKING KNOWLEDGE for a long time, he outed HIMSELF years ago.
Yes, because writing about sexism and sexual harrassment is the same thing as recklessly endangering the safety of anonymous bloggers. EXACTLY the same. F ALL of us, because we’re clearly equally bad here.
Also: no one forced you to read this. You could have avoided having your life made so miserable by just closing your browser and moving on. The whole world doesn’t have to revolve around what you want to read. Grow. Up.
People who just want “everything to go back to normal” just make me tired. Normal is a dryer setting, not a state of the world.
Oh goody I can sense the “but both sides are as bad as each other (whilst coincidentally agreeing with Tf00t)” and “FREE SPEACH!!!” coming from a mile off…
jjgdenisrobert wrote:
Maybe by then you might have realised that these people don’t exist to please the likes of whiny pissants like you, and instead want to deal with more important things than providing you with the means to feel smarter than the religious.
Fucking entitled shitheads; how do they work?
rogiriverstone has been placed in automoderation. Maybe when she stops making stupid accusations that have been repeatedly refuted, I’ll let her out.
All of the people saying “you shouldn’t say anything in email if you don’t want it published in a newspaper!” are ASSHOLES. You are saying women like natalie reed don’t deserve to talk about their lives the way privileged people get to. It is like when people say gay adoption is wrong because kids adopted by gay parents get harassed for it. The problem is NOT the brave people trying to live a normal life, they shouldn’t have to expect to be treated like shit for that. We should all be totally outraged at the abuse of people who live bravely despite social obstacles.
Yeah, I’ve been seeing that behavior, and it convinces me I’m in the right. When people go from “how dare you oppress Thunderf00t!” to “You’re both equally bad!” as the evidence mounts, it’s clear they’re wrestling with cognitive dissonance.
Please accept this shiny new internet.
Thanks but I can’t accept it since that’s a favorite quote of a friend. I’ll give it to them for you tho. :)
Jesus Christ, you know that example you gave in the OP? More or less that’s what one of my stalkers said to me to justify his repeated outing of me. I didn’t lock my door tight enough, you know. It’s not stealing if the victim’s careless. It was a lesson. And then he complained that I mistook his politics for his character.
Has anyone mentioned yet that unauthorized access and use of a computer system is a crime?
Just askin’
Al Stefanelli has a thread up, Thunderf00t: What The Actual Fuck?
Rogi, I think PZ is absolutely well aware of Natalie’s privacy demands – it’s on the record that Thunderf00t was planning to publish her e-mails from the backchannel and an exchange occurred between them about what he could and could not publish of hers. Read her thread before jumping to conclusions.
Might be worth including also some links not in the hive. There have been a couple of useful postings on the whole debacle from the wider internet. (Eg: http://theuncynic.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/thunderf00t-calm-down-4-2)
Also… I know Thunderf00t outed himself a couple of years ago, but I think a basic caution at this point would be to avoid any risk of giving him an excuse — however irrational — to escalate. Thunderf00t does not usually use his own name online, though it’s easily found through his own video on the matter, and various other sites. But conventionally, he identifies himself as Thunderf00t.
The problem is that there are, apparently, real risks for other people who have not been outed; if this whole matter continues and escalates. I suspect that it is making the risk to them unnecessarily worse when Thunderf00t’s real name is being highlighted.
For the sake of those who’d rather not go wading through muck to find one particular worm, any chance you could post a link to where Mason admitted to unauthorized access of a computer?
If I’m going to watch a train wreck, I’d rather just jump straight to the big explosion….
b&
It’s on his blog on wordpress. I think it’s the usual address of the the username with wordpress.com after it.
Quinn Martindale:
Have you ever signed an agreement where you promise not to hack into the Pentagon?
TF’s post is at thunderf00tdotorg [dot] wordpress [dot] com/2012/08/10/ftb-want-thunderf00t-drummed-out-of-the-community-and-forever-a-pariah/
(Didn’t want an actual link to show up here and give him any more traffic, or however blogs work.)
This is on the bottom of EVERY email Thunderf00t stole from our servers:
FYI, the forensics of what happened and how.
This is wrong (and possibly illegal) for the same reason that eavesdropping on a private conversation and then retelling what you heard is wrong. It’s wrong for the same reason that breaking into a house with poor security (or none at all) is wrong. It’s wrong for the same reason that wiretapping a phone is wrong. it’s wrong for the same reason that breaking into a coworker’s private files is wrong. It’s wrong for the same reason that reading a friend or relative’s personal diary is wrong.
It’s frightening that some people (mostly commenters on TF’s blog) just can’t see that, and think that hacking into a private email list from which he was previously banned is perfectly legal and OK and hunky-dorey.
The essential, striking issue is the violation of consent. He didn’t ask. I don’t think it would have mattered if he asked, got a clear answer, and then violated it anyway. I think TF is one of those guys who uses all kinds of excuses, but he likes the lack of consent, the violation of somebody’s protection, the taking of their feeling of safety.
I’d think, if nothing else, he’d at least shut up in order to stop displaying his stupidity to all and sundry; however, this seems to now be a point of pride.
Yeah, not terribly bright, to say the very least.
Oh gods, go away then! Since when did all this become about you? I imagine, like all whingers, you won’t go away, because who would listen to you whine if you did?
Betraying confidences is not a small matter, by the way. You seem to be in need of decent human being lessons.
These schisms the atheist/sceptic community (forgive me for using the term community to describe a plethora of different people united by a single commonality) is suffering remind me of the schisms often suffered in religious communities in the past.
Since such schisms generally resulted in a group splintering from the main body of the religious community under a new name, what do we call the splinter faction that is calving from the sceptical community to separate the rest of us from them?
Because I don’t want to be associated with the likes of Thunderf00t and his supporters.
I sometimes disagree with the way PZ tackles people and occasionally find fault with his reasoning when he’s picking holes in the arguments of others, but Thunderf00t has truly thrust himself into the misogyny lurking in the bowels of the sceptical and atheist movement.
To say that his blogs were ‘unprofessional’ is accurate for want of a better word. If I were him and had been upset by the way PZ had disassembled my arguments I would have maintained a calm and… yes… professional demeanour; not started posting blogs with titles like “PZ Lyers”.
While a schism of this nature might ultimately be a positive thing for the community there is an unfortunate effect while it is ongoing. It causes temperate members of the movement with opinions on both sides of the fence to become more polarised or to throw up their hands in disgust and walk away from the whole situation.
I think this has gone too far now for a reconciliation with Thunderf00t’s supporters to be possible. While things settle down, though, please can we all consider the overall impact of our words and try to keep things as civil as possible in the circumstances?
This is starting to look like he might find out how grown-ups deal with potentially serious legal issues. No legion of loudmouthed followers is going to help then…
And yet here you are, telling us just how much you don’t care about this.
Read Natalie Reid’s post and the comments. If it’s still there, you’ll see why rogi isn’t likely to become a decent human being in this lifetime.
He doesn’t have anything actionable against you, but don’t you know have something actionable against him what with the hacking, and leaking of private data?
@34: I’ve coined a term for people like him: “fundamentalist apathist”. They are apathetic about an issue, and goddammit, everybody else should be, too! He won’t stop until everybody knows about his apathy, and he’s preached the Neutral Word.
Ooh! Sniny! A thread that will probably fill a page, and I reach it when it only has 30 comments yet! :-) I’ll be able to stay in throughout! :-) :-) :-) (Unless it takes till Sunday.)
I’m with comment 3, though. “Why do people laugh at creationists” gave me a completely wrong impression of the thunderf00l. I was naïve and shallow.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
(See? No need for the Bible in this case.)
In a few months, maybe you’ll finally learn how incredibly childish it is to believe that your friends are automatically each other’s friends.
Perhaps, though I have little hope about this, you’ll even learn that not every quarrel is “bickering”. Some concern actual issues.
Unauthorized access of a computer system is obviously a crime, prohibited by both state and federal statutes, as many commentators have pointed out. Whether his distribution of confidential information he obtained while he had authorized access is actionable is a different question.
Er, lasts. I didn’t just wake up, but I’m tired anyway!
You win the thread.
(That’s different from winning the Internet; see comment 16.)
Quinn Martindale, I agree that FTB is on shaky ground with regards to what Thunderf00t did while he had access to the list. That is only a peripheral issue though. It is what happened after his access was rescinded, that people are primarily complaining about.
about my post at 14-sorry it was meant to go on ed brayton’s blog, that was where multiple people said that anyone revealing things in email is stupid for expecting privacy. I had the tabs open right next to each other and got mixed up.
I blogged this too. This is the worst thing so far in the big sexism fiasco. fucking hell.
@skeptifem 43
Yeah, this has nearly happened to me several times this morning. So many tabs. So many threads.
Dear jjgdenisrobert,
On behalf of all the two-year-olds, I would like to tender my apologies for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that you have suffered during this highschool bickering. We are sorry for ruining your life by writing about things you don’t care about on the Internet. If you would be so gracious as to accept an attempt at restitution, I can offer you a small serving of ice cream in either vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry flavours.
In the outmost sincerity,
nms
I hate to say it, but with this act, TF00t has descended to the same level that PZ has been operating at from the get-go here. I’ve been offended by PZ’s constant intellectual dishonesty and strawmanning from the beginning of this ludicrous conflict, and I remain just as disappointed with the childishness of his approach, but TF00t’s behaviour has now reached a point where it’s just as indefensible.
You know what really bugs me about all of this?
It’s the fact that a year ago I was able to be a fan of both of you guys without needing to qualify or justify it, but throughout the course of this inane pissing match, you’ve just kept lowering the bar, over and over and over again, seeming to rise to every bait the other puts out there and becoming more and more vindictive and childish, and now you’ve both made me ashamed to think of myself as a fan of either of you.
I just wish you two would grow the fuck up and stop being such children. This is the sort of behaviour I’d find embarrassing coming from a pair of squabbling fifteen year old boys who feel the need to take the other down in order to feed their own egos. You should be above this, and a year ago, I’d have insisted that you were.
I, too, was innocently and all unawares sucked into this vortex of controversy and infighting. I mean, really! How could I have possibly known that a post titled “Summary of Thunderf00t/Phil Mason’s disgrace” would be a summary of Thunderf00t’s disgraceful behavior?? I deserved fair warning, in which case I could have skipped that post and read something else!!! Oh, the horror and suffering (on my whiny-ass part!)!
Apologies, folks. I’m afraid my writing style is much too subtle to convey sarcasm…
Thank you for your concern, davelittler. Now fuck off.
Though reason, critical thinking, and scientific epistemology go a long way towards humanizing people, there is still a need for an emphasis on the cultivation of compassion and empathy that I feel is a missing piece in the movement towards secularization and irreligiosity. I’m not rehashing the tired argument that the gnu atheists are just so mean, no, I get the strategy. What I’m saying is that, along with a focus on scientific education and the development of rationality, we also need to consider the affective processes that churn and stew underneath our forebrains and which play a non-negligible role in our behavior.
Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the outrage over this situation is unwarranted, what I’m addressing is the cognitive algorithms that lead to such situations in the first place. Could you imagine a buddhist monk who has practiced mindfulness and loving-kindness meditation for years ever react in a way that Thunderf00t has? I’m no buddhist, but the same way we can understand the golden rule as a universal normative truth discovered by ancient religions separate from the false mythology, we can also recognize that contemplative traditions that focused on fixing the root cognitive causes of our behavior have a lot of merit as well.
Beliefs and ideals are the software running on top of an emotional operating system. We have been trying to install positive and true apps in a sea of dogmatic malware, and it is working, but, eventually, we need to update the operating system.
This is probably a dumb question, but I feel the need to ask…
Is thunderf00t a sociopath?
Yes, because from the get-go PZ has been revealing confidential, personal information, hacking thunderf00t’s e-mail servers, and threatening to reveal more confidential information.
That’s a completely accurate depiction of PZ’s attitude, you are absolutely right.
p.s. seriously? are you fucking kidding me?
Is this really a relevant to the discussion at hand? At all? (But the Dalai Lama does think that my sexual orientation is an unnatural abomination, so, y’know, I’m not granting your premise that much respect.)
Yep. He swas heading down that road during his time on FTB. And this merely makes it crystal fucking clear.
Are you fucking shitting me? Who’s safety did PZ compromise? When did PZ confess to hacking into Phil Mason’s private emails? Where is the equivalence here?
And did you fucking forget that this isn’t just between Phil Mason and PZ? Phil violated the conference of every blogger on the secure email-list. He threatened to out Natalie Reed. Phil obviously is so wrapped up in his hatred for PZ that he doesn’t care which other people get caught in his dishonest, unethical attacks.
Wait, who the fuck are you and why do you think anyone here cares if you are no longer a “fan”? Real people face real danger as a result of Phil Mason’s contemptible actions, and you make this about you? Fuck off.
Blah, blah, more false equivalency bullshit. You are not nearly as disgusting as Phil Mason, but you are not that far off.
Let’s see if I got this straight.
Thunderf00t became so pissed off that most of Freethoughtblogs didn’t agree with his views on harassment policies, and that they would deny him the privilege of having a blog under their banner, that he repeatedly hacked into a private listserv in order to dig up blackmail material. He then threatened to hit Natalie Reed with this info, even though she’s gone out of her way to remain on the sidelines of the harassment policy debate.
Fuck you, Thunderf00t. By bragging about breaking the law, and threatening to violate the privacy of other people who have asked to remain pseudo-nonymous, you have outed yourself as a contemptible human being who makes me ashamed for my species. Go choke on a lawsuit.
Has anyone mentioned yet that unauthorized access and use of a computer system is a crime?
It’s one that has a very very low chance of being pursued unless it’s a government computer, a great deal of money is involved, there’s child porn involved, or the victim is important. Really. I’ve done about a dozen security incident responses including some very high-profile ones, in the last 15 years, and I don’t think that getting law enforcement involved is worthwhile unless you’re the DoD, Citibank, Sony, whitehouse.gov, Warner Brothers – certainly FTB doesn’t qualify. Remember what it took to get something done about mabus? And, basically, what was done was: nothing.
What the FTBloggers have done, by outing TF’s actions, burns him with the community and – since he’s an egotistical bastard – it probably hurts him more than getting law enforcement involved.
Yes, that’s right davelittler! Both sides have been equally bad! Thunderf00t for hacking into private lists and leaking information, and PZ for… telling him that’s wrong.
Thunderf00t keeps complaining like he hates drama, but keeps being dragged in by third parties and is upset it’s distracting him from his real message of promoting science when he’s the one who just can’t let shit go.
davelittler, the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to everyone involved.
I’m continually impressed with the giant set of brass balls Thunderfoot must have to keep this shit going, and the way he keeps sticking them in his mouth like they were proverbial feet. Similarly, I’m also impressed with the mini brass balls his minions all seem to have and use in the same fashion.
I mean seriously, the giant set it takes to announce to the world that you’re a sexist jerkface, and then announce that you hacked a system and stole confidential data. I wonder if he has back problems from lugging around that weight…
Ah. I thought I recognised the particular style of stupid.
Hae you called the FBI or are these allegations of Illegality just more FTB Bullshit??
Where’s Lilandra to tell us all Thunderfoot has just been misunderstood and that when he said he had stolen private emails from FtB, he actually meant he really liked private emails and would be mortified if he ever upset one ?
I know it’s tough to keep up, but things can be illegal even if the FBI hasn’t been called. Do try a bit harder, now.
Dcg1
You do realize he’s admitted it, right??
@62 dcg1: Not everything is a case for the FBI. Stop being so hyperbolic. Also, read Lousy Canuck’s post, which details exactly what TF did, and how: freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/08/10/what-thunderf00t-did-and-how/
So go back to the Atheism community on LJ, Littler, where you can hang out with all the libertwit dudebros and not have your delicate sensibilities offended by marginalized people sticking up for themselves.
Jesus I knew the stupid would come out but this strong?
I was assuming she was one of the friends that “staged an intervention” as PZ described in his other Thunderf00t post, the friends that assured him that they talked Thunderf00t away from the ledge.
@Aleph Squared
Actually, the Dalai Lama’s position is quite progressive:
My intention wasn’t to defend buddhism or the dalai lama, that wasn’t my point, I was trying to stress the importance of metacognitive processes in forming our attitudes and behaviors. Sorry if you think I am posting irrelevant comments, but I don’t think they are as they are addressing the root causes of the problems that arise within social interactions. I don’t want to hijack this thread any further, so won’t post anymore.
I’m just wondering now if there’s any jargon-y exchanges in the FTB list that discuss the backing up of data or include the phrase “hide the decline” for people to willfully misinterpret.
Maybe. But an apology from her for defending the arsehole would be nice.
Matt
This was uncalled for. Lilandra has repeatedly said she feared Thunderf00t was heading in the wrong direction. She may have been a bit too optimistic in her interpretation of Thunderfoot’s actions in the past, but I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t defend him on this matter.
@72: Or, at the very least, something saying, “I was completely and utterly wrong about the guy.”
I don’t think there’s any chance of that since lilandra pretty much said it was FTBs fault that TF went apeshit and if the FTB bloggers had just let lilandra and aronra handle it, TF wouldn’t have gone bugshit.
So, no, I don’t expect an apology. perhaps more whinging that it’s the FTB bloggers fault tho.
Jason Thibault:
It seems that for a contingent of peoples, it’s the highest crime possible, pointing out that which is simply wrong.
Nope. She said he was misunderstood after his first FtB post on sexism. He was not misunderstood, he meant what he said. Lilandra never once has admitted she was wrong to say he was misunderstood.
Given her lack of judgement and honesty, I am not willing to bet she would not still try to defend him. She may not, but then she should not have defended him to start with. If she had admitted her mistake, I would agree I was being unfair, but she has not.
Thunderf00t attracts some truly astounding intellects.
Thunderf00t keeps complaining like he hates drama
Haha hahahaha ha! Good god, someone owes me a new keyboard.
@79: Your keyboard was asking for it, going around undressed like that.
Two year olds generally do not hack into confidential e-mail accounts and release private information without consent.
There are no children here, only adults.
One who has been right from the beginning and one who has been wrong.
One who has not been engaging in illegal actions, and one who has.
Hehe, yeah. Didn’t TF himself suggest a while back that something didn’t really count as harassment unless you felt it was grounds to call the FBI, or something like that?
the FBI or STFU fallacy.
