This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Maybe.
Ok. Yes.
Thank you. Mmm, fresh Thread.
Recent comments look freaky
When I checked in this afternoon, all the Recent Comments began “AAAAAAAIEE!”. Now they all begin “The madness of”.
$ emacs -nw
M-x phase-of-moon
[My .emacs is 18 years old this year. Old enough to vote. :-(]
*need to break the cycle of madness*
I have a hard drive that could attend grade three.
(/… bit glitchy, tho’. Probably would have to repeat the year.)
Shit. I’m playing Presidential Debate Bingo.
Romney just said “$716 billion”.
One more square and I’m done.
I had to quit watching. Romney was giving me urges to punch my monitor.
I was just about to go watch it when I read Ed Brayton’s post saying that the consensus seems to be that Obama was way off his game, and now I’m afraid to look. Was it really that bad? I’m no Obama partisan, but President Magic Underpants is not an appealing thought.
Obama could have done better.
I didn’t see anything special from Romney.
Both could have done better, really.
I agree with SGBM that neither were very good. The “analysis” on NBC afterward involved remarking about how “energetic” Romney was, and how Obama needed to be more “crisp.”* TV personalities seem to have a hard time grasping that substance matters more than style, whenever they’re talking about substantive issues, assuming they have any ability to do so.
*No joke: for some reason the word “crisp” was used about once every two minutes from several different people.
I think Romney’s “energy” is about how much he ran over time, ignored Lehrer’s mumbling, and said a lot of outrageous bullshit about his nonexistent plans. (Seriously, what the hell kind of tax cut doesn’t increase the deficit? The tax increase kind of tax cut?)
Obama just needed to be less calmly wonkish and more crispy, tossing in the occasional zinger now and then that everyone would later call a lie.
For that matter, Lehrer was pretty bad as a moderator. I generally like him, but I have to question whether a news anchor is the best person to conduct a debate.
The good news is that Obama is most likely going to win, so it probably doesn’t matter.
People who frequent this web log have lived vicariously through P-Zed’s experiences enough to know that debates are just masterdebation for idiots that value telegenics and fast talking chicanery over substantive ideas. Luckily, I hopethink enough of the population has seen more than enough of Rmoney to not really give a shit about these debates, their minds are set. If you know what he or Ryan have shat out over the last two fucking years of campaigning, how does steaming crap on a plate look any more appetizing when presented with a used car salesman’s smirk and hair mousse? Anyone swayed by a debate at this juncture has to be from another planet or one of those clueless Kardashian/Hilton shitwits Maher alluded to last week. I just hope that population of shitwits isn’t enough to undo the comfort wedge that was opening in the Realclearpolitics polls. Last night Obama was one point short of having the 270 needed on the electoral college map. Not being ‘crisp’ (what is Obama, a fucking head of lettuce?) shouldn’t undo that, but this is the USA, after all. You can’t underestimate the power of dumb people in large numbers.
Yes it was that bad, especially if you watched the debate on CNN where the camera was trained on both candidates the entire time so you could see their unconscious facial ticks and behavioral reactions to what their opponent was saying. Obama came damn close to making a McCain-level fail in that respect by only glancing briefly at Romney when speaking and otherwise keeping his head down, his jaw clenched, and grinning almost sheepishly during Romney’s bolder lies.
I peeked at a few other debate feeds on YouTube and not all of them did the split screen view like CNN. The ones that didn’t made Obama’s composure look a lot better since he at least looked right into the camera most of the time while talking. But to calmly look your opponent in the eye while they are challenging you is imperative in these presidential debates, I think. Bad composure in a presidential debate is not forgotten for election losers, so now it is even more important that he wins. Obama not only lost the performance aspect of the debate and thus improved Romney’s standing, he also carelessly upped the stakes for himself.
Over on the “Well, that was a waste” thread, Lynna posted a link to a followup speech today.
I watched it.
I triggered on something I’d read in an anthology of speeches.
I googled.
[Obama:] The new Cicero
Speechifying: Analyzing Obama’s Oratory
Then I shamelessly aped it for this comment and blagged “tricolon”, “anaphora”, and “epiphora” for conversations in which I need to appear intellectually superior. ;-)
The speech.
Aratina, sounds like that explains the somewhat differing reports on the debate that others have given above. I still haven’t gotten around to watching it yet, as it’s beginning to sound like there’s no benefits worth the aggravation.
@Anne C. Hanna
If you discount the performance aspect of the debate, Obama definitely won for all who consider themselves liberal. Romney made some very dreadful admissions mixed in with his lies that might have actually turned progressively minded undecided people against him despite Obama’s lackluster performance. And you really do have to watch the part where Romney threatens both the moderator’s and Big Bird’s jobs! That is not going to be forgotten about Romney, ever. It managed upset just about everyone who cares about educational programs for children. LeVar Burton of Reading Rainbow went so far as to call it an attack on our children. Plus, Romney swung to the center (lied) excessively on this one, so all the right-wingers salivating at his debate victory are being absolute unprincipled hypocrites (duh, I know, but still). Maybe the best thing to do is find a clip of the best and worst moments of the debate.
On vileness,
and on personalities not being monoliths
First of all I have to apologize for my long absence. I didn’t intend it. While walking home that Friday night, I composed this essay (which I’ve now largely forgotten, I think), but the weekend was entirely taken up by trying to repair four Wikipedia articles, then came a conference that filled the next week except the weekend, which was taken up with preparations for the next conference (I’m leaving for Paris on Sunday). Oh, and, my US trip is coming up, too, and I’m not done planning it.
So…
I’m the eldest of four. Three of us used to quarrel just about every day. Our personalities are glaringly different, and we’re spaced closely enough (3, then 2 years) that we’ve more regarded each other as equals than, say, as mentor & protégé(e) – we don’t make charitable assumptions about each other, I suppose. And of course, having lived with each other almost all the time, we know exactly how to press each other’s buttons, and those buttons tend to be what we hate about each other.
The following will probably be difficult to read, because I’m trying to preserve everyone’s anonymity in a wide sense of that word. Singular “they” all the way.
