For Crommunist »« The Police Must Be Protected

Now It’s My Turn

Well, you know you’ve struck a nerve when people start researching you. It happened with Rebecca, of course. Juvenile jokes were blown up into “crimes” in an attempt to tell people they shouldn’t listen to anything she has to say. Information about her relationship history was passed around. Years-old insensitivity was posted as though it had been uttered yesterday as evidence of massive hypocrisy.

Think of it as a nifty little combination of character assassination and argument ad hominem. A particularly insidious way of saying, “If you don’t shut up, we’ll shut you up.”

Rebecca hasn’t been alone in this, of course. PZ has, once again, had the false characterizations of the comments on Pharyngula brought up, as in this comment from Tristan that hit moderation on the discussion of whether to out Franc Hoggle (though what it has to do with pseudonymity or anonymity is beyond me).

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Greg’s seen some old shit brought up, too. Ophelia is apparently squeaky clean, but that doesn’t keep people from trying to hold her responsible for comments she’s already condemned.

Now it’s my turn.

In a way, it’s kind of funny. You see, they’ve noticed that I’ve said publicly that I don’t talk about my work. Only the person who decided to post my employer info apparently didn’t notice that this is part of my bio on the right there. S/he had to dig it up from an old interview.

Then either that person or someone else who wanted to hurt me the same way was dumb enough to click on the search results that led back to my blog, as though I’d post the information I don’t talk about here. I’ve known for a few days that someone was looking for this information (which isn’t hard to find if you’re willing to click through some search results) by the search terms that have led people here. Or maybe they wanted me to know, and to be afraid.

*snerk*

The problem with that is that where I work is no big deal. The idiot who posted my information quoted my reasoning for not talking about it: “The information I deal with is interesting enough that I see my work in the news sometimes, but ultimately, none of it is mine, and the clients I work with shouldn’t ever stumble across me online and worry that some of it might become public.” Me not talking about my job covers that; I don’t have to hide where I work. Not naming my employer myself is just part of not talking about it. Someone else telling the world where I work is nothing, because they don’t have access to the same protected information I do.

On the other hand, it’s not nothing. It means someone wants to hurt me because I’m talking about this. Not that I didn’t know that from the comments I get. A couple of jems that have hit moderation:

Munkhaus: But with you Stephanie, it’s just funny; it’s a glimpse into your tiny mind: not much going on in there, and what there is dishonest and bitter.

Phil Giordana: So, ms Glenn Beck, who are you to decide if there is anything exciting in my comments?

The question is how badly they want to hurt me. They can’t do it with their disapproval. Their approval would have to be worth something for that. They can’t do it with public information. I know what’s out there. None of it’s a secret. And none of my secrets are online.

On the other hand, these are the people who spent a couple months working Rebecca over. How far are they willing to go for little old me?

Comments

  1. says

    I would like to know if Melissa Welch is aware of the fact that she has been quoted using such profane language and such a guttural theme when speaking about Jason, as part of all this.

    Regarding my own “old stuff” I think you are referring to me complaining about white supremacists and misogynists … using racist bumper stickers, rape-threats, and putting black lawn jockeys in front of their homes … in my neighborhood. (I can turn my head to the left and see a black lawn jockey standing in a bird bath right now!) Having grown up as white trash (as it were) and having never really left that station in life (divorce is expensive and tends to knock one off the upwardly mobile path pretty quick, even if amicable), I can attest to the fact that if you are poor or working class you don’t have to be racist or a wife beater. But there are racists and there are those who have rape-threat bumper stickers on their big-ass trucks. And I complain about them. Melissa Welch’s husband defends them. Most of Abbie Smith’s commenters defend them (though I’m not saying Abbie does; I assume she does not).

    At least, Stephanie, you and I have not been elevated to level of mass killer.

    Oh, wait, no, that’s not true. I’m Osama bin Laden. He’s a mass killer! Yay, I’m in the same boat with PZ! Sorry, Stephanie, I guess girls can’t do genocide …

  2. says

    I am truly baffled that people engage in this sort of behavior. It tells me a tremendous amount about the validity of their position if their first instinct is to completely silence people they don’t agree with.

  3. says

    I’m a little jealous that they haven’t found a mass murderer to compare ME with. Stephanie’s a Stazi, Greg’s bin Laden, PZ’s Idi Amin, and I’m…

    Justin Bieber.

    Seriously. How is THAT fair?

  4. says

    The lack of empathy/active sadism that is apparent in so many peoples’ comments online drives me batty. I will never understand why random strangers feel that they need tell you that you’ve offended them, rather than just close the browser. It makes me sad that you are being targeted in such stupid ways for expressing your opinions. Thanks for keeping your voice raised above those who would shout you down.

  5. rob says

    Jason,

    There are a bunch of Canadian serial killers listed in Wikipedia. You can pick one of those. :)

  6. says

    Rob: true story, when Allan Legere (the “Monster of the Miramichi”) escaped from prison and made his way to my hometown, I scared the living crap out of my father by making a noise in the basement one night. Lucky for me he dislikes guns as much as I do.

  7. says

    Nentauby, the FtB back channel is really rather remarkable for cultivating quick snark (because, of course, none of us had any before that). Or am I not supposed to talk about that. Uh, oh.

    Also, whoever searched for that, thanks. I giggled.

  8. says

    Justin, I mean, Jason: It’s probably your hair. Go see a stylist, they can probably fix that. Maybe you can grow a little narrow mustache too, that could help.

  9. D. C. Sessions says

    Seriously. How is THAT fair?

    Jason, this is a Universe that operates on chaotic processes with quantum uncertainty. If anyone promised you “fair,” they lied.

    Lear to live with reality, my friend. If your lot in life is to be compared to JB, there comes a time when you might as well embrace and accept your inner Justin.

  10. says

    sigh. Oh Greg, now you bring my wife into it? Dude, I’m not gay. I’m sorry about the crush, but really, it’s just never going to happen. Maybe Justicar?

    But, since attacking me doesn’t work out so well, and let’s face it, you’re a bit of a coward, you have to try to play games with my wife. Who evidently is an easier target, since she must be more vulnerable, being a woman, and therefore in a constant state of fear. (For an anthropologist, you really don’t know shit about people.) Okay, i’ll play. First:

    I would like to know if Melissa Welch is aware of the fact that she has been quoted using such profane language and such a guttural theme when speaking about Jason, as part of all this.

    Findley. Her last name is Findley. (and yes, I did link her to this. What, you think I hide anything from her?) When we were married, she was rather clear about that. She has an art career built around that name. Not welch. Findley. It’s actually not that hard to suss out. Five minutes on facebook will find that out. I don’t have it set to private or anything silly like that.