Zapp Brannigan knew the proper way to deal with Neutrals….
Ace of Sevens- “Your keyboard was asking for it, going around undressed like that.”
Win.
I honestly wonder whether all the people who are whining because Tf’s criminal and unethical behavior* is harshing their mellow, had they been born just a bit earlier, would have been similarly whining about how civil rights protesters were causing white folks to riot, and thus making it difficult to enjoy quiet evening strolls in their communities.
– – – – – – – – –
*apparently “caused” by PZ being a meanie, which means both sides are at fault, or maybe even it’s all PZ’s fault
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or was he just born with a heart full of neutrality?
A lot of the comments at TF’s place are complaining about the huge FtB “organization” and how it needs to be “taken down”. D00ds. It’s a blogging platform, not an organization. It’s not even a loose confederacy. It’s a bunch of people who all blog using vaguely similar ways of viewing the world so they use the same portal to do so. What is it about FtB that they’re all so scared of?
You are made of win.
Some men are born neutral, some achieve neutrality, and some have neutrality thrust upon them!
too many uppity minorities, and goddamnit, they’re being listened to!
and they’re changing things! change bad!
@davelittler
Once again, all together now: do fuck off.
The only thing I can find in myself to say is that I really, really hope that Mr. Mason takes a moment to think about the legal ramifications of his actions (to date and subsequent) and does nothing to provoke this situation further.
All I really care about right now is that people like Natalie Reed* aren’t hurt further.
*And others of course, but Natalie has been the most upfront about what’s at stake.
No, just some guy who earned a reputation for being smart by knowing more than—wait for it—creationists.
I expect it’s been remarked upon previously, but damn, you have to give the guy kudos for choosing his ‘nym, anyway.
I mean, it just makes the whole thing so oddly well-named, right from the beginning. We don’t even have to come up with a snappy, network-friendly handle for this mess. L’affaire Thunderfoot already captures so very much of its essence.
Which is good, really. As ‘Operation Foot Bullet’ was already taken.
Mind, it’d still be nice to work a few other elements in. The general sleaziness of the man is somewhat left out, so far. ‘Thunderfoot’ implies a general bull-in-china-shop vibe, consonant with the reality that his own reputation is among the first and most dramatically trampled victims, but it’d be nice also to work in the increasingly piquant reek of sleaziness and total disregard for those at far greater risk than himself so deftly highlighted in this latest display of self-interested assholery.
My imagination fails, alas. ‘Thunderfuckingnavelgazer’ just doesn’t sing to me.
What is it Thundy gets out of this? Why is he doing this?
@95: I think Natalie described it pretty well in her post: He gets the feeling that he’s some scrappy underdog, fighting to reveal the truth, even though the system is stacked against him.
He’s got tons of sycofans willing to tell him so, too…
there is no way to really know. I can see why someone might think something is pathologically wrong with him. It screams narcissism to me more than anything:
*entitlement (to private information, to womens bodies)
*delusions of grandeur (his claims about his place in the community like the youtube poll)
*lack of empathy (even though he went through damn near the same thing himself)
*reacts to criticism with inappropriate anger
*sense of superiority (he is more qualified than FTBloggers to decide what information should be made public)
*demands to be seen as superior to others without any specific accomplishment (as others have noted taking down creationists isn’t all that hard, neither is winning a youtube poll)
*self serving lying (like to his friends during their intervention)
*refuses to apologize or admit fault
his habit of yelling “strawman!” might also be seen as a form of gaslighting dressed up in logical fallacy language.
and so on. maybe it isn’t his inherent personality but its certainly an accurate way to describe his actions as of late.
Just to clarify: although a few people in this thread have referred to Tfoot “threatening” to out Natalie Reed, Natalie has clarified that he has not explicitly done so:
Please don’t take my posting this as an attempt to defend or excuse Tfoot — his own admitted behavior is more than sufficient to earn all the condemnation expressed here.
I’d say he’s acting like a spoiled toddler playing with poop while indulgent parents (aka his fans) watch like he’s freakin Picasso, but that’s insulting toddlers, parents, Picasso and poop.
So I hope “what a douche” will do.
TF having the information and shown willing on his blog to post content from that information makes it a lot like slow torture for those who might be exposed.
I am one of the posters asserting that TF has been threatening to out certain pseudonymous bloggers. By that I meant that he has been threatening to publish the private emails, which would have resulted in outings. I apologize if I gave people the impression that he has directly threatened to out specific people*.
*Though I see little relevant distinction between directly threatening to out someone, and threatening to do something which would result in outing someone.
Ah, but I have it on good authority (from skeptically skeptic hyperskeptics, every one) that FtB is increasingly irrelevant and that few in the atheist community have any respect for it, its bloggers, or its commenters whatsoever. Getting told off by FtB is like being evicted from the strip mall arcade in a town you’re only stopping for gas and a burger while on a road trip.
Now we’re the Death Star and he’s a Bothan?
From Schroedinger’s Rapist, emphasis mine:
Whether or not TF directly threatens to out Natalie or others, he is blatantly being careless with their personal safety.
nonzero – empatheism?
Fuck a “top 5” list of worst atheists. Nobody holds a candle to Phil Mason’s sleaziness. The rest of the people on that list pale in comparison.
PZ the poopyhead:
My opinion of the evil overlords just keeps diminishing….first, you renounce your atheist popeship, now this tacit admission that everything we’ve believed in is wrong!! Oh wait, that’s code for ‘everything is going according to plan’, isn’t it??
We’re still on for the underground volcano lair of evil with tentacles, right?
what I have seen repeatedly from him is a total inability to deal with making mistakes. People like that rewrite history to make themselves look great and call anyone who disagrees a liar. Its a mindfuck to see it happening from the outside; I think we have all met someone like this before.
Well he could be a Bothan. He’d be Borsk Fey’lya in the Thrawn Trilogy.
Brownian, it’s both at the same time. We’re powerful bullies AND fading irrelevancies. We’re given too much freedom by PZ, AND we’re ruthlessly censored by him.
We’re Schrodinger’s Horde.
The tentacles won’t be evil anymore. Only neutral.
Had to downsize. Bad economic times, you know.
False equivalencies, as far as the eye can see!
Have I ever mentioned that the logical fallacy I hate the most is the false equivalency? Because it fucking is. The anti-FtB crowed seems to be huge fans of it though!
Not actually all that surprising behaviour by a professional academic.
As they say, we’d like to believe that good ideas win out in science by convincing the opposition, but in reality the paradigm only shifts as the old guard dies.
@112: “Have I ever mentioned that the logical fallacy I hate the most is the false equivalency? Because it fucking is.
I’m gaining a healthy dislike for the straw man fallacy. It seems more and more like calling someone on “strawmanning” an argument is a lazy way of appearing to engage (and implying victory!) instead of actually grappling with the substance of the criticism.
Chill-chicks to chew on?
Really? You have more faith in Humanity than me, then. I see no need to wonder.
Well, his subscription list is showing the first reaction with -114 subs.
I unsubscribed when he came with his 2nd video about this issue – and I was called over sensitive at the time. I was going to stay unsubscribed until he came to his senses. I think I might remain where I am for a while.
Totally agree. One thing I’ve noted in this whole shemozzle is the amazing correlation between those folks arguing loudly for their right to violate the boundaries of others in meatspace, and those who are equally willing to violate the boundaries of others online.
And by amazing, I mean not surprising in the least.
Chuck said:
I understand your pain. Along with the false equivalence that was already brought up, calling strawman without actually justifying it seems to be on the rise. In fact, people making very strong claims without backing them up in any way seems to be common among the Sam Harris/TF crowd. On the latest Sam Harris related post I was being driven a bit batty by supporters simply making claims, such as Bruce Schneier losing the debate with Sam Harris, without backing it up at all. It feels like arguing with someone that just says “I disagree” without ever justifying anything.
Chuck@114:
I’ve definitely reached the point where the cry of “straw man!” without an accompanying explanation is a big red flag, because it’s essentially an argument unsupported by evidence.
If someone is truly strawmanning you, it’s simple enough to explain: “you said my position is X. It’s not. It’s Y, as I said here [link].” (And, where it isn’t obvious, adding an explanation of why there’s a meaningful difference between X and Y.
When someone doesn’t bother to provide that, it’s usually because either they really do hold position X, or because their “true” position Y is so close to X that it’s not a meaningful distinction.
hm. is this phenomenon an existing fallacy, or does a name need to be formulated for such a behavior? I’m getting sick of this shit too.
@121: I’ve been working on a post abotu it. I dubbed it “reverse straw man.” This also covers cases where Thunderf00t’s defenders say something like “Why are you so mad? All Thunderf00t said was X.” Where X is something far more defensible than what he actually said.
This is outrageous, these things shouldn’t even be arguable in the minds of skeptics. None of this could ever be right, no matter how far you want to stretch the meaning of ethics.
We shouldn’t be surprised though, for TF and his ilk to be so dismissive as he was of clear rape threats and general misogyny, this is probably the norm for them.
@121 The fallacy fallacy or argumentum ad logicam is probably the closest.
Chuck:
Yet another strawman from the FTBullies.
According to one of the commenters on TF’s blog, PZ has troops. Troops. Hmmm.
———-
I can haz uniform?
This is unfortunately true – in his own words it was a lesser evil hacking into private emails compared to allowing PZ and his minions to hound Payton out of a job. Here
Utter bullshit as he gained access before the Payton thing even occured. So how does he justify that action unless he is a psychic?
My own feeling his that his whole post is to get in first and prove he had honourable whistle blowing intentions and hope no one notices the discrepancy in timing. He knows he is caught out and is trying to shore up his reputation to his hardcore fans at least.
I see the false alarm cries of “straw man” and use of reverse straw men (perhaps “iron men”?) as pretty similar to a bullshit counter-“argument” that atheists have been afflicted for a long, long time:
“You’re just taking it out of context”.
No, they aren’t going to bother explaining what that context is or how it makes the original argument moot. If they do, they certainly aren’t going to do it well! Merely saying “out of context” is enough of a logic-y rational-ish sounding noise that it eases the minds of the mindless, who go out of their way to mistake it for an actual refutation in order to go back to numb-brained slumbers. “Straw man!” is just the latest, pseudo-logical rephrasing of the same old shit. For people who are too lazy to actually argue a point.
I’ve given you guys some coverage on my blog as well. At this point, I’ll be glad to see this whole clambake behind us.
http://www.tanoro.com/blog/08102012-thunderf00t-has-turned-hack
@ Ace of Sevens, 58
Snarf.
Thunderf00t hates drama? What a tragic coincidence that he is perpetually surrounded by it.
Remember to fit it moral-desert fashion if you’re going to fight the Thundaukar.
Well, at least this way, we won’t have to fight over the color of the uniforms.
I vote this becomes a Thing. It’s so on the money.
skeptifem:
I don’t there’s a common term for this class of argument, but I usually call it argument by incantation.
A related example is how religious apologists try to discredit things they don’t like as scientism. In both cases, the words cease to have any real meaning, and become incantations, which by their mere use are meant to defeat an opposing argument.
Thunderf00t’s defense on Twitter:
David Landon Cole’s response:
He’s been all over this issue and has really kept tabs on Thunderf00t’s xenophobia in the past and runs an excellent YouTube channel. If you want more vloggers, I’d invite him.
Yeah… but maybe Sam Harris tortured him into it.
This is the uniform, and if you don’t already own it, you don’t qualify.
Damnit… Previous post should have read “I don’t think there’s…”.
richardbellingham @32
I don’t know. Conservatives, maybe? I do get the impression that this split is largely along ideological lines, with progressives behind FtB and a mixture of conservatives and libertarians amongst the antis.
We’ve gone from being a community that was largely drawn together around core issues of skepticism and atheism to one that’s discovered that the tent is very large, and on many vital issues that fall out of our pursuit of humanism there is emnity.
Brownian:
I’m pretty sure they don’t make Sam Harris uniforms. Does anyone know of any “‘moral’ ‘philosopher'” uniforms? Ones that, if mentioned, wouldn’t be a fulfillment of Godwin’s Law?
Nerd: Are the abs part of the uniform? Because if not, then I’m golden.
KG:
That was his fault for refusing to divulge the solution to an NP-complete problem, devoid of real-world complications.
Just scanned it and so far I haven’t seem him claiming that the unanimity of condemnation from FTB bloggers is evidence of groupthink.
Anybody want to bet on how long it’ll be?
Disgusting, disappointing and soooooo sad.
Sure they do.
*Context.
As the Frethoughtmen say: ‘the spite must flow’.
You’ve renewed my faith in this blog.
leebrimmicombe-wood:
I approve of this message.
Brownian:
Funny. And yet that mask will haunt my dreams. It’s perfect.
The Benson Gesserit sisters exhort you to hold strong.
Y’all are talking Star Trek again?
So the Surpreme God Emperor qondam Pope of Atheïsm has successfully merged with the sandsquid?
I guess he musta been pre-pharyngulated somehow.
No, Joe, that’s the Force, not the Spice.
His name is Paul Myar’Dib, the Kwisatz Haderach. With his army of Frethoughtmen he has seized control of the House Atheist and threatens the source of the spite melange.
No, Sili, the force is Star Wars
@leebrimmicombe-wood — there are not enough internets to express my admiration for you
See, I TOLD you it was Star Trek!
I used to have some respect for Thunderf00t. I even found myself agreeing with some of what he said in his initial FTB blog. but i cannot condone this sort of behaviour and I have finally unsubscribed from his youtube channel. I cannot continue to offer any support for him. I hope the Magic Sandwich show drops him as one of their regular co-hosts, otherwise I will feel obliged to drop their subscription as well.
We are masters of the weirding way.
The uniforms that Naked Bunny linked to are going to be damn impractical in the deep desert.
However, in the deep dessert (which is what the spice if for, right?), I can see myriad uses for them.
That was Naked Bunny who linked to the 300 pic.
Squidsatz Haderach, you mean…
#67 Or there’s Ed Brayton’s, where the victim-blaming is fast and heavy.
ibelieveindog:
/takes the spiffy Hugo Boss uniform out of mothballs
Hurin:
Isn’t it, though?
Hyperdeath: “Argument by incantation” could also be called “cargo cult argument.”
KG:
That was hilarious. And mean. And hilarious.
Crap. Sorry for not closing the tag.
And by making your life miserable you mean things popping up in your RSS feeds? Ugh, first world problems.
I hate this fucking shit. I know too many people who would have their lives ruined by the kind of information that TF has released/threatened to release. He deserves to become a social pariah for pulling this kind of stunt. He has proved that he has no respect for the physical or emotional safety of others. The level of cognitive dissonance required to announce that “I DON’T DROP DOXX” while casually implying that he would do so if his petty demands aren’t met is disgusting.
Phil Mason is the reason why I feel ashamed to call myself an atheist. If it weren’t for people like him then I would have not reason to skirt around the issue in my country.
The Dune refs were brilliant, and y’all should feel good.
Phil Mason should never feel good again.
I’m reminded, suddenly, of my ex-wife attempting to poison my younger brother’s pet lizard, while drunk, to “get back at him” for graduating from college before she or I did.
I am so fucking sorry that FTB has to deal with someone like this.
Matt Dillahunty did a youtube video about the whole Thunderfoot thing, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQEKXlSrziM&feature=g-all-u
Muz @71:
That’s what I’ve been thinking. Thunderfool’s apologists have been likening this to Wikileaks, like Phil Mason is some Bradley Manning, bravely risking his life and career and freedom to leak important information to the public.
Instead, it seems a lot more like Climategate, where assholes with an agenda got access to private e-mails that were generally innocuous, but published carefully-chosen snippets to stir up shit, sow distrust, and generally suit a preexisting agenda.
Sadly the people responsible for that hack will go unpunished. The police in the UK have stopped the investigation since it was unlikely to lead to evidence that could secure a conviction.
“The martyr sacrifices themselves entirely in vain. Or rather not in vain; for they make the selfish more selfish, the lazy more lazy, the narrow narrower.”
@pentatomid 167
Thanks for the link! Dillahunty’s video was really good.
*steal*
The Enemy is both scarily dangerous and ridiculously irrelevant at the same time. The Enemy is always both scarily dangerous and ridiculously irrelevant at the same time.
Meh. The truth lies somewhere in the middle between these extremes. <diving under desk>
How willing scientists are to admit mistakes also partly depends on their culture, and several cultures are currently shifting to make such admissions easier. I can provide anecdata if needed.
Well, when Thunderf00t-in-mouth says , he means or rather .
*steal*
Bah. Haven’t you watched The Incredibles? Never wear a cape.
See, I’m small* and thin – and muscle size needs to scale with body mass, so it scales with the third power of linear measures. In other words, I don’t need abs this size to keep myself sitting in a U shape** for a long time; no wonder I lack them. =8-)
* Well, not really, but I used to be, so it’s still my self-image…
** Can’t stretch my knees that way, but that happens to be beside the point! :-)
Dune isn’t Star Trek.
True!
Just wanna say: love the Dune references.
She is called Breanna Manning, now. Can we remember and use it? One of the big fears she had when initially leaking was that she didn’t want pictures of her plastered everywhere as Bradley, where she could not escape them. It’s the least we can do to identify her as she wishes to be identified.
It’s hilarious watching these two go back and forth. As a plus, there’s the irony in PZ not blocking TF from the list, but then calling TF “stupid” for announcing what he did on his blog (which according to PZ is “the world”).
Why was the lizard drunk?
Um, now that we know about it, sure.
Ugh. I Googled “Breanna Manning” and came up with news stories painting her as some mentally ill person with multiple personalities, calling it her “alter ego”. I want to punch the media in the face.
Funny choice of question. I was wondering if I could meet this college-graduating lizard.
You seem very confused. What list are you talking about when you say “there’s the irony in PZ not blocking TF from the list” ? Only it will not be the list server, since PZ was not the administrator of that. You will already know that of course, which is why I would like to know what list you mean.
That’s not even an unstrained possible parsing of the sentence offered. I’m glad you find it amusing, though….
Dibs on mentat-hood. Next server for the network will be my brain.
So half the posts on half the blogs will all suddenly be about turtles.
@175 because clearly a private, confidential list from which you have been explicitly removed is the same fucking thing as a public blog.
Seriously, who was getting annoyed at the false equivalencies? OH RIGHT.