So, one of my siblings easily gets aggressive. When that happens, they start to want to really hurt people, and I mean physically, in the short term, with no regard for long-term consequences. (It reminds me of what sgbm did verbally late on the last page; of course, I have no reason to assume that sgbm gets there physically as well.) Once, they threw scissors at, uh, one of us. Another time, they took a hand drill to another sibling’s sweater while that sibling was wearing it, making a hole in the sweater (no injury, fortunately). Once, we quarrelled, I got behind the kitchen door to protect myself and ended up ripping it out of the upper hinge trying to press it against them. A few months ago… that’s where another aspect of their personality comes in. Like one of the others, they’re capable of becoming “angry in general” as opposed to angry at specific people or a specific situation. I find that vile; the fact that this ability is so widespread makes it worse. – The one that doesn’t get so aggressive starts throwing things with absolutely no regard of consequences.
A few months ago, then, after a long and stressful morning, the one I’m talking about was angry in general and pushed me from behind – while I was standing in front of a staircase, looking towards it. I didn’t fall, but if I had, that could have ended very badly. Now, if that isn’t vile – no matter which way: actual desire to break my face, or not caring whether that happens –, I don’t know what is.
The thing is, I’ve spent most of my life living with that person, being around them every day. When not being upset, they’re very kind (seriously, very kind), very smart (and well-read, so there’s something to apply all the intelligence to), generally fun to be around.
The one I haven’t mentioned yet once spent three hours in the living room, crying and shouting “I must beat [another one of us]” all the way through, while that other and me held the room door shut from the other side. That one is perhaps not quite as kind as the easily aggressive one, but similarly smart and well-read, similarly good at teaching… and is the only one quarrel, a lot, with the fourth of us, basically putting them down for years half-jokingly.
All three of us used to play with each other outside, sometimes ending in the next quarrel, sometimes not. We communicate mostly in in-jokes and have a lot of fun that way, till the next explosion.
So, I’m used to living with people that have vile aspects to their personalities, and to generally liking those people.
(When one of them was abroad for a year, I was somewhat shocked in the abstract to find that I didn’t miss them. Nowadays I would.)
Next apology: the weekend will be taken up with finishing my talk for next week’s conference; my talk will be on Wednesday, so it won’t help much that I’ll have Internet in the hostel; I’ll spend most of Thursday on a train almost certainly without Internet; Friday is likely to be filled with bureaucracy; and on Saturday I’m flying to Raleigh. So this is a hit-and-run comment. :-(
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
Hi, Pete. Last time you were banned, I thought that was a little hasty, you might have continued to learn. Let’s test that hypothesis.
To answer your question about meaning and purpose… I try to stay alive because life is interesting. It doesn’t need to have a meaning or a purpose, whatever exactly that even means, to be interesting. :-)
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
Same thing again: I never tried to imply that it wasn’t insulting. It may have come across as even more insulting than I intended it; I did take it from Ms. Daisy’s title, and I’m not sure if I’ve used the word vile before at all. Still, I meant to point out in unmistakable terms that she has a personality trait I really, really dislike; see the essay above for context.
“Triggered” is too strong a word, but I was reminded of a so-far-lifetime of being accused of absurdities because of consistent misinterpretations, so I got upset at most of world and said so.
As far as I can tell from my experience, there is. That’s sometimes the only hypothesis that makes sense of human social behavior as I know it. It goes without saying that my experience isn’t a scientific study, and if it were, I could still be mistaken…
Because what came to mind was pretty far off topic. I’m probably capable of scary amounts of evil – but in very different ways: by neglect and laziness. I don’t think I’ve done anything major that way to other people (as opposed to myself), but that’s where I repeat my invitation to everyone to take my personality apart. That invitation was completely serious, and nobody has taken it up…
To be fair, Dante drew very heavily on various apocrypha that were quite old (says Wikipedia), the Revelation to Peter for instance.
In the later stages of the Iraq war, the People’s Mujahideen somehow reappeared ex nihilo and fired a few grenades.
Having looked up what that means, I wholeheartedly agree! :-D :-D :-D
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
What Rmoney did in the “debate” has been called a Gish Gallop. Obama should have hung out on the Internet more – I haven’t watched it, but apparently his reaction was exactly the one Rmoney intended: he didn’t even know where to begin, so he didn’t begin and just sat there dumbstruck.
4 screens, and I forgot to mention that sgbm understands me pretty well.
I found a potentially vile personality trait of mine: I’m judgmental. Introverted about it, so normally nobody notices, but judgmental.
@Anne C. Hanna:
In my opinion, it was much worse. How bad, exactly? Well, here we are two days later, and as I type this, I still feel physically shaken–a feeling which began to develop almost immediately and which only intensified as I watched the debate live (in Europe at 3am, on a crappy stream via HuffPo that did not feature the split-screen view that Aratina mentioned). There are a number of aspects about the debate and it’s potential impacts that I’ve yet to see mentioned anywhere, or at the very least, that I’ve yet to see discussed to an extent remotely proportional to what I suspect their ultimate significance will be. I think I’m going to spend some tomorrow morning (it’s GMT+1 where I am) to write and post a lengthier comment, partly to collect all my thoughts and attempt to move past this shock-induced stupor I’ve been in, and partly in the hope that at least one person who knows much better than I do will comment and explain why I’m completely wrong about everything.
For those who aren’t already familiar with it, the mainstream assessment which most closely matches my own (of which I am aware) is Andrew Sullivan’s; you can read his live blogging comments and watch a (slightly annoying) 15-min post-debate discussion he had at the links.
Ugh… its. I previewed and everything. Look at the state I’m in.
David Marjanović, one thing I’d say is that “vile” is a really, really loaded word. In British English, it’s the kind of word that’s preceded by “unspeakably”, and which tends to get applied to the really-really-worst kinds of things people do.
So, notwithstanding one nuker’s attempt to reclaim it, it’s pretty much not a word you want to apply to others. :-/
—
This irked me at the time, and I should have said something, but didn’t:
I think (thought) that “must” there was much too strong.
For what it’s worth, I’m (as far as I can tell) neurotypical, and I have many reasons to say things: to educate or amuse; to vent, criticise, sympathise, or empathise; to express support or disagreement; all sorts of different reasons. (And, by “reason” I mean “how I rationlise it”. Please have your paradox harvesters at the ready.)
Insult and flattery are two of the things that I try *not* to do, if only because the first doesn’t really work, and the second is just pathetic. My Psych 101 fails me. :-/
Ophelia Benson still bullshitting.
+++++
My comments there, in case she deletes them:
Nope.
I already linked the thread in question, back at #10.
I know what I’ve said, and I know you’re not telling the truth about me.
Link fail: back at #10.
Gotta have my Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/video/the-onion-voters-guide-to-mitt-romney,29764/
OK.