    Secondly, “such profane language”? Shall I bring to you a fainting couch, and a sweet-smelling hanky for that incipient case of the Vapors you are about to have? My goodness. I know this will come as a shock to you, but really, not all women live in fear of bad words. She actually rather likes the word “cunt”. Not real fond of “gash”, but cunt’s okay. Her last macworld, she drove rather a few people into the fetal position talking about how my back hair wafts gently in the shower.

    Here, the bio she wrote for me on my site (it’s the mouseover text):

    John Welch is a tech writer, analyst, IT professional, public speaker, former president of a college Pro-Choice group, anti-Christ, and amateur guitarist. He was born on June 6, 1966 to Rosemary Woodhouse (he later had his name changed formally to Welch), and his father is unknown. He was raised by a kindly group of foster aunts and uncles after his mother’s untimely death, not long after his birth when he underwent extensive podiatry reconstruction for some foot abnormalitie. Later he went on to college to study writing, computer programming, public speaking, politics, abortion methods, abnormal psychology, marsupial forensics, panda-fileting, and underwater orgies—though he holds no major degrees. John is a frequent speaker and presenter at Macworld Conference and Expo, and has written for publications such as MacTech, Macworld, Information Week, Datamation, MacJournals, Home Sacrifice, Better Pits & Hellholes, The Infant Gourmand and GodlessTechnology.

    John is currently married to fantasy artist, Melissa Findley. They have no intention of ever having children, just lots and lots of sex.

    I dearly love that woman, she’s the moon in my sky. A blood-red moon, dripping with the blood of the innocent and stupid. So hot.

    And I complain about them. Melissa Welch’s husband defends them. Most of Abbie Smith’s commenters defend them (though I’m not saying Abbie does; I assume she does not).

    Isn’t it kind of sexist to assume a woman always takes her husband’s name? Actually greg, what we bag on you most for is that you talk shit about your neighbors when you’re right there with them, on the public dole to boot. You have no superior ground from which to speak, yet you posture as though you were Rich Harvard Professor talking about your inferiors. It’s the rank hypocrisy.

    it’s funny. You talk allllll this silliness about how you support women, yet you continually imagine them as being these delicate helpless beings who need protection. They can’t POSSIBLY use profane language. You must CROSS THE STREET when approaching them so they aren’t threatened. On and on. I actually find your view of women to be rather surprising in this day and age. It’s like you’re heavily vested in making them helpless, so you can white knight them. Clearly like your rather amusing view of my wife.

    but, facts don’t really matter to you Greg. You have your view of what women are, and as I refuse to kowtow to you, well, nothing I say counts or even CAN count. Nothing I say can possibly have any validity.

    Oh, and Jason? Well, it’s because honestly dude, you’re a flaccid little weiner playing the “nice guy” gambit. Beiber’s about all you deserve. If you spined up a bit, you’d move up to Celine.

  11. says

    Oh yeah. On the outing thing. Well, if you’re going to threaten to “doc drop” on someone, you kind of have to expect someone to return the favor. if you feel “outing” franc is that important, by all means. But to expect any return consideration once you doc drop someone, well, um…why would you expect that?

  12. says

    John C. Welsh: Oh Greg, now you bring my wife into it?

    I didn’t. You are mistaken. You brought her into this.

    Her last name is Findley.

    Got it. Melissa Findley. Sorry, that was a guess.

    When we were married

    Ah.

    What is a doc drop? Was that directed at me? Please define the term.

    Did someone out Hoggle? What did I miss?

  13. says

    Or I could be an actual nice guy with just enough spine to stand up to bullying. And since you’re so big on being skeptical of mundane claims, I can probably even provide x-ray evidence, as I just had an upper GI done this past Monday. Soon as I chat with the doctor and sign the forms, I’ll be getting the raw files for posterity. One that I saw clearly involved a spine. Plus, as bonus evidence, I don’t seem to have any problems standing erect. In either sense of the term.

    Waiting for the cries, by the way, of misandry to be raised against John C. Welch for “flaccid little weiner”. I know they won’t happen, but one could at least hope for a smidge of consistency amongst the commentariat in the pro-Hoggle camp.

    Additionally, how much information is necessary to “drop dox”? Did I drop dox on myself by using my real name on everything I say? I guess there’s some precedent there! Plus, it’s no “threat” when the guy in question is explicitly asking us to do it. We’re just discussing what the actual best course of action is, because we’re reasonable folks and like to talk things out even in the face of people like you who get off on offense.

  14. says

    For the record, Munkhaus is also terribly, terribly upset with me that I didn’t post his entire comment. The disapproval is palpable, if irrelevant. It’s also weird, given that the rest of the comment was a pointless insult aimed at Jason. I think. He’s not the clearest writer. But in case anyone thought it might be relevant:

    Ah, little Jason there, bless!
    When you ask people to provide you with information countering your position, they provide it, and you moderate it… I can see how people get frustrated and start their own blogs to counter some of your bullshit.
    But with you Stephanie, it’s just funny; it’s a glimpse into your tiny mind: not much going on in there, and what there is dishonest and bitter.
    Enjoy!

    Or maybe he did mean me. Jason, did you ever put him in moderation? It would be funny if he did mean me, because he’s never offered what I told him he needed to get unmoderated, namely evidence that Rebecca said something he claims. He can’t, of course, because it doesn’t exist, but he thinks his argument about something else should do in its stead. Nope. My blog; my rules.

  15. says

    No one has outed Hoggle to the best of my knowledge. Apparently Welch thinks I deserve people posting my information because I might post Hoggle’s.

    Wait, wasn’t someone saying something about thought crime?

  16. says

    Nope. DavidByron’s the only one presently (not even the great and powerful Zdenny is blocked any more!), and him only after fifty-ish abusive comments in a row.

    I think the first sentence mentioning me was a throwaway. Omit it, and the rest of the comment reads like it’s aimed at you, Stephanie.

  17. says

    Stephanie@21: Don’t forget “preemptive strikes”. Given that someone “dropped dox” on you before you named Hoggle (if you’re ever going to do it), it’s hilarious how inconsistent this crew is. They don’t even try to tie themselves into knots justifying any of it — they just pretend like it never happened and hope the memory hole covers their tracks.

  18. says

    Sigh.

    John C. Welsh: Oh Greg, now you bring my wife into it?

    I didn’t. You are mistaken. You brought her into this.

    Greg, i do believe you have a short-term memory issue. Here, from comment #1 of this post:

    I would like to know if Melissa Welch is aware of the fact that she has been quoted using such profane language and such a guttural theme when speaking about Jason, as part of all this.

    That’s um, your comment. Wherein you, literally out of nowhere, mention my wife on this string. That would be YOU bringing her into it. I did quote her…on *Abbie’s* site. I brought her into it THERE, (and she knew. Again, not hiding stuff from her. We’re weird that way), YOU brought her into it HERE. Here. There. Important concepts. Critical to humans. Maybe you should take an anthropology course, I understand they study that sort of thing.