I take it that in your dialect “there is irony” means “what I am about to say is an incredibly misleading version of what actually happened”.
That’s not even remotely close to what has happened.
illiteracy is so tragic.
Thanks, movinbutnotshakin: now we’re all laughing!
Whelp I’ve been trying to fight the good fight on another forum, and at least correct the mistakes others are perpetuating.
I’m starting to think that some people aren’t approaching this honestly and have an axe to grind. /sarcasm
I remember back when I innocently thought that if you were openly dishonest it would have negative effects on you, and not that it would give you an instant rabid fan-base.
Such naivete was purged from many of us during the crucible of the Accomodationist Wars.
@ pentatomid 167
Thanks for the link. It moved me to actually post a comment on YouTube for the first time in my life (I think). I’m going to keep that in mind if I ever find myself in a discussion thread about this, because the sheer emotional-but-very-rational content is just so powerful.
Aaah, life was good back then…
@ Tinjoe: I think a good test would be that Dillahunty video. If they watch that and still come back with bullshit, that’s a good time to just shake your head and walk away.
Or if they refuse to watch it, that’s a pretty good signal too.
Paul @174: I knew Manning identified as female, but hadn’t heard of the preferred name. Thank you!
Yes! That’s when I lost my moonginitey too!
Thanks for that. I am just about to go to bed, and now I have a horrible image involving a naked Chris Mooney in my head. I’ll have nightmares!
I thought of suggesting images of me naked, but Chris has better hair and I like you.
I hope not. You ever seen a hare with studly abs?
[Looks in mirror.]
Does a stud with hairy abs count?
Dumb question for y’all, but where does Dillahunty blog/post on a regular basis? A quick google brought up a lot of things that appear to be defunct.
Is he at The Atheist Experience on FTB? The most recent post from him there I see is March 19. Loved his video, would like to follow him at his home (and he said he didn’t do YouTube much, so I’m assuming it wasn’t there).
Thanks for any answers to thi dumb question, feel free to make fun of my poor google-fu.
Brownian #197
The mind boggles. The stomach churns. Oh death, where is thy sting?
Don’t forget those Colgate-quality chompers.
Oh, back to the Dune references?
He quit acting, I think.
(Oh, and if you have, feel free to link to the evidence. For science.)
Does that mean his name is now Stung?
Sure. I’m pretty easily confused.
Right, and he plays for The Security Guards now.
@200: https://proxy.freethought.online/axp/
@200: Oh, you meant Dillahunty specifically. He doesn’t blog all that often. His most active account, from what I can tell, is his Facebook account (which is linked to from his Twitter account, but he posts directly to FB once in a while): http://www.facebook.com/matt.dillahunty/
He is indeed at The Atheist Experience, here on FTB. Posts over there aren’t particularly regular though. He doesn’t do youtube all that often, but there is of course the Atheist Experience show and the Non-prophets podcast he’s a part of.
Thanks for the info all – he mentioned in the YouTube channel that he plans to release the email he sent to Tf00t (mentioned in his video, and Tf00t gave permission in the same venue), so I guess it’ll probably be here. Though really, I confess the impulse is more like looking at a black box to determine why the aircraft decided to run into a mountain instead of flying over the valley.
Anyway, since I liked the video so much, I figured I should check him out in other venues. Thanks again from an internet-atheist-newbie.
@211: Definitely check out The Atheist Experience if you haven’t already. http://www.atheist-experience.com/
@TerranRich:
I’ll definitely try to check it out, but as a new member of the Horde I have so many responsibilities… I wasn’t even aware of the costume requirements, and I need a squid hat, I think. That, and I must continually sharpen my fingernails so that people feel terror when I type.
Azkyroth @ 166
I’m sorry that you had to go through that. I hope things are better for you now.
On the Thunderf00t situation, I am hoping there is someone close to him who can help him out, maybe suggest that he get some therapy? He seems to truly be obsessing over FtB. Remembering some of the drawn out back-and-forth he had with VFX and DawahFilms, there definitely seems to be a recurring pattern. It just seems that a life this centered on revenge and “always being in the right” doesn’t seem very healthy or happy.
Is there hope for him, or is this just what entitlement, privilege and a large YouTube audience does to a person?
Is anybody else having Charlie Sheen flashbacks when viewing ThunderFoot’s rants? It really makes me wonder if he’s off his meds.
Having read over a few (not all!) of these posts and comments, may I suggest some application of the principle of charity.
We have commenters here who are legal professionals, and security geeks, and sociologists and social justice activists. They are each naturally going to be interested in the angle that fits with their passion. The techies need to be careful not to sound victim-blamey, and conversely the socies (I just made that up) need to be aware that security discussion is a legitimate response to a security breach. I’ve seen quite a few people accused of victim-blaming for tech-talking, and I agree with that accusation for maybe 50% of the cases.
I’m a computer professional, but not in security. (I am a Schneier fan, out of general interest.) I’ve administered several mailman lists, and I agree that the interface is somewhat sucky, and the security settings are certainly unintuitive. I wasn’t aware that invites never lapse, for instance, so I can hardly blame Ed for not knowing that.
I’d also note that the FtB blogger community is a very small one; it’s at the level where you would normally expect social pressures to secure good behaviour. Raising extra security defenses in this situation is not normal human behaviour. It would be reasonable if there were thousands on the list; but not for a dozen or so.
@ QueQuoi:
Based on the discussion here in the slurs thread (I think), perhaps Aron Ra and Lilandra can have some impact. I hope so.
That said, YouTube is evil. EVIL. I’m really pissed that Google won’t let me display a pseudonym in comments, so my hope of using an accurate pseudonym without being easily searchable is shot to hell. Oh well, no real impact. I can always create a sockpuppet account. :P
@217: When YouTube asked me if I wanted to use my real name, I was like, “No! Why the FUCK would I want to? This is YouTube for chrissakes,” and clicked No. Did you even have that choice? Or did you sign up recently?
When given the choice of logging in, the only option was my Google account. Nothing else, or more precisely, nothing I saw.
TerranRich, No choice since teh google took over. Only way to do it is to set up a new gmail account, and make sure that you are logged in under that account if using Chrome.
Sorry for comment spam, I have a bad habit of not finishing my thoughts before hitting Submit.
But anyways, yeah, I’m 99.9% certain that was my first YouTube comment ever. It also probably didn’t help that I was already signed in to the system via gmail (might have limited their “helpful” options). I do have some vague memories of people posting about how Google’s new policy against pseudonymous posting is beyond ridiculous, but since it hadn’t affected me until just now, I didn’t really pay much attention to it.
I must’ve been grandfathered in or something, because I’m still TerranRich on YouTube. (Don’t bother looking, it’s mostly wrestling entrance music related stuff.)
BTW – you can put an HTML access page in front of a mailman web-facing interface, for a private mailing list. It takes seconds and it means that you’re not worrying about potential vulnerabilities in mailman because the only people who can talk to it are folks with the web-facing password that can get by the server. It’s free, it takes a second, it’s low calorie! It’s rrrr-redundant security!
Okay, there are some things I must say, although I do not support Thunderfoot’s attitude in any way.
Recently Thunderf00t joined the apparently prestigious Free Thought Blogs, and with his very first post got himself kicked off the blog.
While I do acknowledge a certain amount of hypocrisy in calling yourself Free Thought Blogs and then banning someone for what they wrote about, I really don’t care all that much. Not my problem.
Instead of dwelling on the latest round of epic drama between Titans of the internet (Thunderf00t VS PZ Meyers) let me give you some of my honest impressions on the situation.
First, the Rebecca Watson thing. Massively blown out of scale. Not only was it blown out of scale, but people seemed to go out of there way to try to rationalize away the whole event.
The people that reacted usually took one of two strategies:
1) Denial: The man wasn’t really making a pass at her, and his invitation to have coffee and talk in his hotel room at 4am should be taken at face value. I say: These people need to watch Seinfeld.
2) Use over-simplified evolutionary psychology: Men can’t help but hit on women, they argue. Men can’t be expected to actually be tactful in their advances. Women should just politely accept men’s advances in whatever form, and never feel uncomfortable for it. I say: These people should get a grip, and realize that if you make a woman uncomfortable, you aren’t getting laid, and there are two sides to the evolutionary equation so stop making excuses for someone’s poor judgment.
Those points out of the way, I find it ironic how many people used their influence on the internet, which dwarfs Rebecca’s, to tell her that she was making too big a deal out of the whole thing. Turning something into a big deal is telling tens of thousands of views or blog reader about something they otherwise would not have any knowledge of. Uncommented on, Rebecca’s statements might have been heard a few thousand of her regular subscribers and then have been forgotten about. My interpretation of what she said is simple: Don’t be a creeper to women.
This first major round of drama died out some time ago, but it was dragged back up in the most recent events with Thunderf00t.
Upon joining FreeThought Blogs, Thunderf00t wrote a blog making a tactical appraisal of the issue of sexual harassment at Secular conferences.
Personally, I have never been to such a conference, nor to I really follow the inner working of the “secular movement” and so my reaction was much the same as I image someone reading this blog with almost zero background knowledge on the subject would be: “wait? This is a big issue?”
In other words, Thunderf00t went on a rant about how the topic of sexual harassment at secular conferences was taking away too much time and resources from “more important issues” and this diversion of effort was harmful to the movement. And my reaction was, aside from the Rebecca Watson drama of almost a year ago, I had absolutely no idea that this subject was such a burning issue in the secular movement.
Thunderf00ts actions almost immediately lead to another round of drama on the issue, so his attempts to get people to stop talking about it had the exact opposite effect he was hoping for. It was a divisive move that simple lead to more internal conflict.
However, to step aside from the drama for a moment and give a more dispassionate opinion, I am actually puzzled by the very way Thunderf00t framed the subject. He made analogies to war, and to General Patton in particular and spoke of focusing limited resources on what ‘really matter’.
This immediately leads to a couple of central questions: what should people focus on, who should decide what matters, and what are these resources he is talking about? So here is my humble point of view:
1) I personally think that people such as thunderf00t cannot see the forest from the trees when it comes to advancing secularism and or challenging religion. I too once was somewhat blind when it came to this issue until I ‘woke up and saw the light’. And that light is this: promoting science and reason is not a bad thing, but all too often, what we see in the discourse on religion is people at polar ends of the spectrum, who are thoroughly entrenched, fighting each other to the bitter end in a struggle where neither side wants to budge. To use TF’s own WWII analogy, the American efforts in the war did matter, but the war in Europe turned at Stalingrad, before the US really fully entered the war. It was the Red Army, with its overwhelming numbers and relentlessness that did most of the breaking of the Germans. The sort of people (creationists, evangelical apologists, etc) that those such as Thunderf00t focus their efforts on represent the fringes of religion. Yet this is what they constantly conflate with religion as a whole. There is a broad mass of moderates out there, and they are the key. Turn them against extreme religion, and nature will take it’s course. But, in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the people in the middle, over simplifications tend not to help the situation at all, but only alienate people. It is all to easy to convince yourself that debunking creationism is all it takes to turn the tide for secularism, but in reality, the vast majority of people do not have such a literal view of religion, and so this has little or no impact on them. The secular movement seems to be running out of steam, because few people are investing any thought into how to get the average person to think critically about religion and how to shift the public discourse. Instead, they continue to fight the fringes and start to seem like that are the fringe on the other side in the process, and not the sanest people in society.
2) It is not really up to Thunderf00t or anyone else to tell other people what they should care about or talk about. If a woman, or a man for that matter, wants to talk about how sexual harassment is a problem at conferences, it is not Thunderf00t’s or anyone else’s place to say it’s not important. If it is important to someone like Rebecca Watson, then the only thing anyone could do is not allow her to speak at conferences at all. They cannot tell her what to talk about, or what to care about. Just because you would rather hear someone give yet another speech about some well worn talking point like how stupid creationists are instead of about sexual harassment does not mean you have a say in what THEY chose to speak about.
3) Unless a significant amount of money is being spent on the issue, than more than likely, the only resources being expended on the issue are time and focus. As for time, most of it is voluntary to begin with, so it’s really up to the individual contributor on how they spend it (see point 2). To assert otherwise smacks of being a control freak. As for focus, so little happens in the world of online secularism these days that there is pretty well room for just about everything. What burning issue is attention being directed away from by talking about this anyway? Thunderf00t never specifies.
Aside from the general disaster that was this incident, I think that Thunderf00t lost face and came off as a bit of an asshole during this debacle. His attempts to play the ‘academic honestly’ card seem pompous and a way of say “I am special because I have an advanced degree”. Frame it in terms of fair treatment would have been one thing, but to make it about the sanctified world of academia just sounds arrogant and self important. Also, his calling Rebecca Watson “crazy” and “an idiot” is childish, uncalled for, and… not befitting the standards of academia he holds in such high regards.
Finally, while I may have some inclination to take Thunderf00t’s side on questioning the importance of Secular conferences in general compared with the impact of online, I find it baffling the way in which he tried to defend them meat markets. Yes, you do have to be an ‘adult’ to attend the after hours parties and blow of some steam with a few drinks at the bar with your fellow conference goers, but going there expecting to hook up is a different matter all together. Thunderf00t seemed to imply that it was all part of the deal, but I don’t see it that way. Maybe that explains why I don’t actually go to these events. In my observation, it does seem to be a part of ‘the secular scene’ (along with internet culture in general) that some people seem to make online the focus of their love life, and so IRL meetings are sort of a big deal in that regard. There have been several “YouTube Atheist Couples” spawned over the years. I am one of those crazy people that tries to keep my romantic life local, and tries to have a life offline in general, so it is hard, but not impossible, for me to grasp this mentality. My advice would be that as much as you might have an internet crush on someone attending the conference with you, try to leave your sexual frustration at home. Perhaps one source of the sexual harassment problem at conferences is people whose entire social world is online being inept with women IRL. Who knows? Either way, sexual harassment is never justified, and if it’s a problem at conferences, then it IS worth talking about.
And that’s all from me, folks.
Paul:
Duly noted.
In general:
What the fucking fuck???
Blunderfool has demonstrated the utmost contempt for privacy and for the bloggers of FTB. This was clearly marked as a private mailing list, yet it’s perfectly acceptable in his mind to do that because of evil, evil FTB.
And after that, claims to be right about his brand of wingnut atheism, and gets a gaggle of loyal fans.
This is despicable, to say nothing.
a bit of one, yes. The dead-center bit.
are you lying, or honestly unable to tell the difference between banning and getting fired?
This is not true. He didn’t even start this nonsense until his second post, and even then it took several more posts for him to get booted.
I’m certainly not going to respect your opinion on, say, Watson when you can’t even get more recent facts straight.
saguhh00:
When you start with a factually wrong assertion, you lose credibility.
(Are you lying, or just ignorant?)
Chas: that made me giggle.
Sorry, that came across snarkier than I intended.
saguhhoo wrote, at #224:
You know, when you get such an easy-to-verify fact wrong in your second paragraph, there really doesn’t seem much point in continuing to read what you’ve posted.
Try again.
Love the Dune references.
A note of humor where one was lacking.
I admit I’m pretty small-fry, but I went ahead and posted my thoughts on the matter at my blog here: http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/2012/08/thunderf00t-sinks-to-new-low.html
I think this incident if nothing else shows just how much of a narcissist Thunderf00t really is. Nothing he did was wrong, because he deserves SO MUCH from this community and its really our fault for not recognizing his greatness. Further, anybody disliking what he has to say must not be because of the content, but rather because there’s a shadowy conspiracy that’s threatened by his glory.
With allies like that, atheism doesn’t need enemies. Then again, he’s proving himself to be his own worst enemy. Fuck him.
The Who/CSI hedgehogs are worth it.
saguhh00 #224
Thank you for your teal deer comments.
Bugger. Just realised I posted my “security nerds gonna nerd” thing here instead of at Ed’s. Rather out of context here. Sorry.
*insert clever Dune references here*
Oh, Dog CRAP!
WTF happened to Thunderf00t? I used to like him, and I <3ed the 'where religions go to die' film.
How could he go so Orly Taitz on us? I've got to unsubscribe from him now, and I'm kinda hoping he get into deep legal trouble over the cracking thing (haven't looked at the forensics at this writing, not looking forward to it).
Seriously, really seriously, What. The. FUUUUUUUCK.
Mostly I find this sad. Thunderf00t has done some excellent YouTube videos and as Matt Dillahunt mentioned many justifiably have great respect for the work Thunderf00t has done to promote science education and critical thinking.
That’s why his narcissistic, dishonest behavior makes me so sad. I can find “no rhyme or reason” to it (as my mother used to say).
I also find puzzling his (and others’) inability to realize that the problem lies not with Rebecca Watson nor the Skepchicks raising questions and concerns but the combination of the venality of the reaction to them combined its scale. I would have thought the toxic tidal wave of misogyny washing over Watson, et al, in comments and blog posts, etc. would constitute clear evidence of the existence of misogyny. Am I missing something?
He committed a crime. Prosecute.
The discussion Matt Dillahunty’s video has sparked on YouTube, instead of being about what Thunderf00t did, is “How much does Rebecca Watson suck?”
Why am I not surprised?
At least I won’t feel bad about skipping your enormous shit sandwich.
@ saguhh00 and others
There have been multiple posts that effectively said “once you got a fact wrong, I stopped reading”.
I highly encourage people who posted such to go back and read the rest of that post. There’s some objectionable (read: debatable) content there, but for the most part, I saw agreement with the positions that I’m reasonably certain most people on this thread hold.
That “first post” thing was unbelievably wrong (saguhh00, I’m sure you picked that up), but do go back and read it. Object to the things following, if you want to. A lot of it is basically advocating the positions of the Horde (which of course I can’t speak to, being only one appendage of the squid).
@sagooh00 specifically: I would love to talk about these issues. I get the sense that you’ve waded into a minefield and stepped on something … inappropriate. Been there, fwiw. :)
TL;DR: This person is not on the fence, they’re on our side considering whether to come over. ASSIMILATE!
@ the others I referenced:
In no way am I trying to minimize the damage AND potential future damage in this situation. I guess I just feel people jumped the gun. All I can say is I went back and reread and got something different (i.e I initially took the failure of fact as indicative of the rest).
Fire at will (well, don’t fire at Will, fire at me), if you deem it necessary.