Sure. I should have worded it in a way that doesn’t imply awareness so much: that there’s a social component to every statement – no matter what you say, you’re always talking to an audience and (at some level) want them to take away a social message from it.
Sigh.
I’m massively disappointed in Ophelia. Not so much becuase of disagreement of arguments (which there can’t be much because she doesn’t engage in them) but because of the massive dishonesty in which she engages in this.
Seriously, the only difference between her accusations and Vacula’s whining is that she names us. It has some Kafkaeque traits to it.
Is there some reason this site appears in mobile view?
@danielhaven:
Gunners 13 Hammers 0
Headline: West Ham burns Boleyn to the ground after worst humiliation in stadium history
You haz a cookie.
Teh cookie is wpmp_switcher.
Nom teh cookie.
No more mobile view.
Anyone see Thunderf00t is on the slymepit and posting more information from the email back-channel?
http://goo.gl/L1nWg
It is about Surly Amy threatening to sue FtBs for 100,000 dollars for using her image.
Reported.
Aratina, hm, maybe you’re right that I should watch the debate. I’ve thrown it into my YouTube “watch later” queue, so I’ll leave it up to fate whether I get ’round to it before the election happens and it’s rendered irrelevant. :D
———
As for Thunderf00t… whew. It looks like that one might be from when he was still legitimately on the mailing list, but I had the impression that even people with legit access were still supposed to keep it private. He’s still nursing that grievance lovingly, that’s for sure.
FossilFishy? Polytextual motet? I got some impostors for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXTWembgpBQ
There’s a whiff of a vegemite sandwich. ;-)
Yes, there was footnote at the end of EVERY mail that you mustn’t publish it without consent from all people involved.
So, he still doesn’t have any idea about copyright, especially the copyright of artwork (I suggest he just tries this with Disney and then claims he didn’t steal the Mouse design and therefore there are no damages…
I do wonder about Thunderf00t, I thought every one knows he is Phil Mason? But in that post he even shows he doesn’t trust the slymepitters not to ‘d0x’ him.
I mean WTF? I remember from the email backchannel thing Jason T said the re-subs clicks had come from an IP in the czech republic or somewhere. Is he seriously paranoid or what?
Oh one other gem, in regard to ‘playing’ the game with PZ…
I nearly spat my tea on the laptop reading that! He thought his tussles with VFX were ‘playing chess’, seems he only likes to play against the terminally dumb. Maybe that is why he took PZs roasting him so badly, when you are used to that level of intellect it probably came as a surprise that his argument was found to be so weak.
That’s just ridiculous crap. I don’t believe you.
Nick: David’s clarification.
+++++
oolon: knowing Thunderfoot’s name would not trivially allow Hoggle or his cronies to attack Thunderfoot’s computer. Knowing his IP address would.
@SG
I am fairly upset at OB for dragging me in by name to whatever beef she has with other people who comment on her blog regularly for one comment. It feels massively unfair and IMO does show an utter defensiveness and disdain for disagreement or questioning.
I’m undecided about what it shows, but it is unfair.
+++++
Now she’s been deleting one or more comments by Giliell, and replying:
Normally I would be thinking “Giliell, you shouldn’t assume that something like this is explicable by the person’s age.”
But after seeing what Ophelia calls “getting called Islamophobic”, I’m left wondering whether Giliell referenced her age in any way. The comment(s) might have said only “your memory is faulty.”
It’s baffling to me, I asked in two places, to get horde take and hers and accepted both. I put up a thanks and acknowledgement of that.
Of course it doesn’t help that on that very thread she had someone doing exactly what I misread her doing…and sort of hurts the case that she’s not playing into some racist tropes
From other thread. Has anyone read “A Darwinian Left”? The main premise doesn’t seem to click for me. Leftists are the ones rejecting the idea of human nature and evolution? what?
lmgtfy
e.g.:
That’s right, he’s talking about (*gasp!*) the dreaded and evil “””Evo-Psyche”””!!! Run away!!!
I’m not surprised. That seems consistent with much of what he parro… writes in Practical Ethics. As I was saying on the other thread, religion has no monopoly – oppressive social systems will breed ideologies of oppression and encourage bad epistemic practices in a variety of forms. Pinker’s an excellent example, and apparently Singer’s another. It’s sad that he can see through it when it comes to speciesism, but fail to recognize the parallels and links with other oppressions. Sad, but not surprising.
I can also say fairly confidently that Singer’s understanding of Marx is limited and faulty. I’m sure I’d have something to add about his understanding of the standard social science model if such a thing existed.
Oh, I finished Created from Animals: The Moral implications of Darwinism. HIGHLY recommended.
Well, what I actually said was (when she complained that the comments I already linked to were too hard to find and that my directions where to find that link were not easy to follow) was something like (quoted from memory)
“It’s on the fucking “Islamophobia” thread, where I fucking linked to it, that’s not hard to find you’re not my grandma”
So, actually, the only person whose age I referrenced was my grandma. Who has never operated a computer.
I would generally think that telling somebody “You’re not 5, or 12, or 86” actually means that you think they are actually capable of behaving differently and that their age actually doesn’t feature in it.
The ‘standard social science model‘ is seemingly a bit of opposition jargon. Still, it’s consistent with my experience talking with social scientists.
Unless you know something about context that I don’t (which is quite possible), your jump to ‘oppressions’ looks like a non sequitur. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that Singer is promulgating sexist and/or racist ideas. It also looks like that jump was prompted by the mere mention of evolutionary psychology. That’s what it looks like–please set me straight, Dr. Epistemic Practices.
As I’ve tried to argue for years around here, the core ideas and hypotheses of evolutionary psychology are straightforward extrapolations from a huge knowledge base about the behavioral ecology of other animals. It’s kind of bizarre to see people eagerly buying into the “moral” implications of “Darwinism” but turning an (intentionally) blind eye to the behavioral implications, which are far more solid from an epistemic-practices perspective.
However Singer embraces evolutionary psychology, it seems to me entirely consistent with (what I understand about) his ideas about speciesism.
Put like that, it’s true – but it’s just as true of non-neurotypicals – at least, those who engage in more than minimal social interaction – as it is of neurotypicals. You wouldn’t write the comments you do here if you were not talking to an audience and conveying a social message to that audience.
Yes, so it would seem. If I were you, I would avoid this dishonest straw man and argue with what people are actually saying.
Your personal interpretation of your conversations with some social scientists does not a general label justify.