    Also, just so there’s no doubt, here, the iChat I had with her about this. (including Kitteh name debate, which would be the actual important part).

    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2011/11/i_love_my_wife_so_much.html

    (jason may not want to read it. Nor laden. She’s rather unkind to them.)

  19. says

    It seems you’ve found someone uniquely suited to you.

    I’d ask her why she finds “gash” offensive, though, since she said words only have power if you give them power.

  20. says

    Jason –

    Seriously. How is THAT fair?

    Dude, they *FEAR* you. They know all about you dangerous, crazy fucking Canukistanians and are afraid to name you as a lesser evil – such as say, Hitler, because you might just go off and massacre whole villages and eat their infants – while dancing naked around a fire, drenched in the bloo….Well, you get the picture.

    It isn’t disrespect, it’s stark terror of what a crazed Canuck can bring to bear.

  21. D. C. Sessions says

    DuWayne, it’s not the dancing or bodily fluids that’re so terrifying. It’s the excruciatingly polite ritual warcry: Eh!

  22. John Greg says

    I have a couple of questions.

    Zvan said:

    “… he’s never offered what I told him he needed to get unmoderated….”

    1. Why should we trust that statement?
    2. How would we ever know if he did or did not offer you the required information?

    That is one of the issues when folks like you, and Umbridge, and PeeZus et al arbitrarily censor, moderate, and/or rewrite comments and/or ban commentors for arbitrary and ever-changing reasons: lack of trust, lack of credibility, and the appearance of intellectual dishonesty.

    And that is also why ERV (and Grey Lining, for that matter), as much as you detest, revile, and misrepresent it, is inherently more honest than Almost Diamonds, Pharyngula, Butterflies and Wheels, Skepchick, Laden’s hilarious mess, and any other blog that practices arbitrary censorship, moderation, rewriting, and banning.

  23. says

    Don’t trust the statement, John. Don’t assume it’s a lie either.

    You keep telling people to be properly skeptical. Do the same thing yourself: Look at the evidence. I’ve already told you Munkhaus needs to do the impossible to come back. Figure out whether it is.

  24. Tristan says

    Hey, I’m famous! :D

    Seriously, though: let’s spell out the comparison.

    In Animal Farm (from which the quote above is taken), the animals oust the oppressive humans and take over. Gradually, bit by bit, the pigs take control, introduce new rules, and eventually become indistinguishable from the previous oppressors.

    At the Intersection a year or two ago, there was an enormous kerfuffle about OMG WERDZ! Violent werdz! Werdz invoking violent imagery! … over comments of the form “fuck them sideways with a rusty fucking knife.”

    This was met with howls of derision from the Pharyngulite horde, who told Mooneybaum in no uncertain terms that words were just words, that nobody was actually threatening anybody, and that “fuck them with a rusty knife” was no worse than some of the lies and misrepresentations coming from the Intersection at the time. Furthermore, complaints were made about the heavy-handed moderation there, the willy-nilly banning of opposing voices (e.g. Ophelia) on flimsy pretence, and the equation of comments made at Pharyngula with the opinions of the blog owner (the contents of said blog being regularly referred to as a “cesspool”. The point was made (quite rightly, at the time) that since PZ almost never banned anybody (and certainly not on the basis of OMG WERDZ!) that this was utterly dishonest.

    … and the Intersection faded away into obscurity.

    Now look what we have here. The Pharyngulite/FTB horde, led by the blog owners (PZ, Ophelia, Zvan) who were the targets of and most vocal against Mooneybaum, kicking up a huge stink about OMG WERDZ! Violent werdz! Werdz invoking violent imagery! … over comments of the form “if I was a girl I’d kick her in the cunt. Cunt.”

    This was met with howls of derision from ERV (and various other sources), who told the FTB crew in no uncertain terms that words were just words, that nobody was actually threatening anybody, and that “if I was a girl I’d kick her in the cunt. Cunt.” was no worse than some of the lies and misrepresentations coming from FTB at the time. Furthermore, complaints were made about the heavy-handed moderation there, the willy-nilly banning of opposing voices (e.g. … well, too many to list now) on flimsy pretence, and the equation of comments made at ERV with the opinions of the blog owner (the contents of said blog being regularly referred to as a “slimepit”. The point was made (quite rightly, at the time) that since ERV almost never banned anybody (and certainly not on the basis of OMG WERDZ!) that this was utterly dishonest.

    Personally, I think the comparison is extremely apt.

  25. says

    Cool story, bro. Problem is, you left out the bit where people didn’t actually say, “OMG WERDZ!” about the accusations at The Intersection. Ophelia said that kind of imagery wasn’t appropriate. The Pharyngulites tracked down the comments and demonstrated how the situation was being misrepresented. Much like I’m doing now. Much like, in fact, plenty of other people are doing right now.

    Just not you.

  26. says

    I wish we could harness the energy that these trolls put into defending misogynist bullshit.

    We wouldn’t need any other form of power for at least the next two decades.

  27. julian says

    I am shocked to discover Tristan is making up history to support his position. Really I am.

    Actually, I had a similar response to the ‘knife’ comment. It did strike me as incredibly hypocritical… until I actually got linked to the threads and read through them.

    Greg, i do believe you have a short-term memory issue.

    When you introduced your wife to validate the behavio of you and your friends you brought her into these discussions. Sorry but you’re the one who went there.

    Personally I think both are incredibly inappropriate ways to approach an exchange where both parties hope to learn something. Family and close friends aren’t there to be used for points in an argument. It’s disrespectful to them and undermines any hope of having an exchange of views in good faith.

  28. Sandra says

    Munk says: For the record you say… that old broken record of dishonesty you keep playing, and turning up the volume.

    Yes, the first sentence was a throwaway, noting Jason’s puppiness, always running around his mistress’ ankles, barking like Toto.
    The rest was directed at you: you know full well that I responded in good faith with salient information and you decided you didn’t want that known. You seem to enjoy playing little games behind the scenes, moderating posts that make a point and then posting the ones that show frustration at your mendacity.
    Well, we both know that you’re lying Zvan, and I have the unedited/moderated posts that prove it, as well as multiple other examples.
    I realise that this post of yours is just an attempt to cover yourself in the mantle of victimhood, that you see it ambitiously as a way of following Watson’s path, and that is quite sad.
    [it's Gems Btw. And my comment "hit moderation" so unexpectedly didn't it!]

  29. Sandra says

    Monkhouse said:

    Oooh, that last post was via my lovely wife Sandra. She’s upset with all this.

  30. Tristan says

    I am shocked to discover Tristan is making up history to support his position. Really I am.

    You know, I bet you are. Because we’ve always been at war with Eastasia. Haven’t we, julian?

  31. F says

    She’s rather unkind to them.