Well, actually, both my 16 year old TeenSpawn have gone (supervised) to conference hotel bars and after-parties with crazed FtB bloggers and commenters several times and had no untoward experiences. Sure wouldn’t let them within a mile of TF and his flock of little makers, though. Why is this relevant to stealing private emails, again?
(Your teal deer made more noise than Shai-t’F00t in a rage…)
[meta]
PatrickG, why do you try to teach grannies how to suck eggs?
(You may imagine you’re some Hordeling, but I don’t.
Bah)
Also, despite the horrific nature of the situation, please do remember the New Rules. 3 posts, not one.
If someone has knowledge I don’t have, by all means smack me down. My impression is that the NR have been forgotten given the circumstances.
PatrickG, I’ve now read the third paragraph of saguhhoo’s post, and that was just as wrong as the second. But if you want to extract and sum up what you feel are the things xe got right then feel free to do so.
@ John Morales:
Thanks, but no thanks. My grandmother knows how to suck eggs. You, since we’ve participated in several threads together, will take my ‘go fuck yourself’ in good fun. :)
I again go to the New Rules, and ask that a new person be given charitable interpretation. Three posts. Read hir post. Get back to me with something more substantive than tone trolling, because you appear to be living under a bridge yourself.
[meta]
PatrickG, you’re not endearing yourself to me with your attempted nannying.
(Quite the contrary)
@Wowbagger: It’s late, and I’m off to bed soon. I’ll stick around long enough to ask you to define where xe was wrong enough in the 2nd/3rd paragraphs.
I most likely will just sort of call a ‘bedtime’ soon, but I won’t stop the debate. To wit, I saw the comment under discussion that of a person who loved TF, but had serious reservations. If I’m wrong, by all means, tear the shit out of me.
@John Morales:
Fuck off. I’m not nannying. I’m attempting to argue that a person posting in this thread is mostly agreeing with us, despite some differences in opinion. No tone trolling here, because I’m going to ask you to take that self-righteous stick out of your ass and address my concerns directly.
Can you do that? I’ll stick around to find out.
Okay, PatrickG, I’ve read it. Other than reinforcing my initial reaction of TL;DR and adding TP;DR (Too Pretentious; Didn’t Read) what else am I supposed to get out of saguhh00’s exposition of whatever xe was expositioning?
[OT + meta]
PatrickG, take it to the thunderdome, if you’re so concerned about your interpretation of the rules, and stop derailing.
@ Wowbagger: Do you mind if I do so tomorrow? I’m actually quite tired, and I’m not really in the mood to do blockquoting and such.
Please keep in mind I’m not arguing that this person is necessarily arguing in good faith, simply that xe has advanced arguments that would fit in around the Flame Pit.
Color me whatever troll you want, but I will definitely say that a lot of content has been lost due to the original nature of this thread, which basically comes down to:
TF00t is in possession of information that could seriously damage/cause very specific harm to people.
I don’t want this to derail from that fact, but I would be happy to continue talking about this.
@PatrickG: I didn’t see anything there that was particularly insightful or needing such voluminous verbiage. Also, “And that’s all from me, folks.” — and the lack of follow-up in the two hours between saguhh00’s post and mine — implied that ve had posted an essay and had no intention of staying to engage in conversation. Therefore, the 3-post rule is irrelevant.
I notice you’ve been so busy lecturing us, you’ve forgotten to respond to saguhh00’s points yourself. Get off your high horse lead by example.
Well, I see that I’m getting come down on pretty hard here. I’ll take that as an indication that either:
(a) I missed something in the post I’m only sort of trying to defend, or:
(b) I’m being perceived as defending certain odious remarks in that post, such as… well fuck, I’ll stay up a little longer and blockquote.
If you’ll indulge, I’ll put together a semi-cogent response and then just be done. We’ll take it to the TD tomorrow.
I LOL’d.
LOL @ 224. Fresh! Manly! Wisdom! At its finest.
PatrickG wrote:
Xe referred to Thunder00t as being banned and it being hypocritical to remove someone from a space called ‘Free Thought Blogs’ for ‘what they wrote about’ – revealing either a poor understanding of the events or the meanings of several key terms.
That doesn’t fill me with much confidence is hir ability to comprehend the situation.
I see what Patrick is saying about how saguhh00 is actually in agreement with us for the most part.
But given that saguhh00 gets some pretty major stuff massively wrong near the beginning of their post, and that that their style of writing is damn near unreadable, I can totally understand everyone else’s frustration.
I think what saguhh00 is basically saying is this:
The people who whine the most about Elevatorgate and how it was completely insignificant and overblown are the ones that just can’t let it go. If they hadn’t made such a fuss over Rebecca Watson daring to say “Guys, don’t do that,” then it never really would have been a big deal in the first place.
Also, Thunderf00t should stop complaining about how we have more important things than sexual harassment to deal with. Dealing with sexual harassment doesn’t cost us in resources that could be devoted elsewhere. It would only require the time and attention of individuals who already care about it. In telling people that they’re wasting time in dealing with sexual harassment, Thunderf00t is essentially telling other people what they are allowed to care about, and that’s a really douchebaggy thing to do.
Thunderf00t’s consistent whining about academic dishonesty is pretentious and ridiculous. He further undermines whatever point he may have been attempting to get at with his constant references to academic dishonesty by acting incredibly immature.
And something about people hooking up on youtube and at conferences and stuff.
@PatrickG #257: I’m just annoyed at your insistence that we have done something wrong by not reading an essay by someone we don’t know and who hasn’t been back, merely because the person has some points of agreement with positions that are common here. I’m further annoyed at your decision to lecture us, rather than distill out what we’ve apparently so casually dismissed.
I’m disinclined to read comment essays, something I actually feel bad about. When one of those essays starts off with factual errors, sarcasm, and dismissive remarks, then I feel less guilty about not wanting to read it all. That’s not a moral failing — despite my Catholic guilt telling me it is — and even after slogging through the whole thing, I don’t retract my initial assessment. I put a great deal of effort into editing my comments because of my own propensity for verbal diarrhea. I expect some effort from others to do the same if they want me to read their comments.
First, @saguhh00, I’d like to talk to you. I hope you’ll read this in its entirety and continue debate here. I feel you’ve been genuinely misread and dismissed.
That said, to those who rather dismissed me in a rather cavalier fashion, here we go.
I’m going to keep this as polite as I can (which isn’t very), but here goes. There may be editing errors, and I’m certainly happy to correct misstatements and editing errors later. But after this post, I’m going to bed.
And y’know what, I took so long to respond because I did what apparently other people did not. I broke down the entire post and responded to each section.
That said, I’m calling you all subliterate dipshits. If you’re going to disagree with what I say, at least read it. You certainly didn’t read the post I mildly defended. Read this, THEN attack.
Also, I’m really tired, so by all means, when I inevitably make a mistake, jump in and tear me a new one. If you can, after this more or less sleepy post that might be too long for you to read. :P
So here it is, I came down in a mild defense of a post in this thread and got jumped on. Jumping is fine, I have no problem with jumping. But I’m damn well going to jump back.
Good start.
And here’s where the poster got in trouble. Failure to understand facts. A lot of people jumped on him.
Oh dear FSM, we have someone who doesn’t understand what free thought is. Shocking. It happens a lot. But I’ll argue that we have a (potentially) teachable moment.
All right, we’re getting individual opinion. Let’s go from there.
This could go one of two ways. Let’s find out!
So he’s saying that people who objected to Elevator Gate might have resorted to denial. Seems fair enough. Second paragraph, yes? Are you disagreeing?
Well, gee, that seems fairly straightforward. It sounds awfully like “guys, don’t do that”.
Wow, no shit. I believe we’re at the 3rd paragraph here. You disagree?
Again, wow, no shit. Feel free to jump in.
Ok fine, xe is personally unfamiliar with the circumstances of conferences. So am I. Are we both unable to comment on things we acknowledge are out of our realm, after stipulating we don’t know much about it?
Hey look, we have someone who was unaware of the issues. In fact, Tf00ts actions led to greater awareness. I’d say GO TF, but I really don’t want to, for reasons that should be obvious.
Can’t argue with that. Thunderf00t caused drama and division. Moving on.
Problems here? We all still on the same page? I was puzzled too. Weren’t most people?
And here we venture into the world of opinion. I don’t think we (as Members of the Tentacular Horde) have much to argue about here. If we have differences of opinion, that’s what debate is for.
Bring it, debate it. We’re WAY past the 2nd/3rd paragraphs by the way. There’s a lot to object to here, even beyond the simple norms of Pharyngula debate. So, um, debate it. Identify the things you disagree with, and fucking discuss them, you people who claim to be of the passionate Horde.
You want to say he’s wrong about this? Pick a few points if you will, but is xe really expressing an opinion you don’t have?
Disagree away. Bring it, again. Point out where it’s wrong. I don’t see much to disagree with. Again, WAY past the 2nd/3rd paragraph.
No fucking shit. Did you read this far? Because you dismissed this person out of hand based on his first few sentences.
Yes, clearly this person has nothing valid to contribute. Seriously? What is wrong with you?
Yay! You failed to read this part too! Way to just … read.
And at this point, I’m tired. I’ll confess to not parsing it well. But by Jesus on the Cracker, did you even bother to read this far? By your comments earlier, I’m going to say no.
That’s almost all from me.
Here we have a person who starts with some unfortunate premises, and you completely disregarded everything else xe had to say. Are you daft? Can you not read an argument before refuting it?
I’m proud to be a New Member of the Horde. If you don’t want me here, you can tell me to fuck off. Otherwise, learn to read, and don’t waste my time. Because I’m not leaving, no matter what you tell me.
If you’re not willing to take my arguments seriously, I’d tell you to invoke the [censored by New Rules]. But Christ on a Tortilla Chip, at least pretend to read things critically. You’re embarrassing yourselves; in fact, I’d go so far as to say you’re demonstrating the cognitive capacity of Thunderf00t.
If you made it this far, I’m off to bed. I’ll be certain to check in and respond to critiques/criticisms, have no fear. But do please try to make them a bit more substantive than “I didn’t read it, therefore I disagree”. Because, if you watched the video by Matt Dillahunty, that’s what ThunderF00t did.
I would like to apologize to those who posted in between the last ridiculous excuses for mentation and my most recent post. My post does not in any way include your contributions, as I simply wanted to post and go to bed.
I’ll respond to those in that interval tomorrow, because yeesh, it’s midnight and I really need to go to bed.
@ anathema
Since I caught your post right before signing off, thanks for that. I’ll respond more substantively tomorrow.
I do want to stress that while saguhhoo is wrong in some ways on several subjects (saguhhoo, let’s discuss!), we’re basically 90% in agreement.
Those who reacted emotionally without reading need to just sort of fuck off and think about it.
– Sincerely, a new member of the Horde that won’t go away unless PZ bans me.
When someone starts off by stating the fabricated talking points used by Thunderf00t and his fans as though they were statements of fact, then it doesn’t give me confidence that the person has a balanced perspective. I didn’t leap to the conclusion that saguhh00 was not going to argue in good faith because it was ver first comment, but it’s certainly gotten difficult not to when I see those tropes repeated ad nauseum by trolls.
@ Naked Bunny
I’m fairly sure I just did what you asked me to do. Would you care to follow my example?
And now, I swear by FSM, I have shit to do tomorrow, so I’m off. I just flashed by that in a quick review of whether or not I’d really addressed what I wanted to address, so adios!
@PatricG
You are aware that your multiple posts in a row like that are questionable under the rules right?
@Ing
If you have something substantive to say regarding my main post, please say it.
As to my multiple posts: I made a clarification to a very long post, I responded directly to a post directed at me, and I, well, responded again to another post directed at me.
If PZ feels I’m overreaching, that’s his prerogative, not yours. I have absolute confidence that our Tentacled Overlord will school me sharply if I violate the New Rules. But it’s his blog, not yours.
Also, note that I’m responding to a post directed at me.
[meta]
PatrickG:
I should care about the purported opinion of someone who is either lying or ignorant?
Such naivete!
(Your vicarious pride ain’t warranted and, frankly, I find it pathetic)
Who made that claim?
@Patric
For reference it looks rather silly to state about how you’re short on time and really really need to stop posting and then publish a damn novella.
Get some sleep, you have SIWOTI
@ John: Would you care to address my main point, or just cherry pick things out of what Ing refers to as a “novella”? To quote you:
No, you should be aware that not everybody is as familiar with the terms of the debate, and you should damn well obey the 3 post rule recently promulgated. As a new member, maybe he is a very subtle troll, but I don’t know it, I responded substantively to your comments earlier, and all you got is… personal abuse?
I’m a big boy, I can handle it. But until you actually respond to me in any meaningful way, you can ride out on the horse I rode in on.
@ Ing: You’re right, it’s like nobody’s ever suffered from insomnia before. I’ll try to get on that asap. :P
But thanks for the wish for sleep. :) I’m trying, but I’m in sort of a computer-junkie mode. It happens when you’ve been coding for a while. /sigh
However, I’ll postulate a proportional relationship between substance and sleep, in that John Morales has provided far too little substance, therefore I can’t sleep.
@Patrick
If it helps I’ve found actively engaging my mind (ala using a computer) actually keeps me awake. I have to turn off the screen and let it slip into a passive mode before sleepiness can set in.
@ Ing
You’re absolutely right, but I’ve just issued a challenge to John in the ThunderDome. I’d hate to back away now. :)
Plus, my responsibilities tomorrow aren’t time-sensitive, so I can wiggle a lil.
Patrick, doesn’t it strike you as odd that you think someone posting an unreadably dense and absurdly long comment even by MY standards, on an unrelated thread, to tell us in the most impenetrable way imaginable short of random color changes in the font that they don’t think Rebecca Watson or the community’s response to Thunderfoot’s comments about harassment policies are unreasonable, is news?
@Azkyroth
As I said above, I’m trying to go by the New Rules. Charity, 3post rule, all that. Jesus on a Gravy Biscuit knows that I’ve been prone to enormously long rants in new forums.
I felt the sentiments expressed in that Wall o’ Text were generally in agreement with the Horde (which, apparently, John Morales has the ability to revoke my claimed membership). I thought people who read the comments had not read past the first few lines, which were admittedly very, very inflammatory.
I pointed that out. I got flamed. But I really have yet to see anybody actually address my post, or my point, which really comes down to: C’mon people, READ shit before you flame it. (Again, 3 post rule.)
If there’s one thing TF and many of his supporters have exemplified, it’s that being an atheist and being childish, petulant and unethical are not mutually exclusive.
Nope, not in the slightest. Here’s what I said:
I notice you’ve been so busy lecturing us, you’ve forgotten to respond to saguhh00′s points yourself.
You didn’t respond to saguh00’s points. You simply quoted them in between further lectures and insults directed at us. The original essay is still there for anyone inclined to read it; we didn’t need an annotated copy.
Nah. I don’t feel like calling people names for saying they don’t feel like reading a poorly written essay laced with errors, posted by by someone who stated ve has no intention of following up anyway.
Anyway, it’s time I got to bed. I close all threads when I go to bed, if any are still open; and, unlike you, I don’t suffer from a compulsive need to get in the last word, so feel free to respond to me and go to sleep if you are still awake. I won’t be saying anything else to you on this topic. The future will tell how this unpleasant experience will color the associations I have with your name.
@ Naked Bunny:
At repeated points throughout my post, I specifically asked if people disagreed with what was said. If you’d care to respond to those, do so tomorrow, after you’ve gone to bed. Take the horse I rode in and at least go where I’ve been.
I’m insomniac tonight, or I wouldn’t even be replying. :) I’ll check in tomorrow.
This thing is getting out of hand and is becoming embarrassing to the entire skeptic community.
I think it’s time to take this totally offline and stop posting about this bullshit.
Once again @ Naked Bunny
Except I just did a point by point examination of those points. Clearly you didn’t read my post.
After you, sir.
This “skeptic community” that you mention has issues. This has become very clear ever since Rebecca Watson said “Guys don’t do that” in a video about moving house and unpacking boxes last year.
The shitstorm we’re in right now is one that gives us the chance for a reorientation and redefinition of the values of our movement. Because the way it is right now, it’s not a movement many of us here would want to be an active part of. Thunderf00t is merely a particularly egregious example for a much bigger, systemic problem.
@Patrick G:
1. sagghuoo wrote a Behemoth-like 1,650-word post that started with a blatant and easily-checkable falsehood. There is no reason why anyone should be expected to read beyond that.
2. The criticisms I saw in this thread were directed at that falsehood. That’s fair game. One shouldn’t have to read a ridiculously long comment (which is itself very poor netiquette) and respond to every last bit of it to correct a flaming error in paragragh 2.
3. I thought the 3-post rule was supposed to give new people a chance to get engaged in the conversation. It was not supposed to give new people a chance to state falsehoods without being corrected. Obviously what counts as aggressive or overly blunt in correcting the falsehood is a subjective measure. I didn’t feel the corrections were overly harsh here, but the final arbiter is PZ and he is more than capable of reminding commenters himself if he thinks they’ve been too hard on a newbie.
@chrislawson
Thanks for your reply. My basic argument, and I stand by it, was that most of the comment was fairly reasonable. I felt that people were completely discounting the majority of it based on a few (truly wrong and mistaken!) sentences at the beginning.
But, in any case, I got chewed out by other people, and whether I’m right/wrong isn’t the issue. It’s a community, after all. I expressed an opinion as best I could, and others disagreed. I took the rest to the Thunderdome. :)
There is no skeptic community. Prior to elevatorgate there may have been an illusion that there was one, but that illusion was thoroughly dispelled right then and there.
There is no skeptic community.
There is a community of people who believe that women are human beings and should be treated with respect and consideration when they say things like “guys don’t do that”, and there is another community of people who apparently do not.
I am only interested in associating with people from one of these groups.
JimDiver wrote:
I’d prefer we leave the cover-ups to the Catholic Church.
Reasonable in the manner of a well constructed sand-castle built on quicksand.
Those starting sentences were foundational to the premise of everything else that followed. It doesn’t really matter how well constructed the sand-castle is when the foundation is built on the quicksand of a lie.
JimDiver
I don’t understand this idea that if PZ or his horde call people out for doing ridiculous things it somehow hurts the skeptical movement at large. Don’t we fault religion for not calling out their crazies and delinquents?