What are you talking about? I documented his promulgating racist and sexist ideas in the post I linked to just above. I know you’re aware of it because you commented – with that stubborn silliness that characterizes how you approach these questions generally – at that post.
My experience has been that PZ or someone else points to example after example of ridiculously bad evo psych research or unsupported evo psych arguments (the vast majority, if not all, supportive of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other oppressions) and you jump in to make some general claim about how this is “low-hanging fruit” or nonrepresentative or a bad example or whatever. In the worst case scenario, you’ve maintained that that ludicrous vervet “study” has some scientific value – a subject on which I stopped trying to explain things to you because your comments are going to last and prove embarrassing to you whether you get that now or not.
Broad statements about core ideas or extrapolations are distractions (and often misstated, as Nick’s setting Dawkins straight about his claim that evo psych was merely an approach to psychology that incorporates evolution, to paraphrase). We’re well past the time when these general statements, even if accurate, could be any sort of defense for the mass of bad science and unsupported ideologically driven claims that go under this name. The core idea behind the vast majority of evo psych in real practice appears to be that contemporary oppressions are inevitable and worthwhile. As such, it fits into the long and miserable history of racist, sexist, imperialist “science.” You would have a better grasp on this, perhaps, if you read Delusions of Gender.
It’s similar to the proponents of the brain-disease model of depression responding to devastating challenges to that model with the smug refrain that their critics are denying science and claiming the brain isn’t involved with our mental states. None of the critics they’re responding to is arguing this, but it’s a convenient way to distract from the flood of scientific challenges while simultaneously claiming to be representatives of Science.
Blather.
(And this is a typical example: people keep coming out – even when responding to specific, detailed criticisms or analyses of evo psych – with vague assertions about “behavioral implications” that have allegedly been scientifically established and are being denied or intentionally ignored. The only reason more people can’t see how pathetic this is is that it supports current power relations. And by the way, you have no idea what Rachels has to say about “behavioral implications” unless you’ve read the book. And there’s no reason to put Darwinism in scare quotes in this case.)
It’s not. It’s contrary.
And I have no idea why you would have put scare quotes around moral. Rachels was a respected ethicist – professor of ethics and author of numerous books and articles on the subject. “Eagerly buying into”? The book I linked to is a developed argument about these implications.
Hi, theophontes.
@Chas
Yes very cute. You know most people will notice that the first thing I did when the topic was brought up to me was to google it. You know what I can’t actually google but wanted to find? The thoughts of people here. You know, that’s why I asked people here. I know you have trouble comprehending that idiots like me might like to have a conversation with people where we can get a 1 on 1 answering or discussion of issues of contention or confusion but that’s why you’re rational and I’m not
Hi chigau!
@SC
Oh just for a FYI, thought I groused about off topic before I did find your comments on the animal rights on the dehumanizing thread interesting. I think an important point on ethics did click for me in regards to the argument that animals can’t have rights as they lack the ability to respect the rights of others; which if I’m reading you right falls apart because the capacity of one person doesn’t effect the moral responsibilities another person has towards them (for example you cannot abuse prisoners just because they broke laws, despite whatever they did treating them ethically is still your responsibility as an ethical agent). Did I get that right?
People are malleable. That’s a simple, observable fact.
Thanks for saying that. My initial comment wasn’t meant to derail. The concept of “fully human” is at the heart of some of the connections I’ve been thinking and writing about.
This specific argument (the response to what Kel might have been trying to say, though if so I’m not really sure how he thought it was a response to what I’d posted) is in chapter 5, pp. 190-193 (the prior pages also contain relevant material). (Just open the PDF at the link I gave @ #45.) The most important element is that “we need to distinguish the conditions necessary for having a moral obligation from the conditions necessary for being the beneficiary of a moral obligation,” as he says on page 191. (I agree with him there, but I guess I always pretty much thought that was obvious and never found arguments conflating the two to be at all credible. I hadn’t actually read that chapter yet when I was posting in response to Kel, but Rachels goes into more depth than I ever have.) Your example isn’t exactly on point with regard to his thesis, for reasons he explains there.
Gold, lead, and Play-doh are all malleable.
On the 19th day, the THUNDERDOME rested from all its work …
(By my math, SC’s #556 was day 18, and Chas’s #557 was day 20.)
shit…I should have gone with ‘Silly Putty’ instead.
@ cm
Have no fear, I shall soon hold forth in endless detail on some subject of little interest.
(We had so much hope for this thread. It was supposed to be filled with the screams of godbots and trolls. The bleating of flaming goats and blood and gore. It has turned into a slow-moving love-fest. Oy Vey…)
theophontes
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
@ chigau
I fart in your general direction!
theophontes
If you are so smart:
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
It snowed today.
@ chigau
*cough*
(PS: You are mentioned in the credits.)
theophontes
My gob is officially smacked.
chigau
How should we release this to the Horde ™ ? Do you think they will immediately capitulate when they understand the brilliance of our technology?
When Teh Thunderdome is declared capital of the Interwebz we can rule the world. {compulsory:} Mwahahahaha!
theophontes: My gob is smacked as well. Also, is the LOLstar going to feature anytime soon?
theophontes and A. R
I expect They™ will not understand this any better than They™ understood The Birth Of TZT.
It was so quiet in here I thought this WAS TZT. Except no one has yelled ‘kill it with fire!’…yet.
McC2lhu
how does one pronounce
McC2lhu
?
One mustn’t say it lest attention is drawn. Eaten last and all that.
See, that’ll just invite unnecessary suffering upon yourself. For decades now, I’ve been praying, chanting, ritually sacrificing Mormon missionaries, and *ahem* self-flagellating, to get Cthulhu’s attention in the hopes of being eaten first.
+++++
theophontes, I lol’d. The petri dish and all. You are a magnificent and fearsome creature. May brontosauruses fall (from orbit) upon your enemies.
+++++
This is a plug for youtube-dl, a Python script that downloads Youtube (and some other) videos as a .flv file on your hard drive.
Presumably this Windows .exe does the same thing, though I haven’t tried it.
More info here and here.
I dunno SG, different perspective I guess. I tend to the let sleeping giants lie school of thought.
♥♥♥♥♥
Christ, what an asshole.
Looks awesome.
That’s true; but it doesn’t mean that every comment of mine, let alone every sentence, is (however subconsciously) meant to convey such a message. Yet, lots of people seem to assume it does, getting angry at messages I have never sent. And now I’m 30 years old, and it still doesn’t stop. People keep trying to read between the lines when there isn’t anything there – a metaphor I made when I was probably less than 10 years old.