    Well, since she takes your word while you misrepresent people, this is hardly surprising.

    Welch, you are a douchebong. Please leave those poor strawmen alone.

    Werdz Tristan, you obviously can’t see the difference between rude words and bigoted words. Do you like words such as “kike” or “nigger” as much as “cunt”? Because those all have the same sort of intent, and they all come from the same place. So, people will ask you not to use them on some blog comment threads. Recognize these sorts of words for what they are. They carry a different meaning than something like, “Why don’t you run along and play hide and go fuck yourself.”

  32. Sandra says

    Oooh, I found this posted elsewhere Stephanie, because you don’t allow full and frank discussion here.

    “I made a response to Old Greg and Zvanker for some reason saw fit to demand evidence of where Watson said such a thing. I explained that I wasn’t referring to Watson but of course this wasn’t allowed through.
    Hilariously she replies to you ” I’ve already told you Monkhouse needs to do the impossible to come back.” – yes, I need to show that someone said something that I didn’t say that they said, apropos of nothing.
    I know people use “beyond” too often on the web… you know, “beyond this and beyond that” but by Our Sweet Lord Jimmy Krankie… Zvan is a unique combination of beyond stupid and beyond mendacious. A slippery, wilfully deceitful, perfidious, unctuous baggage.?”

  33. says

    @Tristan

    At the Intersection a year or two ago, there was an enormous kerfuffle about OMG WERDZ! Violent werdz! Werdz invoking violent imagery! … over comments of the form “fuck them sideways with a rusty fucking knife.”

    This really bugs me every time I see it. Wally Smith as Petra began lying about how someone at Pharyngula threatened to assault her with a garden rake from the rough end. We asked for evidence over and over. Petra never provided a link because there never was such a comment. (I note that Justicar is playing this banal game with me right now.)

    But Wally Smith was not about to be outdone. So, he began searching willy-nilly for abusive terms on Pharyngula and, as Philip Jr., he came up with a bunch of quotes that he pulled out of context from any commenter he could find–trolls and non-trolls alike–and disingenuously presented them as an accurate representation of Pharyngula commentary. He also added multiple fabricated quotes that are nowhere to be found on Pharyngula and probably don’t exist.

    One of the quotes he listed was a quote-mine/modification of something a Pharyngula commenter had said in frustration with the a Catholic child-rape apologist–the infamous rusty knife comment. Wally Smith actually changed the quote quite deliberately to make it look like the person who had said it had advocated rape when in fact it says no such thing. The actual statement is simply an embellished “FU!” to Bill Donohue. M&K fell for Wally Smith’s lie about that just like they fell for Exhibit A of Wally Smith’s, because M&K didn’t care about the evidence and couldn’t be bothered to cross-check the lies Wally Smith was saying.

    So, Tristan, do you care about evidence? Then why not have a look at the actual evidence instead of blindly following two people who fell for a sock infestation? Go ahead and follow the links to those quote-mined phrases Wally Smith threw up on the Intersection and see for yourself how bad they really are:
    1) http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/episode_xxxiii_the_cock-and-bu.php#comment-2317375
    2) http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/episode_xxxiv_you_can_say_that.php#comment-2320421

  34. julian says

    I realise that this post of yours is just an attempt to cover yourself in the mantle of victimhood, that you see it ambitiously as a way of following Watson’s path, and that is quite sad

    victimhood?

    Ms. Zvan wants to be a victim?

    Your husband and his friends have been doing nothing but taking out of context comments, making huge leaps in logic and sending harassing messages, comments and emails out to those who complain about sexism and misogyny in the hopes of showing there’s a massive feminist conspiracy to keep men down and Ms Zvan is the one trying to play the victim?

  35. Sandra says

    Julian
    “Your husband and his friends…”
    What friends? Who are you talking about? Some people that have posted comments on the same blog as he? In that case YOU are his friend too? [and my husband isn't married]

    ” have been doing nothing but taking out of context comments”
    where?
    “making huge leaps in logic and sending harassing messages, comments and emails out to those who complain about sexism and misogyny”
    He has been doing nothing of the sort; he has been trying to engage in conversation with supposedly rational people only to be slandered, lumped in with other people he doesn’t know, guilt by association, and have his comments misrepresented (those that haven’t been deleted entirely because it’s the only way that this Mrs Zvan person can win an argument). Appalling behaviour!

    ” in the hopes of showing there’s a massive feminist conspiracy to keep men down”
    Where do you get this from?! What a bizarre statement!

    ” and Ms Zvan is the one trying to play the victim?”
    It appears so. Let’s have a look:

    Mrs Zvan: “It happened with Rebecca of course”
    “Now it’s my turn”
    “It means someone wants to hurt me”
    “The question is how badly they want to hurt me.”
    “How far are they willing to go for little old me?”

    And she brings my husband into this nonsense! And accuses him of “working over” this Rebecca character, when all he has done is voice an opinion. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

  36. says

    Come off it, Sandra. Dan Baker is the one who ought to be ashamed. And spare us the “all he did was voice an opinion” crap! Do him a favor and get him a mirror.

  37. julian says

    It appears so. Let’s have a look:

    Yes, let’s have a look. Ms. Zvan is having her personal information being searched and dragged up by people looking to mock and sneer at her. She begins her post by mentioning she isn’t alone in this. And brings up two comments made by posters on her blog that illustrate how deep the contempt for her runs.

    For this, you are accusing her of playing the victim, unfairly trying to slander and bring Munkhaus into the discussion and of pretty much being hysterical. Why?

    He has been doing nothing of the sort; he has been trying to engage in conversation with supposedly rational people only to be slandered

    No he hasn’t. Even if his every post thus far hadn’t reeked of that sneering attitude of his, he’s gone out of his way to ignore counterpoints raised against him and stuck almost exclusively to DavidByron style trolling alongside Tristan (raise a point, ignore all arguments made to counter it, restate same flawed argument, ignore all new challenges made to it, accuse everyone of refusing to engage his points all with a decent helping of smug condescending obnoxiousness).

    Where do you get this from?! What a bizarre statement!

    His commentary of the previous E-gate challenges. Your husband is far from clean.

    those that haven’t been deleted entirely because it’s the only way that this Mrs Zvan person can win an argument

    Oh save it. I’ve had comments deleted. Many of Ms. Zvan’s supporters have had comments deleted or been put into moderation. She tends to frown upon trolling regardless of who’s doing it especially when it’s successfully side tracking the conversation she’s trying to have.

  38. Tristan says

    @Aratina: Gawd, where to start?