That is not even considering the fact that stalkerf00t has deliberately manipulated himself into a position to hurt members of this community on a whim. PZ et al have every reason to devote energy to this problem, “embarrassment” notwithstanding.
I think its time for people to stop telling PZ and others what to post. If you got to blogs in search of articles that you don’t want to read, then you are the one behaving incomprehensibly.
P.Z said –
TF’s actions from the get go seem more than a little outlandish. It is like joining a nudist colony and then wearing a tuxedo all the time and then getting pissed off at the nudists for having the audacity to be in the nude !!1!!!1!
What is also problematic is the lack of direct communication between TF and well everyone. Look at what is going on at Camels with Hammers and the new commenting policy there.
Debate – screenfuls of people thoughtfully and sometimes not so thoughtfully wrangling over the issues involved with the topic.
This level of engagement never happened with TF during his brief stay here as it seemed like TF adopted a bunker mentality. Not engaging with anyone (not even on his own FTB comment section for the most part) he simply began lobbing his crap over the wall to see how large a splat he could make.
It could be concluded that this is what TF wanted to happen, given his bizarrely irrational behaviour.
I don’t understand why people are shitting on PatrickG for responding. Let him argue with whom he wants, for fuck’s sake.
wowbagger #286,
QFFT.
I don’t want to ‘belong’ to a community that rather than address its problems properly, wants to ‘discuss’ them in the shadows, which usually translates as dismiss them for the sake of ‘unity’. Fuck that for a game of soldiers, for such a community doesn’t deserve to survive and we would better off disinfecting the blight now before wasting more time on the ‘community’. I don’t want to share a community with someone who doesn’t get that.
@ 290/Brownian
Thanks for that, but we’ve moved it to the ‘Dome. It’s been instructive. :)
Alright, have at it then!
Dear saguhh00 @ 224,
First, let me start with some stuff that is plain wrong:
(a) Thunderf00t was not kicked off for one post, but for a series of posts that were openly antagonistic to a large chunk of the FtB community. He was a serial offender.
(b) It’s not hypocrisy to kick someone off a freethought network for showing inflexibility of thought. Not to mention open hostility to many parts of the network.
Second, yes you are correct that the Rebecca Watson thing has been massively blown out of scale. You accurately identify some of the pathologies at work here: denial and evo-psych were certainly deployed to excuse Elevator Guy’s unwanted advances, though there are other agendas and arguments at work here. Yes, some folks were so affronted by Rebecca’s ‘guys, don’t do that’ that the message got amplified along with a metric fuckton of vitriol aimed at Rebecca/feminism/wimminz.
Thirdly, regarding your description of TF’s arrival at FtB, you claim TF’s initial argument says that discussions of conference harassment was taking time and resources away from more important issues. That’s not how I read TF’s posts. For example, parsing his first post and taking it at face value I get the following message from Thunderf00t:
* Sexual harassment affects a minority of attendees.
* It mostly occurs outside the conference halls, in bars, where different rules apply.
* Therefore this is not a big problem.
* The problem is being blown up out of all proportion.
* If complaints had been credible then the FBI should have been called in; the fact that the Feds did not deploy to conferences means there is no real problem.
* Talking about harassment was ‘sometimes’ a bigger problem than harassment itself.
* Most folks are adults and don’t need no steenkin’ rules of conduct.
* Bars are free-fire zones and you should expect some sexy horseplay there.
* Making policies and policing them is an inefficient deployment of resources.
* Right to refuse admission is all the policy you need.
This is a lot more than simply a ‘tactical argument’ over allocation of resources, saguhh00. It’s a fairly major dismissal of those experiences of folks who have actually been harassed, or who simply want a space in which they are not regarded as meat on the slab in a market. This was bound to cause offense to harassment victims who felt that their voices were being ignored, their concerns dismissed and that many conferences were not safe places.
Fourth, you lost me on your muddled discourse advancing secularism and challenging religion. I’ve tried to parse this paragraph and really couldn’t get past the sentence that ‘thunderf00t cannot see the forest from the trees’. I think you are trying to say that many atheists want to regard the movement as something focussed on opposing religion and so they cannot see how it also needs to tackle social issues to advance secularism. But I cannot be sure that’s what you meant.
Fifth, yes I agree that Thunderf00t does not get to dictate what the movement talks about. If all or part of the movement wishes to talk about social justice, then it can do so. Atheism is a big tent and should not just focus on laughing at creationist dogma, as Thunderf00t might prefer. It’s up to individuals and groups within the movement to decide where they focus their energies. If those are on social justice issues, then so be it.
Sixth, I agree that Thunderf00t lost face. However, I take issue with you on this: his were not arguments from any academic standpoint. His arguments were political and were to essentially deny or minimise real life experiences and argue vehemently that we should not change anything. His was essentially a conservative, reactionary argument which found itself in opposition to the largely progressive movement here at FtB. This was the poison that needed to be excised from the network.
Finally, yes Thunderf00t’s defence of bars and even conferences as meat-markets pretty much speaks volumes about his attitudes towards women. If he was accused of being paternalistic, condescending and sexist, this was because this was where his arguments led.
Well, to be fair to the man, it really isn’t easy to hit on someone during a Dawkins lecture, or a panel discussion in a room with 2000 other people. How are you meant to gnaw at any ankle in peace under those circumstances?
Yes, if we do not allow them to unleash their predatory instincts in bars their boners would ‘splode, or something.
What Thunderfoot did with his FTB hack was outrageously wrong.
Also I think it was an extremely sad thing to do in both senses of the word.
I’ve said this :
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/08/09/lounge-356/comment-page-1/#comment-428394
too to clarify any confusion on my comments last night and to apologise for unintentionally upsetting people.
@Quinn Martindale #2
Actually, I understood that electronic signatures may well be recognized as binding.
Pushed submit not preview, sor,ry finishing my comment at #298
I was going to add that I think professional advice should be taken from someone in the very field. This seems to be in the works, which is a good idea.
I’m trying to organise my thoughts on the whole Tf00t affair. I thought I’d try to precis TF’s posts to see if I can chart the trajectory of his descent into darkness.
This is my interpretation. Yours may vary.
LBW Summary: TF dismisses victims’ actual experiences. He believes that internet threats are not credible and that anyone who takes them seriously is immature. No policies are needed and antisocial behaviour should be dealt with by some undescribed ‘soft power’.
LBW Summary: TF elides the fact that he dismissed victims’ experiences or regards them as trivial. Rather, he focusses on PZ’s parsing of his original post, complaining that PZ has gone too far.
But rather than explain himself better, rather than clarify, he belts PZ around the head for not reading him correctly. He feels that a few vague, hadwavey recommendations cover him with regards to the search for a practical solution to harassment and shows that he’s totally not ignoring it.
LBW Summary: PZ holds out an olive branch suggesting that they are really broadly aligned on the need to deal with harassment. TF doesn’t seem to grok this is a way out and instead shouts ‘WTF’, calling PZ a poopyhead for apparently contradicting himself.
TF continues not to clarify his position, instead telling everyone to read the original post. He might have a point that by this stage people are talking past each other, but rather than try and engage, he keeps thumping the tub and insisting that they read his original post, because apparently that contains all the information they need. It doesn’t.
LBW Summary: By this time TF is plummeting down the rabbit hole at some velocity. Yes, FTB is not representative of the whole rationalist community, though whether it is representative of the ‘wider’ community is unproven.
Trying to claim his YouTube following was an unbiased sample for a poll beggared belief. At best it showed that some indeterminately-sized portion of the community didn’t agree with PZ.
The key graf here is Thunderf00t’s claim that FtB is unforgiving of dissent. For me, this is the point that comes closest to home, in that parts of FtB are undoubtedly a roughhouse. However, that’s not the same thing as admitting that the network marches in lockstep, for it clearly does not.
LBW Summary: Thunderf00t seems obsessed with the notion that non-harassment of folks on the grounds of religion means there cannot be any criticism of religion. This was rebutted elsewhere. Respect for the religious does not mean that you cannot criticise their faith; in soccer terms this is a ‘play the ball, not the man’ kind of thing. But I’m unsure if Thunderf00t got the point.
The stuff about not being able to enforce the policy outside the con (back to his obsession with bars) is beside the point; the Skepchicks might not be able to police what happens in bars but they can certainly do something about people who are reported for harassment there with regards to the space they control. There may well be problems with the wording, but rather than engage, TF resorts to mean-spirited mockery, which speaks volumes about him.
*
The key thing I get from Thunderf00t’s postings (rather than any comments he made on the threads) is that he doesn’t explain himself. He has a forum to clarify his position, to expand upon his original post, add some nuance to his argument and engage his critics. Instead he:
(a) Keeps referring people back to the original post, as if that was sufficient, and
(b) Uses the threads to belt his critics about the head, engaging in standard operating internet pedant procedure in doing so.
This is non-engagement. This is hostility, pure and simple. I don’t think it’s any wonder he was given the boot.
Multiple posts in a row are a problem, because it means you aren’t paying attention to the other commenters and are just steam-rolling right past them. I’d rather everyone took a moment to write something, post it, then sit back and wait for people to respond before tossing in more. There’s a benefit to putting more thought into a comment.
The flipside, though, is that it’s also possible to put too much thought into one — the tl;dr phenomenon. We also see an example or two of that here. It’s hard to totally condemn either approach, although both will get you ignored…or dumped on.
Just try to keep in mind that your goal here is to get people to interact, and that means doing your best to give others an opportunity to respond to what you say.
Wow, a hundred thousand people a day are having their time wasted by bullshitting nerds. I’m beginning to suspect that nobody on this blog actually does anything productive.
Wow, here you are proving your point with your post by being a bullshitting nerd. Ironic.
Well, it helps if you don’t have to move your lips when you read. Also, the bullshitting nerds tend to be either transitory or known timewasters whose posts can be easily skipped or skimmed without losing anything.
@Lyn, electronic signatures can be binding in many situations depending on context and jurisdiction. Automatically appended e-mail signatures, however, generally don’t constitute electronic signatures.
Actually, they can be. It is very handy for signatures requiring multiple departments, which can happen quickly via e-mails. But, there has to be proper validation to show that the signatures represent the proper people and can only be made from them. I sign deviations for my department using internal software. I need to enter a userid and password for each time I sign. The software also times and dates the signature. It is a legally binding signature since validation has occurred.
And yet here you are, wasting time on this blog not doing anything productive.
Not even posting an intelligent, credible comment. Because that would have been productive, as it would have stimulated thought.
I think I should preface this with saying that I think tF00t is in the wrong here and entirely responsible for his own actions.
However, this all just goes to show just how inadequate/incompetent the vetting procedure for ftb was in the first place. The safety of pseudonymous bloggers was of paramount importance and yet you saw fit to basically hand over details of these bloggers to a guy you hardly knew.
And you say that with such certainty, despite knowing absolutely nothing about what their vetting process was.
@pilot
Too right, PZ was called out for it when it happened and after shit started flying in a fan wards directed. I think the impulse was to assume really heavy vetting was unnecesarry as were all rationalistys here…like how the religious lower defenses for affinity fruad.
[Ing: are you typing with your lips or something?]
TF when his login was denied, went back and used his invitation confirmation to regain entry. Marginal but deniable. After he was locked out again, and tried multiple times to reacquire access, that shows his intention of the first re-entry to be actionable. Breaking into to a system, depending on what state that server sits in has criminal consequences. Never mind the civil ones.
I have read Natalie Reed’s comments and agree fully with what she had to say. Atheists and skeptics have only one apparent common thread, and all of the prejudice and privilege that everyone else has.
Ever since EG that has been apparent. When you have a man shrieking that only he can determine what sexual harassment is because when he joined the army at ten years old he was liberating rape camps in Bosnia, I really don’t think I want to be associated with people like that regardless of his non belief in religion.
Just hope that no one comes to harm because of this.
pilot #309:
Way to not pay attention. PZ has admitted to and apologized for this, personally, because he was the one who pushed to get Tf00l here in the first place. He’s done so twice to my knowledge: on the blog, and in the first or second FTB Conversation (whichever was about Tf00l).
Your concern has been noted and placed in the circular file.
I’m also seeing a bit of grudge-bearing here. Back it down a couple of notches, don’t harangue people for what they said on other threads, but only for what is said here. People can change their minds, but not if you keep forcing them into the mold of previous discussions.
Phone
@315: That’s not what you said three years ago.
Ace of Sevens #317: He never really believed what he said three years ago, because he changed his mind.
Yes, I’m guilty, guilty, guilty. Mea culpa. We had a very casual attitude towards admissions, and we did not vet people well enough…because we were so damned lucky in our crop of bloggers. It was inevitable that we’d be flying along cockily and smack into some unexpected problem…and thunderf00t was our big crash.
We are tightening up our admission procedures (notice we haven’t added anyone new lately?), and future additions will be scrutinized much more thoroughly.
Just another day that sees the steaming pile of contemptible shit, that is this issue, grow ever larger and further into the sky threatening to block out the sun and, with it, any enlightenment that FTBs and TF himself could ever bring.
I find myself picking my bottom jaw up off my desk when ever a new episode of the despicable display of high school drama plays out! The people that are supposed to be sitting at the pinnacle of this “movement” (yes the bowel kind) are demonstrating the most disgracefully childish conduct that it makes me sick.
For the love of all things good and wholesome, bury this issue, ignore TF and get on with creating interesting and insightful blogs. This soap opera BS has gone on long enough.
@Dark Cartographer:
Wake up, fool! This whole issue would buried except that TF, Rationalia, and other zombies KEEP DIGGING IT UP! (TF, Rationalia, et al. are also like zombies in that they really NEED BRAAAIINNSS!)
They keep posting rape-jokes against Skepchicks. They keep making lying video blogs. They keep writing piteous, whining, lying blog posts. They keep doing things busting into listservs and threatening to release private information. They keep making brutal, violent rape/death threats against identifiable groups and individuals. They keep making it clear (JREF/TAM) that they have no interest in treating 1/2 the population well, but only in covering up their creepiness.
All of the posts here following the expulsion of TF were a REACTION to their continued ACTIONS!
We’d love to let it die! We’d love to! But we cannot ethically allow the continued expression of vile misogynist bigotry to go unanswered, or continued internet bullying and threats to go without response.
Easy for you to say. You’re not the one whose personal information he stole.
JimDiver 280
As Bagger Vance said, “No sir, this has been embarrassing for quite some time.”
Rorschach 283
Yes. I hope that what you hope will happen does.
Amphiox 286
Illusion and delusion are so close sometimes the line between them almost invisible. The bifurcation (wow, that’s really a word, or at least my spellchecker thinks so) you mention has always existed. It took just 20 seconds of a YouTube video to prod the angry toxic part to show itself.
Hurin 289
Although I understand JimDiver’s frustration, some acts by the “crazies and delinquents” no one should ignore. It’s important to identify the “crazies and delinquents” then keep them from derailing every discussion. More to the point, this is exactly what PZ et al did, after one final (famous last words) post and YouTube video the whole TF tantrum nonsense stared to fade. Then TF had to figure out how to do something to insert himself back into everyone’s consciousness. It’s not like we were not trying to ignore TF, really, we were totally doing a bang-up job of ignoring him – ignored him like a cat can ignore you. Then he did something no one could ignore.
@saguhhoo
I wrote this for people like you who confuse correlation with causation.
I’m no fan of Thunderf00t. I think he’s an ass, and I’ve generally ignored him until ftb brought him online. I wasn’t comfortable with the machinations surrounding his departure, but only because the whole thing seemed disingenuous, not because I thought he should stay, or should have been here in the first place.
I also think it was stupid and unethical for him to take advantage of accidental access to an email list that was intended to be private, but it occurs to me that it really isn’t that different than the events described here in which PZ Meyers:
Isn’t this whole kerfuffle a perfect example of a member of the community doing exactly what he’s been led to believe is acceptable behavior by watching a leading member of that community?
Isn’t it weird how all the “I totally am not a blunderf00t fan and have been a fan of this site for a long time, but…” types can’t spell Myers? Even though it’s signed on every single post on Pharyngula?
Sadunlap
I’m not sure if you understood my point, because I don’t understand why you are responding to me in this way. You seem to be explaining the point to me that I just submitted:
(new emphasis added)
I think FTB handled stalkerf00t exactly the way he should have been handled. They haven’t obsessed over him, but they haven’t pulled punches in the interest of “a united front” or whatever spurious image the hand-wringers want to use to imply that the movement is too fragile to handle disagreements.
I don’t really know if I would characterize stalkerf00t’s recent hacking as an attempt to “insert himself back into everyone’s consciousness”, but it is certainly something that needs addressing, whatever his intent.
Finally, I don’t think that this instance of (probably illegal) surveillance is a good opportunity for people to point out that “both sides have made mistakes”, or whine about how PZ isn’t writing they would prefer to read (*cough* JimDriver *cough*). If certain people don’t like the rancor, I encourage them to do a Google search and notice that there are other blogs on the internet.
Hurin 327
Wow, you can’t even agree with someone around here without contention. [insert appropriate emoticon for good natured joking tone here].
I was not responding only to you. FWIW in the initial draft (yes, I re-write comments before posting them) I specifically directed most of that last bit to JimDriver, expanding upon (or so I thought) your initial point. I decided to edit out the “back to JimDriver:” in order to reduce the wordiness. My bad. Should have left it in.
Yes, presuming to know what was going on in another person’s head was a mistake on my part. Intent does not matter in the matter at hand.
spiritualrationalist,
AFAIK, even Thunderfart hasn’t claimed he was following PZ’s example; and as Paul notes, your misspelling of “Myers” rather gives the game away as to where you’re really coming from – as, indeed, does your nym.
sadunlap
No hard feelings intended. It seemed like you were understanding my point to be something like the opposite of what it actually was, so I felt the need to explicate it.
I get annoyed by the JimDrivers of the world who show up on threads like this to tell PZ and others what to write, so maybe I projected that testiness onto you more than I should have.
I agree, that probably would have been helpful.
KG,
You totally found me out because I *gasp* MISTYPED! And my “NYM” is wrong too!?!? I must actually be an FBI agent, then, or maybe a bigfoot fanatic!
Also, nice deflection. I don’t know or care if “Thunderfart” *said* he was following PZs example. I don’t read his crap unless someone quotes it somewhere I happen to frequent.