In other words, I don’t engage in as much social interaction as you seem to have thought. I really don’t. And this comes naturally to me – while many other people would apparently have to meditate daily like Vulcans to get there.
Now Pharyngula – The Movie.
The music in there is illegal in Germany. :-(
Trying to drum up business, strange gods? Shameless! ;-)
Not about anything here …
why do so many people make their first comment at Pharyngula one about how pleased or disappointed they are about something going on in a thread?
If We™ don’t know them, what are we supposed to make of their comment?
cm: nah, I don’t mix business and
plepharyngula. The author is Ricardo Garcia Gonzalez, who is not me.+++++
David,
I found a solution that should work for other videos as well. I used youtube-dl from an IP address inside Germany, and the downloaded file included the music.
I’ve uploaded it here. You can play the .flv file with VLC if you don’t already have something else that works.
Hey PZ
Have you seen the hysterical shitstorm surrounding the outing of reddit’s biggest troll Violentacrez.
Lots of mewling sadsacks moaning about Gawker invading the privacy of a guy who likes to post photos of “Jailbait” girls and upskirts.
Reminds me so much of the whiny MRAs. They’ve even banned links from gawker.
Well guess what, exactly the same thing happens to neurotypicals.
strange gods: sorry, didn’t mean to suggest you were the author.
But “downloading YouTube”? That’s even more network to sell!
—
I appear to be off my game. I’m gonna shut up now.
KG,
I seldom understand something I have read well enough to be able to state the author meant this and only this. As a result I am left asking for clarification, inferring details, or sifting through competing ideas. So, with that in mind, I will step into this. David doesn’t seem to be saying he is uniquely accosted by inferred social meaning, but that he is uniquely vexed by it’s occurence. Given my tendencies and expectations I don’t find myself sharing that complaint, but seeing it explicitly stated helps me understand some of my past interactions with David better.
Stop Press:
The “*” upthread was supposed to be a “.” for obvious reasons. (Though, as omaphontes used to say: ” An asterisk is merely a point trying to draw attention to itself.”) I trust my error has not led to any confusion or unnecessary anguish.
...
@ A.R (and other discerning movie buffs)
Sadly, no. (Although it will appear in the advertising poster! “Episode IV – New
HopePope“) I think you will enjoy the next part of Pharyngula – The Movie nevertheless. Filming started earlier today in Tsingdao. (The city not the beer.) ((though there was of course beer involved too.))@ David Marjanović
Now I am gobsmacked. (Why is that?)
@ SGBM
Cool. Though They ™ are not going to close it down and arrest the wealthy and opiniated expat mansion dweller who runs it?
Question for the Pharyngula commentariat:
Is it considered acceptable netiquette for a blog moderator to radically alter a commentator’s comment without leaving any statement that they have done so?
I’m referring to the practice of disemvoweling comments.
@ coelsblog
Are you referring to Teh Ebil Oberlawd?
If so, I advise not to piss him off. If you have anything off-pissing to say, say it here (but don’t be boring or it is off to the dungeon for you.)
coelsblog
How do you feel about baby bunny videos?
I indeed am. The practice of disemvoweling, with no indication of a moderator change, is one of a number of directions that this blog has taken over the last 18 months that have caused me to raise my eyebrows. Disemvoweling, leaving it under poster’s name with no statement of tampering, is effectively deliberately misquoting someone. Is that ok?
Do the squiddly tentacles of moderation extend to Thunderdome then?
Admittedly, I have a shitty memory, but I’m pretty sure disemvoweling is an old thing. Much older than 18 months.
Well yes, if you were actually trying to produce a load of stupid crap.
Let me FTFY:
Is it considered acceptable netiquette for a blog moderator to replace a commenter’s words with a picture of a goat without leaving any statement that they have done so?
LOL.
Bullshit! People don’t go around writing comments that drop every single vowel. It’s plainly obvious what happened. And besides, if you would READ FURTHER DOWN THE THREAD, you would see that there is a statement saying that person was banned or disemvoweled or whatever. Wake up.
No, it isn’t misquoting, as the context of the original message can usually be figured out. Usually PZ adds the reason for it happening. It is a warning to the original poster to mend his ways and stop being offensive or be banhammered, and to those who might think about duplicating their effort that such behavior won’t be tolerated.
Keep in mind, this is not your blog, and you have no say in the running of Pharyngula. That could get you disemvoweled if you forget that basic concept. Which it appears you have.
Yep. Thunderdome is very, very lightly moderated, but it is perused, and truly offensive material/posters have been dealt with.
Like this?
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/09/20/thunderdome-6/comment-page-1/#comment-460334
*badly channeling strange gods*
coelsblog seems to only ever comment here to whinge about PZ’s rudeness, personal attacks, and attitude, as well as to defend people PZ is unfairly attacking (noble, since he claims that he doesn’t agree with Sam Harris, but comes to his honour’s defense anyway).
To each their own, but some people have strange hobbies.
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/09/13/repudiation/comment-page-1/#comments
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/08/08/addressing-sam-harris/comment-page-1/#comments
So when is coelsblog going to come back here and acknowledge being wrong, that disemvoweling is an “ancient practice” online, that it is not misquoting or fabricating anything, that it is rare and thus unmistakeable, and that coelsblog was being tiresome by questioning the obvious?
I’m getting better at channeling sgbm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/19/back-off-people-i-have-permiss/
Aratina
It hasn’t been even an hour.
Patience.
vwls r vrrtd nwy
Sorry. My patience died today early on with the Stefanelli crap.
Really, how can coelsblog come in here grinding an axe, swing that axe and miss the woodblock altogether crashing the blade damn near into coelsblog’s own foot, and then run off sheepishly like we didn’t all see it happen? Get the fuck back in here and say something to us, coelsblog!!
o ey’re o.
Aratina Cage
I’m back, I was eating …
I could well be wrong on that point. I’ve only recently become aware of disemvoweling, though thinking about it now I may have previously seen examples when I just thought WTF? without realising what it was or thinking further about it.
No it isn’t. I’ve seen enough posters do weird things over the years that it is possible to be genuinely unsure whether it was the poster or whether it has been altered.
Banned =/= disemvoweled (at least, any equivalence on a particular blog might not be apparent to those not steeped in that blog). I’ve seen examples were there has been no indication of disemvoweling.
Yes it is, since the altered comment was not what the commenter said.
Nerd of Redhead
I’ve nothing against the practice, provided that it is clear even to a casual reader that this is what has happened (such as a statement in that same comment).