    Perhaps with the laughable Pharyngula Wiki, and its blatant, numerous quote mines of Phil Giordana. Quote mines which “weren’t” quote mines since they linked to the head of a 2000-comment page containing them, and their context… somewhere… Quote mines, many of which, stripped of context, were still obviously sarcastic and/or light-hearted ribbing between friends, beng transparently twisted to the miner’s purpose. Quote mines which were reverted any time anyone attempted to edit them, and remained up despite repeated requests for their removal. Quote mines that were eventually disappeared under the rationale that Phil was “not notable enough”, with never an acknowledgement that they were in fact quote mines (let alone an apology).

    But that doesn’t count, does it? Phil’s just a lousy MRA, and obviously deserves it.

    Or we could look to Ophelia. Ophelia, whose (legitimate) cause for complaint during the Intersection/Tom Johnson saga was that she had been banned from the Intersection on flimsy pretences, and so wasn’t able to answer the various nastiness and falsehoods thrown at her there, by blog owner and commenters alike. Ophelia who, like our esteemed hostess here, appears to have developed a nasty habit of banning people specifically to get the last word.

    But again that’s different, isn’t it. I mean, Ophelia and Zvan are people you agree with and respect, right? And the people banned were all people you disagreed with, right? So nothing could possibly be wrong there…

    Or there’s PZ. PZ who, not so long ago, prided himself on his free speech credentials. On the rough-and-tumble atmosphere of his comment sections due to his policy of not banning anyone. Who couldn’t be held reponsible for comments on his blog because he didn’t pick and choose what he let through. Whose ban list has been growing exponentially ever since.

  39. julian says

    I love how Tristan, since he’s been shown to be completely wrong about the knife thing, is shifting attack plans. He doesn’t care if his examples actually carry any water so long as something sticks. Geez, you’d think he’d at least admit to being wrong about that but whatever.

    Whose ban list has been growing exponentially ever since.

    No it hasn’t. The number of folks banned at pharyngula hasn’t seen an uptake even if you exclude the fact after the move to FtB everyone (with the exceptions of Mabus and JJ Ramsey, I believe) was ‘paroled.’

    Ophelia who, like our esteemed hostess here, appears to have developed a nasty habit of banning people specifically to get the last word.

    There’s a stark difference. Tom Johnson was essentially libeling her at the Intersection without being challenged. You all were constantly referring to OB as a cunt and bitch for no other reason than to see what damage you could do and your loving compatriots have a well documented history of devolving into what Ms. Benson considers misogynistic speech. Why then, should she not censor your comments on her blog?

    Phil’s just a lousy MRA, and obviously deserves it.

    So you missed the epic argument at pharyngula about the wiki and who they included in it, why and whether they weren’t being hypocritical or using it just to get back at ‘trolls?’

    Phil Giordana, like DavidByron, Justicar and pornalysis, deserves whatever scorn gets tossed at him.

  40. says

    What friends? Who are you talking about? Some people that have posted comments on the same blog as he?

    Yeah, your friends, Munkhaus. The people you run to for sympathy when you get none here or at Ophelia’s.

    He has been doing nothing of the sort; he has been trying to engage in conversation with supposedly rational people

    You’ve done nothing of the sort. You’ve repeatedly refused to engage with the topic at hand, spewing insults instead.

    And she brings my husband into this nonsense! And accuses him of “working over” this Rebecca character, when all he has done is voice an opinion.

    What you said, Munkhaus, was:

    You realise that looking at my profile is “scientology level” stalking according to Watson and her toads?

    which you now say wasn’t about Rebecca because you can’t back it up, despite the fact that you used her name. And your response to me calling that a baldfaced lie?

    Atwatina Cage says: “contacts you out of the blue”

    Yeah, heaven forbid that anyone actually interact on trending topics on Twitter!! <– (two exclamations!)

    Zvan? Baldfaced lying? "Their tactics? Scientologist-level private investigation" said Watson about someone looking at her Myspace profile. Take back that lying barb please.

    But if we´re on the subject of baldfaced lying this: " but in the UK, we’re down to basically “Dick” for common choices. So that was what I used." by one S Zvan is a perfect example.

    Now, stop bullshitting please, you`re oppressing me.

    Now, who is playing the victim? Don’t bother to answer. It will just be deleted, and you can go whine to your friends about that.

  41. says

    Quote mines which “weren’t” quote mines since they linked to the head of a 2000-comment page containing them, and their context… somewhere…

    How old are you, 7?
    But I would assume that most 7 yo are totally aware and capable of using a text-search.
    So, whyt was your argument again?

    Atwatina?
    *lol*
    You don’t know how funny that actually is, on a meta-level (calling women “twat” isn’t). Thank you for proving everybody elses point.

  42. says

    @Tristan

    @Aratina: Gawd, where to start?

    Gawd doesn’t exist is a good place to start.

    Perhaps with the laughable Pharyngula Wiki, and its blatant, numerous quote mines of [blah blah blah blah] Phil Giordana. [...]
    But that doesn’t count, does it? Phil’s just a lousy MRA, and obviously deserves it.

    I really don’t care. I have not interacted with Phil Giordana at all and haven’t read but one or two things he has written that, quite frankly, bored me. Sorry, what happened to him at Pharynguwiki isn’t the same as being suckered by a bunch of dirty socks.

    Or we could look to Ophelia. Ophelia, whose (legitimate) cause for complaint during the Intersection/Tom Johnson saga was that she had been banned from the Intersection on flimsy pretences, and so wasn’t able to answer the various nastiness and falsehoods thrown at her there, by blog owner and commenters alike. Ophelia who, like our esteemed hostess here, appears to have developed a nasty habit of banning people specifically to get the last word.

    Censoring specific comments and/or commenters is entirely the blog owner’s perogative. It wasn’t right of M&K, of course, because Ophelia was being critical not nasty. And she isn’t a small fish. But whatever, it still was M&K’s blog and not Ophelia’s and we all recognized that; it just made responding to Wally Smith difficult. (I was banned at M&K’s blog too. My comments were never even published AFAIK!) Anyway, take a good hard look at just who is being nasty here. Who is parroting Wally Smith? *cough*

    But again that’s different, isn’t it. I mean, Ophelia and Zvan are people you agree with and respect, right?

    Yes. I agree with them on most things. I probably agree with you on most things, too, just not your Elevatorgate position.

    And the people banned were all people you disagreed with, right?

    No. Actually, we don’t know if people are banned or just being moderated on this particular topic. Again, that is for the blog owner to decide. But still, the reason people’s comments are being moderated right now on this and other pro-Watson blogs is not because the comments are critical.

    So nothing could possibly be wrong there…

    And yet, here I am, responding to your comment. Weird.

    Or there’s PZ. PZ who, not so long ago, prided himself on his free speech credentials. On the rough-and-tumble atmosphere of his comment sections due to his policy of not banning anyone. Who couldn’t be held reponsible for comments on his blog because he didn’t pick and choose what he let through. Whose ban list has been growing exponentially ever since.