The point stands. PZ did almost exactly the same thing, crowed about it, and was applauded by this community. Now someone else does the same ethically repugnant thing, but it’s seen as a major violation of privacy rights. How can that not be a part of the issue?
spiritualrationalist,
How odd that your “mistyping” should just happen to be the same error that godbots habitually produce, and one which is not at all easy to produce by “mistyping”. The coincidence is just eerie. It’s simply a lie that PZ did “exactly the same thing”; for one thing, he announced his presence. I’d say his action was ethically dubious, but of an entirely different order to Thunderfart’s.
Sorry, I omitted an “almost”, but it’s still a lie that PZ did “almost exactly the same thing”.
spiritualrationalist, you’re posting the same thing across multiple blogs. And as I answered you on the other one, that was a conference call that people were free to call into and listen in on, so totally different thing entirely. The conference call people only got mad because the people calling in weren’t supposed to talk back.
Here’s the behavior by PZ that would excuse the hacking by TF:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*crickets chirring*
There is nothing PZ can do to excuse TF’s behavior. That is TF’s problem.
Show otherwise by citing the relevant statute.
Ah, thanks carlie. I’d accepted too much of what spiritualrationalist said. The episode pointed to is clearly, now I read the link properly, absolutely nothing like what Thunderfart did, since PZ did not hear or try to hear anything that was intended to be private. I apologise to PZ for the misjudged statement that it was “ethically dubious”.
spiritualrationalist #331
Your “NYM” says that you’re into spiritualism. That’s not something that’s well regarded at an atheist blog. Possibly you may have meant something completely different but it’s not our fault that you’re advertising an interest in spirituality.
Another point is that historically people who use “skeptic”, “cynic”,
“rationalist”, etc. in their nyms tend to be anything but rational. There are a few exceptions so far the evidence you’re showing is that you fall into the larger group.
i’m desperately hoping that all of this insanity is some sort of secret and elabourate social experiment the involved members of the skeptic and atheist blogosphere are in on to demonstrate to all of us at the end just how easily a large heterogenous community can be viciously split into arguing factions, or into a few moderate but justifiably angry faction vs rabidly insufferable idiots, or whatever.
hope is pretty much a delusional outlook though.
@KG: “It’s simply a lie that PZ did “exactly the same thing”; for one thing, he announced his presence.” – Actually, he didn’t. He listened in to a conversation he clearly knew he shouldn’t have been privy to, as evidenced by his own statement that instead of making them aware of their mistake, “So … I redialed. (DUNH DUNH DUNNNNH!)”. He gained privileged information, that he *clearly* understood was intended to be private(” they mentioned the secret code (DUNH DUNH DUNNNNH!)”) from that security breach, then used it to his advantage.
@carlie: “you’re posting the same thing across multiple blogs.” – No, I’m not. I did post a version of this to a thread on reddit, and then rework it for here, though. Maybe you’re confused…
@Nerd of Redhead: I’m not saying that one unethical act excuses another, I’m saying that celebrating one while demonizing another is hypocritical. You can’t have it both ways.
@’Tis: “Your “NYM” says that you’re into spiritualism” – That’s if you make the ridiculous assumption that everyone that calls themself spiritual is into “spiritualism”, whatever you mean by that. Like most modern westerners, I use ‘spiritual’ as a metaphor.
“Another point is that historically people who use “skeptic”, “cynic”,“rationalist”, etc. in their nyms tend to be anything but rational. There are a few exceptions so far the evidence you’re showing is that you fall into the larger group.” – Do tell. Aside from your dubious statistical proclamation from facts not in evidence, exactly which of my statements is not supported by either evidence or reasonable argument?
No, your trying to justify bad behavior by TF by finding imaginary things PZ did wrong without a one to one correspondence. Which is morally reprehensible on your part, and if you weren’t hypocritical, you would have shut the fuck up. Not proving your case one iota, merely showing your duplicity, lying and bullshitting…
Thunderf00t’s fans keep saying that he was allowed to be on the server because he wasn’t “technically” banned, whatever the hell that means. This is driving me crazy. I updated my blog to deal with that argument.
http://www.tanoro.com/blog/08102012-thunderf00t-has-turned-hack
For whatever it’s worth, I’ve given my thoughts here
@D Landon Cole
Your link looks suspect to me, can someone verify it?
Ing, he’s just using the “short version” link that you can get from the “share” option on Youtube, that’s why it looks weird. It’s just a link to his youtube video.
The link is ok. It’s a Youtube redirect link. You see these occasionally when new videos come out.
DLandonCole, I think you are being way too defeatist here. He may still have viewers no matter what, but decent folks can stop associating with him and speak out when he does something deplorable. For good examples of the in action, see The Amazing Atheist, Pat Condell and Brett Keane. People will still watch him, but he doesn’t have to be a part of any community.
spiritualrationalist – the exact same comment, with almost the exact same wording, was on another blog here. I assumed that was you.
Ing
Ill second tanoro, the link is OK.
The fact you lied about PZ and the conference call tells me you’re not interested in facts, you’re interested in sneering at PZ and, by extension, us.
No I’m not. I stated categorically that what that doofus did was “stupid and unethical”. I’m not sure how that can be construed as ‘justifying’ his behavior, but allow me to disabuse you of that flawed analysis. – What TF did was wrong. Discovering that a mistake had given him access to privileged communications, and then instead of informing them of the mistake, using it to his advantage, was indefensible. Which is why I made the point that it’s also indefensible for PZ to have done it
You’re cursing accusing me of terrible things a whole bunch, but I don’t see you actually providing evidence or logic to disprove my position. That generally means you can’t.
I suppose that would be true if I had lied, but I didn’t, and have defended my statements with citations and argument. You can disagree with my analysis, but ignoring it and accusing me of something I didn’t do implies you aren’t interested in facts yourself!
@ING – it’s YouTube’s own URL shortener. The direct link is
.
@Ace I’m afraid I disagree; Brett jumped the shark for being a sleazeball, but lots and lots of people watch TJ and Condell. The community isn’t just people who comment on vids, but those who silently watch them.
Except PZ didn’t do it, as any reasonable evidential person would discover, making you nothing but a liar and bullshitter. What else can you expect if tell untruths that can easily be discovered. Your destroy your own argument by ignoring the truth and evidence.
Now, where is your evidence to refute this? Put up or shut the fuck up….
Except he did do it, as I explained with qoutes from the source:
I’ve provided clear evidence of what I am saying at every step. All you have done is make misleading statements that will only fool those too lazy to read the source link. That’s not an argument, that’s obfuscation.
I have given it in every post so far, including this one. If you won’t address it, I cannot help you.
Here’s where you quite clearly lie: that is not what Thunderfart did. He deliberately “snuck back onto the mailing list” after being informed that his access had been terminated, in order to access private information, did not at any stage reveal the mistake, attempted to sneak back in yet again when discovered and evicted, and what’s more, passed on private information to third parties. PZ, by contrast, accidentally heard private information, did not pass on anything to third parties, and revealed of his own accord that he had done so. You can argue that he should not have used the information as he did, and that he should have spoken up immediately, but to claim that the two actions are “almost exactly the same” is a barefaced lie.
We have been addressing it numbskull. PZ called into a listen to a call, which was allowed and okay. The stupid people talking on the call said the secret password. PZ said that was unprofessional and stupid of them to talk about secret password on a call anyone could have called in and listened too.
TF was kicked out of the private back channel when he was fired and obviously not wanted or allowed back in. He broke back in. He was kicked out again and tried to get in again, again and again.
There is fucking nothing similar between the fucking two you moron.
I’m sorry didn’t PZ listen in on a press conference?
No, that’s your inability to acknowledge you have been solidly refuted. You have nothing but lies and bullshit, and can’t prove otherwise. Making you the liar, bullshitter, and hypocrite here. What a MF hypocrite and loser you are.
@DLandonCole: Sure, peopel watch them, but that doesn’t make them a part of the community. Do they get invited onto the good podcasts or onto responsible users’ Blog TV shows or to speak at conferences? That’s what Ed was talking about, not convincing all their subscribers to leave.
Yep, Ing. It sure was. They invited him and other journalist to listen in on it. A tidbit that spitualitrationalist is purposefully not telling everyone.
I left out part of my point: They also don’t get approving links from the popular atheist blogs. They pretty much get ignored unless someone steps in to call them on their bullshit.
So PZ spied on information to be revealed to the public.
Wow…sinister
Okay, my bad, I should’ve said “after his few first posts”.
Also, people should read the part where I say that I DO NOT agree with Thunderf00t’s attitude.
“The story so far: Thunderf00t/Phil Mason was invited to join our blog network last month. All he wrote during the short week he was here was incoherent, unprofessional rages against feminism and the whole network he was on; we could not understand why he even accepted the offer to join us if he hated us so much, and his inane rants certainly weren’t going to persuade us that we were wrong, so we kicked him off. And ever since he has been obsessed with howling about our perfidy.”
And yeah, I do find it a bit ironic that FTB banned someone for what they wrote about, but I do not support Thunderfoot’s attitude in any way.
Also, if you’re gonna just read a few lines and then stop reading, why bother to make comments on what I wrote?
spiritualrationalist:
The following thing that you quoted from PZ disproves that:
That he had to redial means that he had dialed already and was accepted as a listener in the conference call, which means that you are incorrect that PZ would not have been privy to that information as had he not redialed he would have heard that same conference call and would thus have had access to the same information.
What he wasn’t meant to have access to was the opportunity to counter their bullshit.
So the difference is that Thunderf00t got access to information that “he should not have been privy to” and leaked some of it to third parties (at first) and now publically (in his blog post), thus destroying any trust that the members of FTB might have formerly had in him to properly handle not only the illegally obtained information but also the confidential information that he received during his short stint here, which includes real life details that could jeopardise the safety of at least one FTBloggers*…
…Whereas PZ got access to no confidential information, only public information, but was able to gatecrash the conference call by speaking instead of merely listening and he used that to call out the bullshit of the conference organisers.
Which is totally the same thing from an moral and/or ethical standpoint… as long as you are morally blind that is.
* Sure Thunderf00t says he doesn’t doc drop, but after his actions in the last month trusting him on that would be like trusting a mugger not to rape or murder you because he claims he isn’t a rapist/murderer.
It might be true and it might be the mugger’s intent but since he destroyed any possibility of trust in his victims by mugging them in the first place it is normal for his victims to be afraid that he will do so.
You’ve been correct on this multiple times. TF isn’t banned, has never been banned. He was fired. He is not longer apart of the orginization and cannot make blog posts under the Ftb banner and site. He can comment all he wants on the blogs here though. Words have meaning, learn them.
Now, are you going to continue to be dishonest?
Say that all you want. I read it and get it. You apparently do not. You’re still being dishonest after several corrections.
Doesn’t matter if you “claim” our side, we don’t let anyone get away with dishonest here, ally or enemy alike. You’ll even get told rudely to correct your dishonesty and lies, whether or not you are arguing our side of the debate.
Stop and correct yourself. Maybe lurk moar. No one is going to let you get away with dishonest claim of “TF was banned”. You will get told to fuck off.
With or without that correction, this is clear evidence that you are fucking stupid. Suppose Thunderfart had undergone a sudden religious conversion, and produced a series of posts calling on the other FTB bloggers to repent and invite Jesus into their hearts. Would it then have been “ironic”?
D Landon Cole
Here are two points from your list of reasons why we shouldn’t make thunderf00t a pariah and why FTB shouldn’t pursue legal action, as I understand them, through excerpts of your video.
You go on to quote a thunderf00t fan
You go back to speaking as yourself:
I understand that you are trying to be pragmatic about the situation, and that you are not actually apologizing for thunderf00t’s behavior. That having been said, I have a couple issues with what you are saying.
1) thunderf00t’s free speech doesn’t extend to speaking at conferences. If tf00t is no longer asked to speak at conferences he may claim that his rights have been violated, but they will not have been violated.
2) You are right that some people will always be tf00t fans, but claiming that we shouldn’t try to drum him out of the movement because we can’t ever do it completely, is a naturalistic fallacy. We should discuss whether to shun tf00t on the basis of whether it is warranted, and not whether it is possible.
3) There may be reasons for legal action that involve leveraging him. If he can be bound to safeguard the (potentially harmful) information that he has obtained through legal proceedings, then they may be useful. I don’t know what options would be available since I have no training in law and no knowledge of the specifics of this incident, but it seems to me that legal action could be pursued in a way that isn’t ham handed.
On a slightly unrelated note, you said the following about tf00t’s unauthorized access to the FTB backchannel:
It is perfectly appropriate to call it a hack. Hacking is simply gaining unauthorized access to a computer system. Compare this to the fact that I can break into my neighbors house, whether or not I put much effort into it. I might try the door and find it unlocked, and that would be every bit as much “breaking in” as if I’d smashed out a window, or broken down the door with a battering ram.
Its also true that tf00t got access through an old email, but if you look at Jason Thibeault’s blog, you will see that he “stumbled on” this old email less than 10 min after he was initially removed from the backchannel. So yes, there is reason to believe he was actively trying regain access to the channel, and not merely doing it on a whim, as you seem to be implying.
I have no problem believing he stumbled on this. If I got kicked off a mailing list and wanted to get back in, I would probably try what he did within ten minutes, too.
Julien Rousseau @364 –
Another point I think is important is that when PZ revealed he could speak in the conference call, and they asked him to hang up, he did so (with a parting bon mot).
Tf00t did not leave when he was told to, and tried to return even after he was directly locked out.
@ Everyone but spiritualrationalist (also excluding anyone else trying to distract from the subject of this post, i.e. TF’s disgrace):
What spiritualrationalist is doing is classic concern trolling and thread-jacking, stop taking the bait.
Whatever PZ or anyone else may or may not have done is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, which is about what Thunderfoot did. If PZ did precisely the same thing or even did something worse, it does not justify what TF did, period. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Anyone (spiritualrationalist I am looking in your direction) that keeps trying to distract this discussion with concern trolling RE: PZ and whatever he may have done is interested in only one thing: stirring the shit.
Stop taking the bait.
Ace of Sevens, you would try the same thing, it is illegal to do so in most states, and get you immediately fired if you were doing it from work.(any sane workplace)
First, like JAL said, he was not banned, he can still comment on the FTB blogs and wether he gets banned if he does that would depend on whether he breaks the various comment policies of the respective blogs on a blog by blog basis.
To go even further, I am not aware of anyone being banned from FTB (though I could be wrong and certainly would like to see evidence of it if I am), as opposed to being banned from specific blog(s).
Second:
Thunderf00t was not fired solely because of what he wrote, by which I take it you mean that you think he got fired because he voiced an unpopular opinion.
Now you might not trust the various FTBloggers when they say that so let’s look at their actions in a similar situation then; a situation in which another FTBlogger posted an unpopular (on FTB) opinion and did not get fired simply for voicing said opinion.
The situation I am alluding to is when Taslima Nasreen wrote a post called Sex Slavery must be abolished, which is not controversial or an unpopular opinion here, quite the contrary.
What was controversial was her equating of any form of prostitution with sexual slavery by saying that “Prostitution is not sex, it is sexual violence” and her denying agency to sex workers that want to work in that industry by saying that “Prostitution is not an acceptable job for women”, like if she had any more right to determine what is a “proper” job for a woman than a priest or a mullah.
Now those positions are unpopular with the mostly sex positive feminists here and thus there was a flurry of posts strongly disagreeing with her, just like there was a flurry of posts disagreeing with Thunderf00t.
Greta Christina, Natalie Reed, Chris Hallquist and Richard Carrier strongly disagreed with her in various blog posts, and Crommunist chimed in not by rebuting her but by providing information relevant to the debate.
All those posts can be found on this link by searching from “April 12th” to “April 9th” (end of the first page and beginning of the second at the time of writing).
Surely, if Thunderf00t was booted off because of what he wrote, so should Taslima have been, especially given that she doubled and tripled down on her views in subsequent posts, like Thunderf00t.
Yet here we are, four months later, with Taslima still writing on her blog at FTB, despite the strong disagreement with her on one hot topic similar in nature (social justice) to Thunderf00t’s disagreement.
So you are wrong to claim that mere disagreement, even very strong one, about what one wrote is enough to get one booted from FTB.
@JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
Did you people read what PZ wrote at the beginning of this thread?
“The story so far: Thunderf00t/Phil Mason was invited to join our blog network last month. All he wrote during the short week he was here was incoherent, unprofessional rages against feminism and the whole network he was on; we could not understand why he even accepted the offer to join us if he hated us so much, and his inane rants certainly weren’t going to persuade us that we were wrong, so we kicked him off. And ever since he has been obsessed with howling about our perfidy.”
In other words, fired because of writing. I find it a LITTLE bit ironic, yes, but do not support in any way Tf’s attitude, but you are the one making such a hissy fit over my opinion.
#372: So you never think about how you would go about it if you were going to get away with something? I hope that your job doesn’t involve keeping people from getting away with things.
spiritualrationalist makes an invalid comparison; had the thunderpod got back into the list and posted there immediately and then permanently left when asked to, that would be a valid comparison.
r3a50n, short version, you note it’s an attempted tu quoque.
(It fails even at that, and thus the responses)
How the fuck is that irony? Foot was hired on as a writer for a freethought blog. He did not share the values of the network and was subsequently fired. That’s not irony, that’s expected.
Sorry to be a pedant, but holy fuck do I hate the “irony” trope that’s being played by these fuckhats.
Finally, you used the right fucking term! Congrats on learning that at least.
Also, nice little dismissive sexist comment saying I’m having a “hissy” fit over you. No, hun, this is called correcting you and calling out bullshit. That’s what we do here. Get with the program.
If you don’t agree with TF why are you so vehemently ripping into FtB, which has done nothing wrong and actually handled this quite well, instead of focusing on TF? You are focusing on the wrong party here. No matter if you keep saying you disagree with TF, you’re incorrectly trying to nit pick FtB, which helps TF. Stop helping him.
Anyways, so what your saying is, you would find it ironic if FtB invited someone in, they spend a week making multiple posts being a racist douche, and then fire that someone for it.
You don’t get what freethought is.
Since you’re so dense and haven’t looked up what freethought actually means, even though you’ve been told you are wrong and to google, here’s a brief definition from wikipedia:
So you think it’s ironic that freethinkers would kick someone out that is hanging on to sexist dogma and not listening to logic and reason on the subject, even though several bloggers here addressed the issues with facts and studies.