Nope, I haven’t. Are you saying it is only permissible to ask about netiquette on a blog you own?
Beatrice
Well I guess if you only quote the times when I do that then you can make it seem that I only do that.
Aratina Cage
Your wish is granted!
Yes, you COULD BE WRONG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling
And this:
Read what Chas wrote in #99. It is exactly what the commenter said, minus the vowels.
coelsblog,
I will change “only” into “mostly”, because you are right it was unfair to say you never posted anything else. It’s certainly one of the only (the only?) things you ever get into a discussion about. I’ve seen one post per topic on one or two other threads.
(No I haven’t gone through each and every google search result, I don’t really give that much of a crap about you, but there was a pattern in those I’ve seen you in)
You do like to take some serious time to berate PZ.
So, this was bullshit. Glad we’ve cleared that up.
Linky?
Yep, nobody questions PZ on how he runs his blog. You definitely don’t.
So comment on the topic of the thread, not how PZ runs his blog. If you don’t like how PZ runs his blog, don’t post here. That is proper netiquette.
Aratina Cage
Whereas the commenter wrote it with the vowels.
Beatrice
You are right in the sense that I tend to be inspired to comment when I disagree with someone — that’s just me, on all websites, not just this one. I tend not to do “I agree” posts, nor posts when I’m in line with many other commentators, since I regard that as already “done”.
chigau
For example https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/10/12/well-i-wont-do-that-again/
There is no statement of disemvoweling. There is a statement of banning, much further down the thread than the first disemvoweling. As I said, any equivalence banning == disemvoweling would not be apparent to all. The whole thing looks weird to those unaware of disemvoweling policy (which many will be).
Nerd of Redhead
So, for example, you have no opinion on how ERV runs her blog?
What exactly is the topic of Thunderdome?
What was that? I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
It is not HOW PZ RUNS HIS BLOG.
Nope, I follow netiquette, unlike you, and don’t post there, IT’S HER BLOG AND NOBODY SHOULD TELL HER HOW TO RUN IT, unless it is those sponsoring the blog. See, life is easy if you don’t try to control others when you shouldn’t.
Nerd of Redhead:
So, if a blog owner altered a comment — perhaps deleted the word “not” at a crucial place — and left it under the commentor’s name, and gave no indication of the tampering, then no-one should object because it is their blog and nobody should tell them how to run it?
Coelsblog:
I think you’re being rather dishonest. PZ warned oolon in that same thread before his disemvowelled hir. In fact, the first comment was by PZ and was a warning to oolon not to post in that thread.
Hi Tony,
I’m not objecting to the banning or to deleting posts, I’m commenting only on the narrower point of the acceptability of altering a commenter’s comment with no clear indication of any alteration. A little note at the end “[disemvoweled by moderator]” would make it fine.
Amazing how much your complaint has been whittled down by facts to this: “The bleeding obvious disemvoweling wasn’t explicitly labeled. Boo-hoo!”
coelsblog
Comment #1 in that thread is PZ telling oolon NOT to post on that thread or “you’ll find yourself occupying two cells in the dungeon.” That is “banned”.
oolon
iswas not a newbie and (probably) knew what this meant and commented anyway.As for those readers “unaware of disemvoweling policy” they probably scratched their heads and moved on.
—-
≠
≠
Yeah, but unless it’s explicitly stated, he could never know whether PZ did the horrible deed or the commenter was engaging in abstract commenting (free style commenting?). Or if it was God’s intervention.
One would expect it would be obvious from surrounding comments which of those things happened, but that’s apparently not good enough because… *shrug* some people just like to complain about totally irrelevant things
Aratina Cage
That indeed was my complaint, as first stated, and I stick to it. I’m not the only one who has been puzzled when first seeing disemvoweling, not realising what it signified.
And your default position when you see something on the internet that puzzles you is that the moderator/blogmaster/whoever is in charge is dishonest, lying, cheating and is a bad person.
Very interesting.
You’re missing the point COELSBLOG. PZ told oolon not to post. By posting, xe decided not to listen to PZ and was punished. Disemvowelling is a form of punishment PZ uses. He doesn’t need to explain himself to anyone.
You have a narrative; PZ alters and censors comments. So you are going to willfully ignore the fact that PZ warned oolon to not comment. In context, it is obvious why oolon’s comment were disenvoweled.
This act is a convenience for the commentators. Removing them throws off the numbering system and people refer to the numbers of the comments. It also shows that there was something that some people were reacting to.
But coelsblog has a narrative to stick to, one that allows for his whining. If dishonesty is needed to continue the narrative, so be it. Coelsblog has a higher purpose.
I was puzzled when I first saw disemvoweling.
So what?
I got over it in short order.
Now I’m fine!
We must support coelsblog and his context free whining!
Yes, Janine. We must because it is The Right Thing To Do™!
**I** support coelsblog! Who’s with me?
chigau,
You think you are fine. The trauma just hasn’t hit you yet. One day, when you least expect it, you’ll see a string of characters and notice there are no vowels and suddenly it will ll cm crshng dwn n y.
I thought the disemvowelled comments were deliberate, too.
But then, I remember magazine adverts from the early 80s that read “f u cn rd ths msg u cn b a scrtry”. (And Mrs M knows Pitnam, FFS.)
So, I learned something today.
Yet, I’m not upset about it.
Because, if PZ wants to make something offensive hard (but not impossible) to read, that probably helps make for a smoother-running blog. *shrug*
‘m wth y, rtn Cg. T spprt clsblg, ‘m nt sng ny vwls. Fght PZ’s trny!
Have you been to Wales? :-)
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
Nope, quite the opposite. My “default position” on first seeing it was “Why the heck is that poster writing like that? Is it some sort of statement? WTF?” — and that is exactly the point, the idea that it was done by the moderator didn’t occur to me at first.
No :(
I’d like to
Disemvowel this; hwylfawr.
Neener, neener.
If I ever go to Wales, I hope I won’t have to ask for directions to some place. Those names intimidate me.
Because the disemvowelled statement was the first one that coelsblog happened upon. And coelsblog was too stupefied to follow a thread backwards.
Or, as I said earlier, coelsblog has a narrative to maintain. And coelsblog is forgetting that coelsblog has been here before with equally petty whining in the past.
Fuck off.
Oh, shit Beatrice, I forgot: Slovenia. Don’t take offence, give me a half-hour to eat, and I’ll come back to you. Sorry.