    I don’t find any of your statements in that paragraph true. PZ has had to reiterate many times to regulars that he and he alone decides when to ban someone. It’s still rough and tumble there, but he does kick people out if they are trolling or overly obsessive on some annoying point AFAICT. And the dungeon has hardly grown exponentially; it gets fuller over time, but not at that rate. Let’s see if I can’t make it easier to understand:
     
    You and you alone are responsible for what you write in the comments on other people’s blogs. Blog owners have complete editorial control over what is printed on their blogs but are not responsible for any single comment left on their blogs by other people. Blog owners are responsible for the comments they write and for the climate they shape in their comment threads.
     
    How about that? I think that should clear it all up for you. Everything from Svan to Ophelia to PZ to ERV to Andrew Sullivan.

  43. says

    This is interesting simply because it is a good example of how commenters can misunderstand their role:

    Zvan said:

    “… he’s never offered what I told him he needed to get unmoderated….”

    1. Why should we trust that statement?
    2. How would we ever know if he did or did not offer you the required information?

    Apparently, Stephanie, the blogger at this blog, needed to see something from whomever this refers to. She did not see it. End of story.

    But John G has a different opinion; He clearly feels that HE is in a better position than Stephanie to interpret what Stephanie has asked for, decide if the commenter in question provided it, then decide what to do. Or perhaps he feels that all of us reading this blog should play a role. Whatever. It is very wrong and a very good example of what happens when a cult-like group forms and starts to feel that they have a special understanding of how life is suppose to work and a special privilege to decide for others what they should be doing and not doing.

  44. Concerned says

    Zvan orginally said “Actually, M**khaus, you can come out of moderation if you can point to where Rebecca said Stef was “probably a rape apologist,””
    To which he replied:”I was replying to Laden there, in reference to the g+ chat, not quoting Watson, although that was what she was implying. One of his crew (a Woozle Staden) said:
    “It’s possible that Stef might have defended RW under those circumstances — i.e. if RW had in fact been raped — but given how completely Stef had apparently bought into the patriarchal party-line (‘there’s something wrong with you if you’re objecting to a man being interested in you under any circumstances at all, even when you’ve already said you’re tired’), it seems more likely that Stef would follow the rape apologist party-line too (rape-apologism being part of the patriarchal value system)”

    There… that had Watson been raped, Stef would probably not have defended her. WTactualF. There’s a smear for you Stephanie. Laden refused to condemn it or even comment on it despite being asked several times. I took that as a tacit endorsement. Perhaps you agree with it too?”

    Now Zvan switches and says she was talking about this:
    “What you said, M**khaus, was:

    You realise that looking at my profile is “scientology level” stalking according to Watson and her toads?

    which you now say wasn’t about Rebecca because you can’t back it up, despite the fact that you used her name.”

    To which he responded: “Their tactics? Scientologist-level private investigation” [from Watsons 'Mom, don't read this' whine. Watson was talking about people looking at her Myspace profile]”

    These reponses are already known to Zvan… she didn’t let them through purposefully to be deceitful. She now admits it was her that called M**nkhaus a baldfaced liar and not the reverse, and when he presented the quote from Watson she stepped on it.
    Step back y’all and really look at her tactics in obfuscation here. No matter whom you agree with, this is just a poor show. Wilful dishonesty and misrepresentation is no way to behave for a supposed skeptic.

  45. says

    Actually, Munkhaus, this is what I get for giving you another opportunity to get out of moderation–confused. In a few hundred comments and half dozen names from you, that’s going to happen. Poor dear. Nonetheless, Watson still didn’t say anything like “Clicking on the profile of a Twitter user who sent you an unsolicited tweet is Scientologist-level private investigation.” The link at the top of this post go to her post on the topic. People can see for themselves what she’s talking about and how baldfaced your lies are.

    Now, I’ve already told you several times that you are not welcome on this blog. Stop leaving comments under any name. Stop contacting me. Leave me alone.

  46. D. C. Sessions says

    Jason’s puppiness, always running around his mistress’ ankles, barking like Toto.

    Jason, congratulations. You’ve made it out of the Justin Bieber (no) class and are now being compared to a reasonably decent band.

  47. says

    John would like us all to know that we’re still all terribly untrustworthy. Not one word about having looked at any evidence, though. I don’t think I can let such a nonskeptical comment through, I’m afraid, particularly when its author hasn’t even tried to do what he needs to do to get out of moderation on another thread.

  48. says

    Laden refused to condemn it or even comment on it despite being asked several times. I took that as a tacit endorsement. Perhaps you agree with it too?”

    A little advice: Don’t assume you know what is in my head. I have no recollection of this senario you describe. Most likewise I was busy or ignoring it. You are taking a very large risk assuming you know what I’m thinking, what I endorse, what I do not endorse, based on me not providing an indication of anything.

    In fact, you have to be kind of stupid to do that. Willfully stupid, I suppose, in this case (which is much much worse than just being stupid).

    Thank you for your concern, though.

  49. Tristan says

    Gilleil @50 (barring further… erm, “editorial decisions”):

    “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

    (Darwin 1872)

    What, you say that’s a quote mine, and taken out of context?

    How old are you, 7?
    But I would assume that most 7 yo are totally aware and capable of using Google.
    So, whyt [sic] was your argument again?

    Seriously, you know damned well that quote mining relies in its entirety on people not taking the time to check the veracity of every quote.

    But it’s ok, isn’t it? Your ass is covered because you provided a link to the vague vicinity of the context. If someone gets the “wrong” interpretation because they’re too lazy to go and find the full story, well… that’s not your fault, is it?

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I mean, if a large proportion of your group is made up of people who’ve broken away from strongly religious beginnings, well… old habits are hard to break, I guess.

  50. says

    Tristan, that is a quote mine because it changes the meaning of what was said in a radical way. That is what differentiates between a quote and a quote mine. Did you want to demonstrate that any of of Phil’s meanings were changed significantly by being taken out of context, or are you just trusting that this happened the way you trusted Wally Smith?

  51. Tristan says

    Stephanie@62:

    Well, to do that is a bit difficult now that the post has been taken down. However, there was one that really stuck in my mind. If I recall correctly, it went something like this:

    Phil Giordana on relationships:

    I wouldn’t mind sexualizing and objectifying you in any vertical or horizontal means of transportation.

    Looks like a rather nasty and unacceptable attack, no?

    In context:

    Bluharmony @1170:Since you’re quite the hottie (with a reached max friends limit on facebook, such a shame), I wouldn’t mind sexualizing and objectifying you in any vertical or horizontal means of transportation, as you see fit.Or I could ask you for coffee. Along with my girlfriend. Who likes to talk, as I do.ya know…

    … to anyone with the reading comprehension of a mildly retarded porcupine, it’s a sarcastic joke between friends, understood by both of them and most of those reading along as making light of the situation.