Ace of Sevens
Maybe this is a wording issue, but it seems to me that if you purposefully went looking for that email and tried to use it to rejoin the list within 10 min. you can be said to have been “looking for [the vulnerability]” (D Landon Cole’s wording).
I my point is that in my interpretation D Landon Cole is arguing that tfoot had less than a conscious intent to break back into the email list. Given the time frame I don’t buy that. Additional evidence of his intent can also be found in the way he repeatedly tried to use the lost password form to regain access when he was blocked a second time.
If by “stumbled on” you mean that he was less than certain that it would actually work, I can buy that, but I don’t think he has to be an expert in internet security loopholes for it to be said that he “hacked” the list.
Sassafras @ 370
True and an excellent point.
r3a50n @ 371
While I understand the sentiment and mostly agree with it (totally on the implied “tu quoque” that xe* claim xe is not making, but only mostly on the “don’t take the bait” as sometimes it is worth it) I think that contrasting the situations is useful to accentuate why what TF did is wrong, which does not work in favor of whatever goal xe have in trying to derail the thread.
* I am not familiar with using gender-neutral pronouns (except maybe hir) so if I mess it up I would appreciate corrections.
Jebus, this whole censored bullshit is mindnumbing. If a writer gets fired by say the Chicago Tribune, the Trib is under no obligation to publish anything further that the fired writer submits, and isn’t censoring the writer since it is no longer on the staff. The writer can submit writing to other sources. If the Trib was preventing other submissions, then, and only then, could the Trib be accused of censorship. With FtB, TF is free to post anything on the internet, just not on FtB. Just like a writer able to publish in any newspaper but the Trib. That isn’t censorship under any definition of the word. And if you lie about that, what else will you lie about? Apparently everything from the idiocy shown by those who make such statements. It makes their post suspect from the start.
Ace of Sevens 375, I have made a career of thinking about keeping people out, especially those whose access is no longer required. What is your point? You didnt say you were thinking about breaking back in. You stated you would act the same and break back in. I was just pointing out that there is issues with doing that.
Thunderf00t, you unmitigated ass.
@JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
Some people on comment threads can’t take any opinions that disagree with them even one little bit. I’ve seen many people on this thread before who instead of actually arguing with opinions they disagree with, simply call the people who hold such opinions “sexist, bigoted, racist” even when said opinions have nothing to do with race/sex/gender/bigotry. And you are one of those people by calling me sexist for calling you out on your little fit.
That was nothing more than an attempt to poison the well, like when creationists say that evolution inspired nazism/murder/incest, whatever evil thing they can think of.
“If you don’t agree with TF why are you so vehemently ripping into FtB, which has done nothing wrong and actually handled this quite well, instead of focusing on TF? You are focusing on the wrong party here. No matter if you keep saying you disagree with TF, you’re incorrectly trying to nit pick FtB, which helps TF. Stop helping him.”
I’m not helping him, I’m not vehemently ripping into FTB, and I already said what I thought about TF in my first post.
If you don’t care to read it, don’t comment it.
@380: I don’t think DLandonCole is saying that. At least, that’s not how I read it. I took him to mean that Thunderf00t’s actions didn’t require advance planning, not that they didn’t require intent.
@383: I said nothing of the sort. My post was framed as a hypothetical. If I were trying to break in, the thing Thunderf00t did would probably be the first thing I tried. I don’t think the speed with which he got back in is evidence of advance planning since it isn’t like this was an exploit that would take copious poking around in the code or packets to find.
I said calling my comments was a “hissy fit” sexist dismissive thing. And you dare say I can’t read for comprehension?
Citation fucking need on this bullshit claim of yours. Links. Quotes. I’ve already explained I wasn’t calling you sexist, what you said was a sexist tactic.
Why lie about him being banned then? Why complain about the way Ftb blogs have treated TF based off of lies and your stupid misunderstanding of terms?
Just like rape apologist, it doesn’t matter how much you say what they did was wrong, or how much you think the rapist should go to prison, asking what the woman was wearing is distracting, inconsequential and helps the rapist.
I’ve explained this, keep saying you aren’t defending or helping TF, you bullshit and focusing on Ftb actions, do just that. Your intent doesn’t mean shit, when your actions are helping him by derail the thread into bullshit claims of TF “being banned” and how “ironic” that is.
You have yet to respond to any of the points I bring up. I’ve responded to you with quotes and facts and all you do is bullshit. You are indeed sounding just like a botting TF defender. All I know of you are your comments and what you are saying here, which lead me to call you a dishonest lying fuckwit for TF.
Fuck off.
Sample bias.
There are plenty of opinions that disagree with me that I tolerate very well: Freewill, pornography, vegetarianism, merits of pop culture, opinions on Mass Effect’s ending (that one is JUST on the edge though!), ranking of rats over small dogs in terms of cuteness, mac vs pc etc etc.
Finding an issue that people are firm in their opinions in and insisting that people can’t tolerate ANY disagreement is incredibly incredibly dishonest. It’s like saying Frederik Douglas was very closed minded because he wouldn’t have tolerated the Ku Klux Klan.
Ace of sevens #386
Im sure that the inability to log in was not the first notification that he was unwelcome, but I am speculating that. The fact that he found he was blocked, tried the first method to get back in, then repeatedly tried to get access after that shows motive. I could start posting all kinds of cases where that has been seen as malevolent but I am not being paid to do so. If you wish google wifi arrests, war dialing, and the case against Brianna Manning.
@381
That is a fair point.
Garrghh! saguhhoo:
People are not being disagreeable to you simply to be disagreeable. They are being disagreeable because you make multiple factual errors several times over, particularly your misreading of “FreeThoughtBlogs”.
A simple acknowledgement when show by links or direct citation your error, and everyone would be quite polite.
But you don’t do this. And so you are treated as an unserious annoyance.
@ Quinn
Then we aren’t talking about the same thing. The term was ambiguous, clearly. Binding e-documents seem the trend internationally, too, even if signed electronically. You meant something more like a footer, I gather.
Footers aren’t binding, particularly if sent by one party to a stranger, I agree. Does tend to remove the defence of how-could-I-have-possibly-known.
Dear Saguhh00 @ 374
Saguhh00, why is there any irony here? As I mentioned in my post to you @ 295 it’s not ironic or hypocritical to kick someone off a freethought network for showing inflexibility of thought. Not to mention open hostility to many parts of the network.
Let’s actually look at Thunderf00t’s posts, shall we? I outline these in more detail @ 300, though there’s nothing stopping you going to look at the originals.
Overall it’s a pretty offensive post to those people who have suffered or fear harassment. His failure to offer concrete solutions beyond handwavey comments about bar policies and ‘soft power’ indicate a highly conservative, even reactionary mode of thought.
What we see here is not freethought at all. Rather it indicates an inflexibility of thought and a two-fisted combativeness. (Though frankly I wish he wouldn’t lead with his chin.) The answer to substantive criticism, whether on-target or off-, is not ‘see my original post’ but a clear explanation of what you mean.
Thunderf00t has plenty of time to expand upon his claims that the problem was not great; that internet threats are not real and women shouldn’t worry their heads about them; and to explain what the heck he meant by ‘soft power’. He didn’t do any of these things. He went straight to ‘PZ is stoopid, read my original post’.
The guy had a platform, a forum to explain himself. He threw that away every time he pointed people back to his original post. That’s not freethinking. That’s bloody-mindedness.
“Some people” = obvious weasel language. Give an example. Or shut up.
“Many people” = more obvious weasel words. No specifics, just vague unsubstantiated accusations. Give links. Give examples. Or shut up.
Wrong. JAL pointed out that you used a tactic that is commonly used by sexists. You weren’t “calling her out,” though it is cute that you’re attempting to adopt the language of social justice despite your obvious distaste for it. You were just trying to minimize her and paint her as someone not worth listening to, without addressing the content of what she said.
This analogy is laughable. You are trying to make the case that Thunderfoot was fired for “writing” or “disagreeing” or something similarly innocuous. What neither you, nor he, appears to grasp, is that the facts were simply not on his side, and by refusing to admit his errors, he was demonstrating that he is not a freethinker, according to the definition offered above. Therefore there was nothing ironic about his firing.
But now that JAL has pointed out that you used a sexist tactic, it’s all about you and how she has poisoned the well against you. No. It doesn’t work that way. The tactic of calling a woman’s vocal objection a “hissy fit” is sexist, or it is not, but labeling it as such is not poisoning the well, it is labeling the tactic. You’re free to try another, more rational approach to countering JAL’s arguments. That you prefer to pretend that she accused you of being sexist, when she did not, and paint this as an unfair well-poisoning technique, shows that you’re not dealing with reality. And it conveniently allows you to, like Thunderf00t, avoid admitting your errors by making it all about how very wronged you are.
I’m beginning to see why you put so much energy into defending him (that is what you’re doing, though you claim otherwise). You have so much in common.
@saguhh00
You’re right that some people on comment threads can’t take any opinions that disagree with them even one little bit. This pretty much describes Thunderf00t. Be careful it does not describe you.
If you haven’t been schooled on this already, note that use of gendered language such as ‘hissy fit’ is likely to get you pilloried here. Pharyngulites will read that as minimising and ‘othering’ people’s views by feminising them. It’s not the same as Godwining. If you persist it will certainly get your card marked as sexist.
As SallyStrange notes, if you make this about you being wronged, that will also mark your card.
Bloody hell the guy is obsessed!
What’s more important, skepticism, atheism, promotion of science… or hacking into the accounts of people you are having a tussle with online to promote your tired neverending internet drama?
T-f00t and fans take note, FtB, PZ and Rebecca Watson whom they all hate actually promote science, atheism and skepticism.
Thunderf00t used to a long time ago.
He doesn’t any more!
Thunderf00t never leaked any personal information. What he did leak was you conspiring against Micheal Payton. It is you who should be ashamed.
You know, I initially had a longer post aimed at putting the TF defenders in their place, but a few short words I feel will be more sufficient for truly hammering the point I wish to make home.
EVEN IF everything Thunderf00t has been claiming throughout this entire conflict between him and FreeThoughtBlogs has been true – y’know, that he had the right ideas about feminism and harassment and we didn’t and he totally got booted about because he disagreed with our “Hive Mind” cult and the pro-feminist agenda cult amongst the bloggers and commenters have been totally slandering his “good name” ever since while totally denying that the bloggers we love on FTB are a combination of senile/fascist/conspiracy hiders…
THAT STILL DOES NOT EXCUSE WHAT MR MASON DID. All you fuckwits who have the nerve to claim that Mason “sunk to Myers’s level”? Screw you. When has Myers EVER done anything so clearly unlawful not to mention morally despicable as accessing anything he was explicitly prohibited from viewing, and then threatening to publish? Myers has never had the personal lives of the people he has mocked before at stake when he’s debunked their crap, whereas we only have Tf00t’s word that he hasn’t spread the info around, and considering what a dishonest prick he’s turned out to be, I hardly feel compelled to take the guy at his word.
So yeah, fuck Thunderf00t.
No. What you have is a whole group of people who were dissed by a stupid and Ignorant tweet from Michael Payton, talking about what we should do in reply. A couple of us wrote a blog,post, most of us shrugged it off. If that’s a conspiracy, then it’s a conspiracy when I ask to be excused from the dinner table.
I do wish you morons would actually read. Those quotes Thunderf00t made were apparently the worst things he could find…and nowhere do we discuss getting him fired. He’s a liar, but you’re just stupid.
First, he had PZ’s word he wouldn’t be kicked off the blog for being controversial and he was.
Second, thunderf00t had that personal information once he was invited to FTB, he had access to that emailing list, once he was booted the access wasn’t revoked, he didn’t hack into it.
Third, he had access to the personal information since he was invited to FTB, he only got the controversial emails after he was booted.
That’s like inviting someone to a party telling them they can have fun, then kicking them out because they had fun and forgetting to close the door. He comes back in and overhears people conspiring to ruin someones life and tells that someone about it. He knew who people at the party were before he got kicked out and came back in “without permission”, the issue here is the conversation that was “leaked” not the identities of those who were at the party.
Not just controversial, but being an evidenceless asshole about it. Like not reading the proposed anti-harassment policy. If you lie about that, what else will you lie and bullshit about? Your truthfulness is hurt in your first paragraph. Try again, and cite every accusation and assertion.
Please, continue to make things up! It’s totally helping your credibility.
Can you elaborate on your claim that he was an “evidenceless” asshole about it? He might not have been the nicest, but that is only because PZ didn’t read what was said and made a lot of assumptions about TF and posted it as facts on his own blog. When TF explained everything he was attacked again, that time, among other things, it was his writing style that was attacked, most of his arguments weren’t even addressed.
OK, I’ll grant you that conspiring might be too strong of a word for it, I did not read the whole 30 messages to make up my mind about what would to use.
“That was a pretty disturbing turn of events having someones job targeted so quickly after a single tweet about FTBs, and after a brief chat with Michael, and knowing that FTB were going ballistic about this on their secret backchannel with some THIRTY messages being circulated on the backchannel about his single tweet, let him know what they were saying about him (naturally no personal details were passed on). Michael did not want to know, he did not need to know that personal info.”
You got upset about the information that Thunderf00t forwarded to Micheal Payton. HE DID NOT LEAK ANY PERSONAL INFO NOR DID HE INTEND TO DO SO.(OH SORRY PZ ARE THE CAPS BOTHERING YOU?) Yet this is what people are attacking him for, why not attack him for leaking the controversial emails which he did actually do and not for something he did not do, something you made up because you want to distract people from the actual issue, the controversial email content?
Easy, complaining about a policy he hadn’t read. What are you? Follow the evidence, not the claims. TF didn’t read the policy he was complaining about until his fourth post. That is known history. So he was complaining about something he had no true knowledge of other than hearsay.
I did not read the whole 30 messages to make up my mind about what word* to use.
sarunaskacereveskis, Just read his posts on ftb, they are still here BTW, so much for the cries of censorship. If you find any evidence for his position in those posts, and simply evidenceless assertions, do share them with us, for we found none. As to Payton, what you have is thunderfootinmouth quote mining an email discussion about a blog post by an ftb blogger about Payton’s tweet out of context and implying that it means the ftb blogger was trying to get Payton sacked. Are you really so desperate to defend thunderfootinmouth that you will also lie in support of him. As that is the only possible explanation seeing you have had your ‘mistakes’ corrected.
^^^
and not simply evidenceless assertions
Oh is that it? Because in his first post that caused this controversy he writes
“As for the actionable items, I see writing down policies then policing them as essentially unfit for intended purpose and an inefficient deployment of resources. For the conference itself, this would seem an exercise in redundancy (you might as well have rules against theft, it would be exactly as valid, and likely see exactly the same usage (or does the lack of a theft policy suggest conferences tolerate kleptomania?”
Because the policy itself is not the issue here if you do not understand that read what he wrote again.
Yawn, where is your evidence TF wasn’t being a giant asshole and creating unnecessary controversy, ignoring and dissing his sponsors when when they were trying to engage him. One post is irrelevant. It was a pattern of behavior on TF’s part that got him fired, as anybody who studied the history of the controversy knows. Why do you blathering evidenceless sycophants keep pretending a different version of history than the real one? That’s right, you only listen to TF, and don’t read what was written by other blogs about the incident. Evidence can’t be dismissed with OPINION, which is all TFs sycophants have. For evidence to be refuted requires more evidence.
Quotemining or not that is not the issue here. Thunderf00t is being accused of leaking/threatening to/intending to leak personal information, which he did not do. What he did do is forward the emails in which he thought (and I have no reason not to believe him) people are conspiring against Micheal Payton, to Micheal Payton, without any personal information included. Fact is, FTB, once again, is accusing TF of things that didn’t happen.
Citation needed. PZ assured him he wouldn’t be censored, and he wasn’t. I see no evidence that he was promised any sort of “tenure” here.
Sarunaskacerevskis, I think you should read what TF said very carefully. His argument here is that only those items actionable by law enforcement should be covered in a policy and therefore such a policy is redundant. (Thus his example of theft, which is clearly a felony.)
What he is saying, and said throughout that post, is that harassment is not a big problem. He said that anti-social harassment that is not actionable by law enforcement does not require a written policy. Indeed, the limits of behaviour do not need laying out at all. Then he made some remarks about bar management policies and ‘soft power’ to control jerks, remarks which he refused in that and subsequent posts to outline or explain.
He dismissed and minimised the concerns of those who were in fear of being harassed. Indeed, he said that the complaints were worse than the actual problem of harassment, based only on his own experience. He actively opposed the adoption of policies. This is why he was opposed.
I still don’t see anything but your OPINION sarunaskacerevskis. You can’t convince me of anything with just your OPINION. Either start citing evidence or shut the fuck up, as any person of honor and integrity would do. Welcome to science.
Sorry, but I have read both TFs blogs and responses to his blog, and I understood what he said which you clearly did not. What evidence are you asking for?
Here you are accusing TF for ripping into policy which he hadn’t even read where I have provided you with the quote from his first blog that caused this controversy, where it is clear that the policy itself is not the issue, he takes issue in the fact that there is a policy.
415 you keep glossing over data theft and attempting to break into a computing device you dont own.
#409 #4011, thanks for clearing that up, you don’t understand the difference between evidence and assertions and you will readily believe an admittedly unethical liar. We now know where to categorise you, and, it’s not favourable, though I doubt a supporter of thunderfootinmouth would care.
@ 400
That’s some transparently specious reasoning coming from someone that is participating on an atheist blog; I, for one, expect people that ostensibly embrace thoughtfulness, truth, logic and reason to exercise those traits themselves rather than exploit them poorly to suit their agenda as you are attempting in your historically-revisionist strawman apologia for TF, and as TF is doing in his attempt to rationalize and justify his obviously unethical actions.
Those of us reading along that actually do embrace those things mentioned above are not buying what you’re selling (which is precisely the same thing that TF is selling, hmmm…) and the further you continue to make your fraudulent case, the more inadvertently entertaining you are becoming.
My honest advice to you (and to TF, since you’re apparently so close to him maybe you could pass it along…) is to observe the first rule of holes, which is that when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
Evidence TF is right (and not just his OPINION of events), and the other bloggers like PZ are wrong. It isn’t hard. TF and his sycophants must prove their case to us like any prosecution does in any trial. If the case can’t be shown convincing (and it isn’t), a summary dismissal *POOF* of the claims occur. You and TF haven’t and can’t make your case with evidence, only with attitude.