Beatrice:
Oh come on, what on earth is wrong with Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwll-llantysiliogogogoch ?? Should be a doddle to anyone who regularly reads disemvoweled comments.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
What’s that got to do with it? There was no mention of disemvoweling either earlier or later in the thread.
So, coelsblog, do you make it a habit to just randomly read in the middle of a thread?
Given your history of whining in the past, it is much easier to believe that you have a narrative, one that I have already pointed out.
Fuck off.
(I love how that is a grade of troll who have to make use of the secondary part of my moniker.)
cm,
No offense. I’m not even sure why you think I might be offended.
If it’s because you didn’t know where I’m from I don’t mind, I have to admit I have no idea where you’re from either. Sorry. Too many people to keep straight.
(living in Croatia, but I’m a properly mixed Yugoslav kid so I’m part Slovenian)
If I started reading just at #136, I could argue that coelsblog is just a joking member of the horde.
Right, coelsblog.
And finished reading at the same comment. Like it just floated past you, completely unrelated to anything anywhere.
I see how that could happen.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
Can you read? I’ll repeat my last reply to you: “What’s that got to do with it? There was no mention of disemvoweling either earlier or later in the thread.”
(And no, since you ask, I read the thread from the top.)
oolon gets a warning in the very first comment and then oolon’s comments appear without any vowels. What a strange coincidence.
rrrgh
Is that in Wales?
Dumbassblog, if you fucking read from the fucking top, how the fuck this you fucking miss this.
Either your reading comprehension is fucking piss poor or you have a narrative.
And this is not the first time you have been around to fucking whine about PZ.
Fuck off, you pathetic little pissant.
There are only two people who can post a disemvowelled comment, the commentator and PZ. A couple of people on this thread have written posts either partially or wholly disemvowelled, but it was obvious they had done so. oolon wrote a post in a thread after being specifically told not to by PZ and that post was disemvowelled. It was obvious who had done the disemvowelment and, if certain people had been paying attention, why it was done.
My opinion is that coelsblog is feeling quarrelsome today and manufactured a controversy to amuse hirself.
I’m off to bed, bye all. Only two “fuck”s and only one “troll”, you lot are slacking!
Fucking stick the fucking flounce, you worthless shitstain.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
Ooops, my bad, seven more “fuck”s all in one go!
Janine, I didn’t miss it, ok? That PZ comment you refer to does not mention disemvoweling, ok? If you don’t know about disemvoweling then you don’t associate it with banning, ok? Clear yet? Can you cope with that concept?
Fucking liar.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
It’s not a flounce, I am simply about to go to bed, that’s all.
I hope coelsblog will be able to sleep now that the mystery of disemvoweling has finally been explained. Those must have been some restless nights, wondering about those strange comments. Why? Oh, why? Where have the vowels gone? It kept going through his head, with no hope of answers and sleep in sight.
That’s what you think.
mwhhhhh
Coelsblog:
Why the hell are you ignoring PZ’s warning to oolon at the very beginning of that thread? The words “don’t post in this thread” were expressely stated.
Fucking liar fucking lies again.
How could I have not seen that coming?
Tony,
But, but, disemvoweling!
No one expects disemvoweling.
It was such a shock.
But Tony, it is beyond coelsblog comprehension to be able to connect PZ’s warning to oolon not to comment and having oolon’s comment disemvowelled. Either that or coelsblog has a narritve, that PZ is a dishonest jackass.
And because coelsblog has howled about PZ in the past, it is easy to think that coelsblog is keeping to his narrative.
Poor, put upon little pissant.
Fucking typo.
Sorry, Beatrice, it was mostly a “oh, shit, you’re not from where I am” thought.
I grew up on the English side of the Welsh border. My cousins grew up on the other side. When it’s not raining, you can see Wales from my parents’ house. Of course, since it’s Wales, it’s never not raining. ;)
There’s a thing as you cross the border, though, in that all the road signs become bilingual. (Here’s a favourite.) So, the perfectly simple “Mold” (a not particularly pretty name for a perfectly nice village) suddenly becomes the somewhat-apocalyptic “Yr Wyddgrug”.
Of course, in Welsh, “y” is a vowel, so it’s not really mostly-vowel-free. It just looks that way to the casual outsider.
—
coelsblog:
It’s trivial for anyone who knows how it’s usually written, and pronounced. *raspberry*
That sounds like something yelled during a pub brawl.
I looked up the pronunciation of Yr Wyddgrug (http://www.forvo.com/search-cy/Yr%20Wyddgrug/)
When I try to say it, it sounds like a German person trying to speak French. Or a French person trying to speak German. I think the second combination sounds better.
This:
is not this:
is not this:
Thank you for trolling us today, coelsblog. It was fun. Do come back.
And now that I haven’t successfully learned a Welsh name, I’m off to bed anyway.
Good night all.
Where have all the vowels gone?
Consonants passing
Where have all the vowels gone?
Long posts ago
Where have all the vowels gone?
Trolls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Oh, look! Here is the standards and practices page about Pharyngula, where it tells you all about disemvoweling. Easily found through the top tabs.
Gewn Ni GorffenGorky’s Zygotic Mynci
Damn you, Carlie, I was just coming up with a “Where Have All the Vowels Gone.” Not fair!
Ysbeidiau Heulog-Super Furry Animals
Oggie – yours will probably be a lot better.
Besides, there are still a few more verses free. :)
Llanw Ucha Erioed-Cowbois Rhos Botwnnog
Cwmorthin-Mim Twm Llai
Where have all the vowels gone,
Long time passing?
Where have all the vowels gone,
Long time ago?
Where have all the vowels gone?
PZ disemvoweled every one.
When will trolls ever learn?
When will trolls ever learn?
That’s as far as I got. See? You were wrong!
Thunderdome: Celtic Invasion. I could get to like this.
Stereophonics – Vegas Two Times.
Where have all concern trolls gone,
Long time passing?
Where have all concern trolls gone,
Long time ago?
Where have all concern trolls gone?
Gone to bed, every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ev-er learn?
I was sticking to songs sung in Welsh, cm’s changeable moniker. Or I could start playing some Alarm.
Ovorbis
Where Have All the Whatever Gone has a bazillion verses.
Go for it!
Aaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww, I missed another troll stomp!
Ah, that better describes coelsblog.
fuck slow refreshing
Janine, I remember “The Alarm” (as they became).
They never had Kelly’s guitar tone, nor the chorus of “ooh”s.
I guess it’s a post-punk thing?