    Classic quote mine. And having followed through the whole saga fairly closely, imho most of the other quotes there were cut of the same motheaten cloth.

  52. Tristan says

    … and the blog software sanitized out all my <br> tags in that quote. Just when I learn to work around the Scienceblogs buggy commenting, …

  53. says

    julian: speaking of scorn, it seems you are quite a drunk, according to what you have written at Abbie Smith’s blog. You, too, deserve whatever scorn comes your way–except that you have no ‘way’ other than feeding rapeflation over here.

    Why don’t you get your own blog, so we can talk about you there? Or–don’t you have anything important to say about anything?

    Stephanie: I left a comment at Jason’s blog @44 http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/11/08/the-case-against-outing-franc-hoggle/#comment-28201

    Do you really believe that you got DOX’ed over at Abbie’s or is that just rapeflation? Because of you did, I would imagine that you would do what the adults everywhere do: write her a nice e-mail, and ASK HER the source.

    That’s how adults handle things like that, right? Or, am I missing something…

  54. julian says

    speaking of scorn, it seems you are quite a drunk, according to what you have written at Abbie Smith’s blog.

    meh

    I’m not as bad as some but yeah I enjoy a drink. Was there a point to that?

  55. julian says

    @Tristan

    If that is the honest to Cthullu best example of quote mining you have, you may want to drop the accusation. That’s not a quote mine. It doesn’t give the opposite intention of what the speaker believes or wrote. It isn’t even malicious.

  56. says

    julian: was there a point in anything you have ever said to me on Staphanie’s blog? Everyone’s established that you are just flame bait. You’re like “Raging Bee Lite”.

    O.K., so, then let’s just avoid each other, k?

    Greg: for whatever it’s worth, I left a comment at Abbie Smith’s blog for you, and I hope it pisses you off.

  57. Stacy says

    Ben Zvan, this:

    my husband isn’t married

    was pretty funny too.

    And that iChat between Welch and his wife was hilarious.

    Seriously, the bloggers here need to do a collective “I Get Email” feature like PZ’s, as was suggested on Steph’s last Elevatorgate post.

    We need to point and laugh at these guys. They’re laughing at us, but they’re inept, and lack self-awareness. We’re smarter and have got a hell of a lot more material.

  58. Stacy says

    –Except, “I Get Comments”. Combined with “I Get Email” and “I Get Links to Other People’s Blogs”.

  59. says

    Greg: for whatever it’s worth, I left a comment at Abbie Smith’s blog for you, and I hope it pisses you off.

    Ever since I found out I was being repressed over there by Abbie herself I became ensaddened and can’t bring myself to go over there again.

    Why would you want to piss me off?

  60. says

    Why yes I did, Greg, thanks for asking. Two very clean neck shots in rapid succession. They dropped like wet sacks of meat.

    Seriously? Excellent. The take has been really down this year because of the wind over the opener.

  61. says

    I like the igetemail blog idea. Whatever proceeds it garnered could be put into some sort of mental health endowment. Maybe we could build a hospital wing or something.

  62. Stacy says

    Why would you want to piss me off?

    The motivation there is the same as Welch’s “oooh, what my totally not made-of-rubber wife said about YOU” yesterday. He just wants you to read whatever he wrote.

    They hope they’re hurting your sensitive-man feelings. They think they’re edgy. Mostly, though, they’re just dying for attention.

  63. says

    “Why would you want to piss me off?”

    Well, truthfully, you are quite funny when you’re worked up over something. And you write better too.

    Then, selfishly, I think it’s brutally disingenuous how you have that dome full of smarts, full of all those facts about anthro and evo, and you waste it to pot-shot at male survivors of rape. Maybe you could put that anger, or snark to good use on the prison industrial complex.

    And you aren’t banned at Abbie Smith’s blog. She doesn’t ban people, or edit their comments into or out of dialogue.

    Naw: give the proceeds from the tag to the Schapiro Group–they’re doing such good, honest academically sound work with rapeflation. And the post Reagan mental health solution is working out so well, why would you want to change it?

    Prison=Care.

  64. Stacy says

    Kronquire: well done. I honestly thought that was for real and the humor was unintentional. *hands over sniny new internet*

  65. Tristan says

    @julian: WTF are you smoking?

    If that is the honest to Cthullu best example of quote mining you have, you may want to drop the accusation. That’s not a quote mine. It doesn’t give the opposite intention of what the speaker believes or wrote. It isn’t even malicious.

    Stripped of its context and placed amongst a set of other out-of-context quotes, it was quite clearly meant to be taken as an unwarranted sexist advance/attack on someone. Placed in its proper context, it was simply a sarcastic joke, recognised and appreciated as such by those around.

    How is that not giving the opposite intention of what Phil wrote?

  66. pornal;ysi says

    Tristan: Don’t exspect humor here–these guys humor begins and ends with agreement on crucial topics like ” do we, or do we not laugh at male victims of rape?”

    [pause]…HAHWHAHWHAHWJAJJWWJgiglhahahahwaw…

  67. Stacy says

    “War is what happens when language fails.” -Margaret Atwood

    @Kronquire

    maybe we can build a bridge through laughter?

    I hope so.

    I hope that’s not a joke…

    You and me both. Peace, bro :)

  68. says

    Tristan
    Well, somebody who manages to produce 3 mistakes in my nym shouldn’t make comments about a typo (to your information, a is next to y on my keyboard, so, yes, I missed the right button)

    1) Your own Darwin-example doesn’t give a propper source. A link to the actual document, on the other hand, does.
    It also fundamentally changes the actual message of the text, since it doesn’t represent the actual argument but an argument Darwin is debunking.

    2) That Phil Giordina quote is a joke in the same way that rape jokes are jokes. Full or short version, they paint sexualisation and objectification as something OK to do. Even worse, the full quote makes fun of the victims, painting their experiences as not noteworthy and “zero bad”.

    3) Wow, you now flock to “arguments from authority are what people go for, they are too stupid to look up propperly sourced material themselves”?
    And we’re the ones who’re unskeptical…

  69. Tristan says

    Giliell. Right, sorry about that.

    Anyway, on to responding:

    1) Your own Darwin-example doesn’t give a propper source. A link to the actual document, on the other hand, does.

    Here you go. I repeat: what are you, 7?

    That Phil Giordina quote is a joke in the same way that rape jokes are jokes.

    Beside the point. Whoever mined it chopped it of context and placed it amongst other similarly denuded quotes in order to fit a specific narrative. A narrative not of someone who makes crude and sarcastic jokes borne out of frustration at the rank hypocrisy and groupthink coming from a place that purports to be th freethought hub of the Internet, but of a crude, sexually violent bully. And they did so confident in the knowledge that very few people would bother to check.