And now we have another pathetic apologist for Mason trying justify the unjustifiable using essentially the same dishonest type of rhetorical tactics as the climate change denialists used against Michael Mann.
Do these people even listen to themselves? And they call themselves skeptics? And think there is a skeptic community which they are a part of?
Utterly pathetic.
You know, even if Mason was still a part of FtB right now and had never been kicked out he would not have been entitled to send ANYTHING from those e-mails to Payton. Because it was a PRIVATE e-mail list. And the very act of breaching that confidentiality is an implicit threat to release anything and everything else in the private e-mails including personal information. saruna-the-excuses-of-the-inexcusable is simply being dishonest when it claims that there was no threat to release private information.
Simply pitiful.
RE: 419
This is also known as “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” and you’re right; the burden is on TF. You would think that an atheist would be familiar with this concept.
sarunaskacerevskis:
Oh my FSM, poor, poor, poor little wittle Payton, who has people conspiring to write a blog post against him.
Oh, the humanity of it all, won’t somebody think of
the childrenMr Payton?More seriously, what exactly are you accusing FTB to conspire about and what is your evidence for it? And no, your belief in Thunderf00t’s moral rectitude is not evidence of any “conspiracy”.
Also, so we know that we are talking the same language, would you mind defining in your own words what you mean by the word conspiracy? Because I don’t think you use it to mean what the rest of the English speaking world use it to mean.
As for your ‘poor little Thunderf00t is accused of “leaking/threatening to/intending to leak personal information “‘ schtick, I will grant you that some people misread Nathalie’s post as saying that but she clarified that he did not leak or threaten to leak such information (as long as you define personal information so as to exclude personal correspondence).
It is quite possible that there are still people who still have a misunderstanding about that point or about that point being made, and it should be corrected, like I am doing right now with your misunderstanding about that point being made.
Fact is, as I jsut explained, it is you who are accusing FTB of things that didn’t happen.
That being said, the problem is not what TF did wrt personal information but what can he be trusted to do or not to do with it. I already dealt with that in an earlier post so I will just quote the relevant part:
Why should Nathalie or anybody else trust Thunderf00t to respect their personal information, whether he obtained it legitimately during his tenure or illegitimately afterwards, when his behaviour shows a gross disrespect of FTB’s members personal boundaries and his willingness to break the law?
In the case of Mason it is far too late. He has already crossed the line that cannot be uncrossed. Sunk below the line of the no return. Hit the molten metal core and been dissolved.
He joins the likes of Ken Hamm and Ray Comfort among the ranks of those who would stoop to any manner of immoral, unethical, and despicable actions rather than admit to being wrong.
And there he will stay.
To say Mason is not threatening to release private information just because he has not yet done so and says he will not is the same as saying that the US does not threaten the use of nuclear weapons just because it has signed a treaty saying it will not. Or North Korea for that matter.
The implicit threat is there. Treaties can be broken, promises can be revoked. Particularly when the party in question has already demonstrated zero honesty in its on-line pronouncements.
And just as in the realm of nuclear proliferation, the only way to actually make such an assurance and have it credible is to turn over his computer and internet accounts for a full forensic inspection by a third party to guarantee that the stolen data has been completely erased from anything he has access to.
Until Mason voluntarily submits to such an inspection, I will continue to take his and his apologists protestations to “not threatening to release” for the worthless noises that they are.
It is becoming increasingly hard to reply to all of you, the fact that the page has to load all previous comments doesn’t help.
Anyway, I’ll try to reply to all of you and end the discussion.
@413. I have read what TF said and I agree with what he said. What he said though was not what PZ thought he had said.
@416. Oh, you mean like wikileaks? thunderf00t is not a hacker though, he had access, and when that access was revoked he tried logging back in again which I wouldn’t call “attempting to break into”. If I write my email password incorrectly twice am I attempting to break into my own email?
@417. Seems like ad hominem attacks are becoming the new thing on FTB. I will say this one last time, Thunderf00t came out and said what he did and why, (in case you forgot, he sent controversial emails, in which, he claims(and I have no reason not to believe him, since so far he has been the credible one), FTB was conspiring against Michael Payton, to Michael Payton) but FTB is accusing(defamation of character) him of doing something he did not do. TF did not HACK into anything and he did not leak any personal information. I will add the fact that, Thunderf00t could have had that personal information way before this all happened since he was on that emailing list with permission before.
@418. What Thunderf00t did was not unethical. Btw, hypocrisy much? Greg Ladens email is up for everyone to see isn’t it?
Also, as Natalie points out, someone could do great damage by outing her negligently. TF could, or may already have, passed along emails carelessly without redacting identifying information. Whether it happens maliciously or not wouldn’t matter.
sarunaskacerevskis
OK, I’m going to list the things that I find objectionable that stalkerf00t has done, that you seem to acknowledge he’s done.
1) Hacked into a private email list against the explicitly stated wishes of the proprietors.
2) Read the substance of private conversations, and later relayed that substance to others.
3) Lied about about that substance (since no one was actually conspiring against anyone).
You don’t find a problem with any of that?
Here is a hypothetical for you:
I break into your home (you left the door unlocked and I just let myself in) and hide bugs all over your living room. I then use them to listen into all of your private conversations with your wife, and sometimes your business associates until I hear a conversation with one of your coworkers about whether you should confront Mike, another associate of yours, who said rude things to you. I then go to Mike and accuse you of conspiring against him.
Have I done anything wrong in your opinion?
I realize that stalkerf00t might see himself as some kind of courageous secret agent policing a rogue blog network, but in reality he has no right to do so. If there were any legitimate concerns about the activities of the FTbloggers, actual law enforcement agents could try to get warrants to invade their privacy. What stalkerf00t did was both illegal and wrong.
P.S. – I doubt PZ is getting apoplexy from your caps, but they do make you look mildly illiterate.
So let’s get this straight, sarunaskacerevskis. You agree with Thunderf00t that:
* Harassment at conventions is a minor issue, involving a minority of people. So minor that it does not require a written policy.
* That people worried about internet threats of rape and assault are immature?
* That complaining about harassment is more of a problem than the harassment that goes on?
* That since the only actionable harassment is that which would involve law enforcement (i.e. an actual felony) then written policies are not necessary?
* That bars permit horseplay and it is fine to make sexual advances in them?
* That all you need to deal with people acting like jerks is a bar management policy of being able to refuse admission. Though neither TF nor you have laid out what exactly jerkish behaviour would warrant refusal of admission?
Do I have that right, sarunaskacerevskis? That this is what you agree with?
sarunaskacerevskis
Lets look up what that word means:
Yup, clearly that is completely different from what stalkerf00t did.
(eyeroll)
Greg Laden’s over the top email was published by Justin Griffith, the person who was being targeted by Greg Laden’s email. He had a right to read that email and do what he wanted with it. It would not have been ok if PZ or some other blogger had hacked Justin’s mailbox and published the email.
Do you have some kind of problem with the concept of privacy?
sarunaskacerevskis 425
emphasis on the unauthorized access part
California Law
PENAL CODE
SECTION 484-502.9
502. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
section to expand the degree of protection afforded to individuals,
businesses, and governmental agencies from tampering, interference,
damage, and unauthorized access to lawfully created computer data and
computer systems. The Legislature finds and declares that the
proliferation of computer technology has resulted in a concomitant
proliferation of computer crime and other forms of unauthorized
access to computers, computer systems, and computer data.
If TF thought FTB were conspiring against Michael Payton, why didn’t he call the FBI?
@ 425
What TF did was at least unethical, and I would argue objectively so.
Put down your shovel.
@ 423
You’re right and on further reflection, I take back what I said. They can both keep digging for all I care, it’s not like either of their credibility is redeemable at this point.
Phil Mason was invited to a private home. He made an ass of himself and was asked to leave. He was escorted out the door and the door closed behind him. Phil Mason notices 10 minutes later that the door he was just escorted out of is not locked. He walks back into the house he does not own and was asked to leave. He steals a beer keg and a TV. The hosts notice the front door is not locked and lock it. Phil Mason tries to jimmy the window but does not succeed. Then Phil Mason gives the beer keg to a friend, but promises that he won’t, word of honor, pawn the TV he stole. He refuses to return the TV.
And here we have sasu-the-excuser-of-the-inexcusable saying that Phil Mason did not trespass or burgle. And he tries to deflect attention from the crime by claiming, falsely, that the beer in the keg was moonshine.
Either it does not understand the meaning of the words hack, privacy, ethical, or conspiracy, at rajkumar levels, or it is just lying.
Utterly pathetic.
@425: You’re missing the part where his explanation makes no sense. Even if we accept his account of his justifications, all of those things happened well after he sneaked onto the e-mail list. He broke in on a fishing expedition. That much is pretty clear.
@434: From multiple other incidents, it is clear that he doesn’t understand the concept of intellectual property. He thinks fair use is basically anything he wants to do with whatever he can get his hands on. That’s probably the issue here, too.
Thunderf00t has another blog post up on this. His new smoking gun is that people were conspiring to not pay him, apparently forgetting this happened after he said he didn’t want the money and that’s not quite what the quoted e-mails say.
@Thunderfoot
I’m not sure you’re whining about this and distracting from the greater issues. Conspiring like this affects such a small amount of people it’s not worth breaking the community up over.
@ Ace of Sevens @ 437
What a fucking hypocrite (TF).
In that new posts Thunderf00t says:
Why does that make him a hypocrite? Because of what he said a month ago:
“you” being Ed Brayton in that quote.
And:
(emphasis mine)
So, to paraphrase Thunderf00t:
“So how to turn something FTB did NOT do into an evil act of malice?
Why by speculating of course!
That’s right, in the absence of any actual late payment, speculate that they MIGHT doc drop!”
As for his question:
To paraphrase him I would say that based on his track record this might be the final outcome.
I really hope it won’t but his obsession is not healthy so until he stops spending a good deal of his internet output (and thus spare time) on his grudge with FTB & Skepchick (6 blog posts and 2 videos about FTB & Skepchick vs 1 video NOT about either since getting booted off) there is no reason to think that he won’t go deeper down the hatred hole he plunged headfirst in and no good can possibly come out of this.
“That’s right, in the absence of any actual late payment, speculate that they MIGHT doc drop!””
Should of course be:
“That’s right, in the absence of any actual late payment, speculate that they MIGHT never pay me!””
Incomplete paraphrase is incomplete.
@sagghuoo
For those who responded to me later, the convo moved to the Thunderdome, where you can witness my epic fail of bourbon and insomnia. :) Also, I was off in the wildnerness (PERSEIDS!) Only popping in here to address what sagghuoo said in response to me specifically.
One of the things I got jumped on for* was that Pharyngula** comment sections are repeatedly subjected to Walls of Text that require a lot of parsing, and when some people don’t take the time, bring a cry of “But you didn’t READ ME!”
That, and WoTs are just sort of bad form in general. It’s not that WoTs can’t ever be used, but perhaps you should be more careful in when you use them. Being clear and concise should be considered an epistemic goal.*
*Rightfully so, after consideration and evidence/links provided by others in the ‘Dome, but I’ll just call myself a noob and move on. My experience with blog comments in general (let alone an intense community like this!) is limited, but hey, one learns by doing.
** I’m really tired of Pharyngula being flagged for spellcheck. Yeesh.
*** Note I’m still learning to do that myself. Three footnotes/postscripts? Fail.
@441
Apologies for being OT but thanks for the heads-up, this slipped under my radar, I’m going to try this evening.
@442: Sorry to continue the OT, but while some reports are claiming a peak last night, it should still be quite awesome tonight. I’m going back out again, I can’t get enough of BURNING SKY DEBRIS.
IOW, it was fucking fantastic. HUGE streaks.
Indeed, like Pascal said:
“Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.”
I only made this [letter] longer because I did not have the spare time to make it shorter.
I’m so disappointed by all that has happened here. Up until this point I was a big fan of Thunderf00t. Even when some of what he would say was entering sketchy territory, I felt that people unfairly attacked him. The evidence here is pretty damning, and I think I’m done.
It’s too bad because his Why Do People Laugh At Creationists videos were phenomenal. But yeah, fuck him.
I finally unsubscribed from Thunderf00t’s channel. I will support him no more after this. It makes me incredibly sad that he turned out to be such a twat.
[meta]
Heads-up, lordwindowlicker.
Outside pommyland, oz and enzed, twat is not a such a pseudo-affectionate epithet meaning foolish, certainly not similar to ‘twit’.
Yes, it’s so bleeding ironic that a group of writers fired another writer from writing for them because of something they wrote. Something like that would never happen outside of FtB, out in the real world where what you write has no impact at all on your career as a writer.
*headdesk*
This tired canard and banal talking point from the TF camp is getting pretty damn stale.
Let me ask you this: if FTB hired a blogger based on the fact that they represented themselves as an atheist, but they then wrote all their posts about how great God is and how awesome religion is and why we should all believe in God, do you think they would be justified in firing that writer “because of something they wrote?”
How about if a Jewish blog hired a Jewish blogger that then went on to post about how the holocaust wasn’t real and how great Hitler was? Would they be justified in firing that writer “because of something they wrote?”
Or how about this: if TF hired a blogger to write about atheism on his blog and that blogger instead wrote all their posts about what a douchenozzle TF is and otherwise spent all their pixels insulting him mercilessly, would TF be justified in firing that writer “because of something they wrote?”
If the answer to any of those questions is “yes,” please explain how it would then be “ironic.”
The bottom line is that TF was not simply fired “because of something he wrote,” that’s a willfully ignorant and purposeful over-simplification of what happened that is nothing more than naked apologia for TF.
Really?
re450z or whatever:
that comment was actually tagged as sarcasm and you still missed it. Remarkable.
It was only tagged if you’re reading from certain browsers. Safari on iPhones and iPads won’t show the mouseover text.
really.
That’s very interesting.
@450
That comment may well have been sarcastic but no, it was not “tagged” as such. That comment has no “tags.”
Looking back I can see how it may have been meant sarcastically, and if so my apologies to the commenter for treating it as literal. I did miss the sarcasm.
But you’re being dishonest in your attempt to insult me when you say that the comment was “actually tagged as sarcasm.” It wasn’t.
If you’re trying to insult me, you’re going to have to try a lot harder.
Ha. And those of us who get their comments sent to them as unrendered raw html see them as plain text.
you’re probably subscribed via email.
r3a50n, the <acronym> tag creates those little undercharacter dots, and text shows up if you mouseover it.
Erülóra Maikalambe’s “*headdesk*” had the mouseoever text “This whole thing was sarcastic, if you couldn’t tell.”
That’s what Chas is referring to.
And here I thought I couldn’t make the sarcasm any more painfully obvious. Hell, even without noticing the <acronym> tag, the “*headdesk*” itself should have been a clue.
r3a50n, do yourself a favor and never read The Onion.
I suppose the lesson here is (or should be) to never assume, because we all know that when you assume, you make an ass out of Uma Thurman.
I do now understand the “tagging” that is being referenced here and no, my browser did not read it (as PZ mentioned, if I look at the unrendered html raw text email, which I didn’t before I replied, I can see the tag there in the html code).
My apology to the original commenter stands (@448), as does my contempt for the talking point that was (sarcastically, unbeknownst to me) exemplified in that comment.
Further, my apologies to Chas @450, you are right that the comment was tagged, though I am unable to see it from here and was therefore unaware.
Mea culpa.
No problem. What matters is we agree. Even if he’d been canned just because of what he wrote, that’s a ridiculous thing to get up in arms about.
The other one that gets my goat is the whole “Free Thought” thing. “Freethought” is a word with a definition, and the definition isn’t “any garbage you feel like writing”. So to say that somebody shouldn’t be canned from blogging at Freethought Blogs because of something they write is equally ridiculous.
It is somewhat obvious in retrospect and I might have picked up on it if I hadn’t already seen similar comments being spammed by TF’s apologists.
That just goes to show the limitations of the written word, where there are no body language cues or audible verbal cues that can help to determine intent. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
I may be dense sometimes but I’m not that dense. That The Onion will be sarcastic is clearly understood before reading*.
*The exception, of course, being when politicians do not have that understanding leading to hilarity similar in nature to what I have provided here today.
Relevant.
Richard Coughlan has weighed in.
Ace of Sevens, that link is broken. Fixed.
I just checked the comments. Coughlan’s fans don’t seem much better than THunderf00t’s. I suspect most of them aren’t getting the joke here.
RE: 464
No kidding, even I wouldn’t have an excuse for missing the disclaimer directly beneath the video:
I notice that people aren’t addressing the fact that people from FTB were trying to get someone fired from their job. TF points out the frequent use of bold/italics and caps from PZ and everyone just ignores it, while using the accusation against TF as a valid reason to dismiss him. Unlike FTB members, TF wasn’t contacting people’s employers trying to get them fired. And before anyone accuses me of it, I am not a big fan of TF or of FTB, so I think I have a pretty unbiased view here.
Evidence or shut the fuck up.
Man, Phil Mason played you fools so hard. This is why you don’t deserve to call yourself a skeptic.
#466: look at Mason’s post again. He quotes an email from someone discussing whether it would be worthwhile to write a blog post about Michael Payton’s stupid tweet, and from that leaps to the conclusion that everyone was conspiring to get him fired. He’s a liar, and you’re a fool for believing him.
You may add my blog entry to the growing list of angry responses to Thunderfoot’s treachery:
http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/thunderfoot-vs-freethought-blogs/
Heh. Thunderf00t has lost over 3,000 subscribers over the past 90 days. Since this blog went live, more than 200 have ditched him.
http://vidstatsx.com/Thunderf00t/youtube-channel
PZ’s Youtube channel, though newer and far smaller than TF’s, has never had a “negative day.”
Gee, I just read Thunderf00t’s note, and he said “Secondly I DONT FUCKING DOC DROP“, so it’s obvious (using my skeptical insight) that he hasn’t been on his PC for a month, and someone else is signing onto it and accessing the mailings and distributing them to third parties. After all, what reason would Thunderf00t have for doing that? I suggest looking for someone with an obsessive grudge against FtB. I’m so glad I could help you find your culprit.
Okay. This really is bullying that is over the top, and I shouldn’t act so stupid.