If I had a banhammer
I’d disemvowel in the morning
I’d ban in the evening
All over this threaaaaad
It’s a hammer of justice
It’s a hammer of freeeeeedom
It’s a hammer of truth, facts, science and rationalism
All over this bloooooooog.
If coelsblog is confused by disemvoweling, what about this?
(Sorry phone-people.)
Carlie #181, two thumbs up…
Do not say I did not warn you, cm’s changeable moniker.
I liked this song at one point. My only excuse I have is this, I was a young teen. And my taste quickly improved.
(Yes, I did listen to Rock Over London thirty years ago.)
Sorry, please ignore me. Mae gormod o gwrw fawr. Tan yfory. ;)
If I Had A Hammer
Neener, neener!
(I have no idea what Rock Over London is. I remember them on Top of the Pops. I suspect this will be detrimental to my street cred.)
I liked this and I was not remotely a teenager.
Twisted Sister
Where have you been all the day, Coelsblog my son?
Where have you been all the day, my precious one?
“On the net, dear mother.
On the net, dear mother.
Mother be quick, I’m gonna be sick,
And lay me down to die.”
What did you do on the net all day, Coelsblog my son?
What did you do on the net all day, my little son?
“Whined, dear mother.
Whined, dear mother.
Mother be quick, I’m gonna be sick,
And lay me down to die.”
What’d you whine about, Coelsblog my son?
What’d you whine about, my honey bun?
“Vowels, dear mother.
Vowels, dear mother.
Mother be quick, I’m gonna be sick,
And lay me down to die.”
What did the others say, Coelsblog my son?
What did the others say, my little one?
“I’m wrong, dear mother.
I’m wrong, dear mother.
Mother be quick, I’m gonna be sick,
And lay me down to die.”
What will you do now, Coelsblog my son?
What will you do now, my silly son?
“Whine, dear mother.
Whine, dear mother.
Mother be quick, I’m gonna be sick,
And lay me down to die.”
How were they mean to you, Coelsblog my son?
How were they mean to you, oh, unpopular one?
“They were honest, dear mother.
They were honest, dear mother.
Mother be quick, I’m gonna be sick,
And lay me down to die.”
(With profound apologies to Arlo Guthrie and Pete Seeger)
Rock Over London was a syndicated radio for the US market that was hosted by BBC DJ Graham Dene. It was on from roughly the early eighties through the early nineties. This was how some of us from the US learned of British acts that have not played in the US.
Top Of The Pops?
Even when that song came out, there was no way I could like it, chigau.
Strangely enough, I had to respect Dee Snyder and John Denver for being very good spokespersons in Congress when the PMRC were doing their witch hunt of the music industry.
Frank Zappa, John Denver and Dee Snyder. What a most unlikely trio.
Janine
I know. It was a dark period in my life.
—
Ogvorbis
That actually brought tears to my eyes.
Dee Sninder, House testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FbBpvoYKpc
.
Sninder? What? Snider. Sorry.
cm,
Ohhh. I was probably just too close to the trees to see the forest.
+++++
Dhorvath (in response to KG),
Or not even uniquely. But otherwise I agree with your reading. There was no suggestion that assuming social status strategery is something that
neurotypicalspeople without autism do only to people with autism.+++++
theophontes,
I’m not saying it has to do with this royalties case specifically, because there’s so many different legal reasons that might be the precise cause. But it’s probably something roughly having to do with German or EU laws about royalties.
+++++
coelsblog,
Simple question, easy answer. Yes, the disemvoweling of comments is generally considered acceptable netiquette.
Whether or not it’s okay depends on whether this causes a substantive misinterpretation of the comment. Disemvoweling does not. It makes the comment more difficult to interpret, but it does not substitute another meaning in place of the author’s meaning.
You give some comparisons below which are instructive.
Okay. But I think Aratina is wrongly assigning importance to whether it’s obvious what happened. Whether or not the process is obvious does not affect whether the resulting message is substantively misinterpreted.
Consider Chas’s “vwls r vrrtd nwy”. That’s one of those weird things, a comment disemvoweled by the commenter themself. Its reemvoweled meaning, though, is substantively the same as if PZ had disemvoweled Chas’s comment for him.
Okay. For the reason I just gave above, I don’t think such a notice is important. But, thanks for your opinion.
Personally I can appreciate what you’re saying here, because I tend toward the same behavior sometimes. But I’d like you to think about something else, which perhaps isn’t always obvious. Often when you see an argument where you feel your side is already well represented, and thus done, the people who were making your preferred arguments are rather exhausted — and could use someone else picking up the slack for a while, or at least leaving a few words of encouragement.
As it is right now, I have this notion of you as an idiot whose opinions I am not much interested in. I wonder if you’d comment more often, whether you’d then be wrong less often, and then I might be more interested. It’s a bit of an idle worry, this possibility that I might be missing out on potentially worthwhile comments that you ultimately decide not to write, but I regard the possibility as not implausible.
Excellent rebuttal. You are correct, and Nerd is wrong. If Nerd really does not have any opinion about all the sick, malicious shit that ERV has done — and I doubt this lack of opinion, but hey, for the sake of argument — it certainly does not follow that those of us who have a problem with all the malicious shit ERV has done are wrong to say so.
Here is one of the instructive comparisons. Deleting the word “not” at a crucial place would cause a substantive misinterpretation of the comment. This would therefore be objectionable, as it substitutes a different meaning for the author’s stated meaning. Disemvoweling is different, since it does not substitute a different meaning.
Alright. Well, basically I agree with Aratina here. While you may have been confused, it is not necessary to explicitly note the change. Now you’ve made your case. I doubt you are going to convince anyone here, since we are accustomed to the matter, we already don’t think it’s important, and we therefore are not likely to be convinced otherwise.
See:
+++++
chigau,
Yep.
Goodnight, coelsblog. I hope you got that out of your system.
CHIGAU, as a phone person, I am very offended! :P
theophontes,
I’ll try to remember to answer you this time.
The people who run it are probably not wealthy, but in any case, sites like that typically do not last very long. Like, two or three years maybe.
I like this one because it doesn’t have a fancy interface. Good ol’ HTML POST.
HTTP POST.
oh I am ashamed.
cm
Sninder Snider
Whatever. Thanks for the link.
I had forgotten that whole kerfuffle.
(I think that I should not forget such kerfuffles.)
wht n dt
NEW THREAD. Come on, let’s get some blood and gore flowing this time around, you namby-pamby blitherers.