    Full or short version, they paint sexualisation and objectification as something OK to do. Even worse, the full quote makes fun of the victims, painting their experiences as not noteworthy and “zero bad”.

    If it’s that bad already, then why quotemine it to inflate the alleged crime? I have a hypothesis: it’s because most people, upon hearing a complaint about the full quote, would hear, “OMFG! He’s belittling me! On the Internet!” … and head off to Google you up a copy of the Internet Butthurt Complaint Form.

    I think one Stephanie Zvan (perhaps you’ve heard of her) said it best:

    Juvenile jokes were blown up into “crimes” in an attempt to tell people they shouldn’t listen to anything [he] has to say.

    3) Wow, you now flock to “arguments from authority are what people go for, they are too stupid to look up propperly sourced material themselves”?

    That’s how quote mines work. Because people, having limited time, take shortcuts. Not having the time to trace down the original source of every statement they hear, they often make judgement calls on whether or not they trust the person they hear it from. Not everybody, and not all the time, but very, very often. There’s been studies on the subject – but anyone who spends even a modest amount of time watching the behaviour of themselves and others knows that it’s true. Hell, if it wasn’t then quote mines simply would never gain traction.

  70. says

    Stacy, it now appears that you’re talking to thin air. Munkhaus has been told repeatedly not to comment here. Doing so after I’ve told him to leave me alone isn’t any sort of funny.

  71. says

    Tristan, you’re reading minds. Unless you’ve got a $1M check from Randi to prove you know how, knock it off.

    If you want to talk about quotes taken out of context, look at mine about crimes. Rebecca was literally accused of a crime by Hoggle. Phil was accused of being a lousy example of a human being (yes, jokes belittling the experience of sexism count). You wouldn’t know that from the way you’re using the quote.

  72. julian says

    Still waiting on you to admit you had no fucking clue what you were talking about when you were posting about that knife comment.

    Placed in its proper context, it was simply a sarcastic joke, recognised and appreciated as such by those around.

    Placed in context it was a dismissive joke that betrays how dismissive he is of women who don’t want to be (at least by him) sexualized.

    That was the point (or at least what I got) out of the quote which is born out after reading the full quote and his comments. He thinks women being harassed is a joke so he jokes about it.

    A narrative not of someone who makes crude and sarcastic jokes borne out of frustration at the rank hypocrisy and groupthink coming from a place that purports to be th freethought hub of the Internet, but of a crude, sexually violent bully.

    I’m at a loss as to why you think this is supposedly an exoneration of Phil Giordana. Is it because jokes don’t count?

    If it’s that bad already, then why quotemine it to inflate the alleged crime?

    Because it was the relevant portion of the comment. It expresses the thrust of the writer’s point and highlights what’s wrong with the statement. You ever edit a comment you’re quoting before?

    On the Internet!

    What is your obsession with ‘on the internet?’ You realize what you say and do online counts, right? There isn’t a magic switch you flip when you go online that makes everything you do and say suddenly ok.

    @porn

    stop pretending you’re being victimized here. I know back at ERV the men’s liberation front is flying strong and proud and posters like Tristan will swallow any MRA bullshit you feed them but around here we actually see through your bs. So please, shut up. You aren’t, haven’t and are unlikely ever to say anything worthwhile.

  73. says

    pornalysis, I don’t have any reason to disbelieve it. As I’ve already noted, it’s what’s being done to other people. Hoggle, in particular, specializes in it. Why, when it happens to me, should I suddenly think it’s something entirely different?

    As for asking Abbie, I told her at the start of all this that we’d talk when it was over rather than during the arguing. I didn’t know at the time that it would go on for four months, but oh, well. Also, the information that’s legally available on the internet just can’t hurt me, even though it can demonstrate someone is trying. Finding out who posted it isn’t worth me going out of my way, anymore than it was to find out who Hoggle is. That information came to me without me doing anything.

  74. Stacy says

    Didn’t realize that’s who it was. No, that’s not funny. That’s somebody coming to your house after you’ve told him he’s unwelcome there.

    Still think there’s plenty of humor to be mined from that quarter, though. Including the familiar but inevitable Stephanie removed someone’s comments from her blog!!! Orwell!!! Thought Police!!! Our Civil Rights Being Eroded!!!! Cats and Dogs Getting Married!!eleventy

  75. says

    Tristan

    Here you go. I repeat: what are you, 7?

    Nope, 32. And if I’d never heard of it, I would now think that this is way out of what Darwin is known for, and go looking for myself, especially if the site the quote was on was very much anti-evolution. You know, critical thinking skills.

    If it’s that bad already, then why quotemine it to inflate the alleged crime?

    Please, learn the difference between shortening and quotemining. If I go looking it up, Phil said the exact same thing he’s quoted for, there is no context that indicates that he actually doesn’t mean that

    A narrative not of someone who makes crude and sarcastic jokes borne out of frustration at the rank hypocrisy and groupthink coming from a place that purports to be th freethought hub of the Internet,…

    So, somebody who is disappointed with a specific group on the internet then goes on making cruel jokes and takes his frustration out at women and victims of objectification and sexualisation is by your definition not:

    but of a crude, sexually violent bully.

    You know, if you kick the puppy out of frustration, no matter how justified your frustration is, you still kicked the puppy.
    Phil Giordina thinks that perpetuating misogyny and rape-apology in general is an adequate thing to do to “punish” a specific group of people. That is misogyny and that’s what he is acused of.
    What he’s not being accused of is being sexually violent. Nobody has accused him of something that is a serious crime, so stop fabricating the next lie.

  76. says

    Ugh. I’m sorry the wanna-be-Scientologists have made it to you, now. They do pride themselves on their detective work, spending weeks digging up information that we discuss openly online and in interviews all the time.

    You have to admit, they picked up their silencing tactics from the best.

  77. says

    (And I’ll add because I see it’s somehow unclear to some commenters: Scientologists silence people by digging up any dirt they can find, and if they can’t find it, they exaggerate and lie. That’s what happened to me, with amateur detectives trying to find my college transcript, spreading rumors about my personal relationships, and calling for my arrest over a prank on an Internet forum. Straight out of the Co$ playbook. I’m sure those people are very proud.)

  78. says

    Speaking of information readily available in interviews, I got the same “not a scientist” crap you did, Rebecca. Hilarious thing there, though, is that I have a degree in psychology, in a program for which I was a research assistant and had to do original research on my own to graduate. But for me, it’s entirely irrelevant to what I write. When I get people criticizing me for my take on science, I tell them to assume I have no credentials whatsoever–but they still have to tell me what I got wrong.

  79. says

    Welch is a tech writer? What a disgrace to my profession.

    You talk allllll this silliness about how you support women, yet you continually imagine them as being these delicate helpless beings who need protection.

    Dude, you have no specific quotes to support that interpretation, because it’s just plain wrong. For a tech writer, your reading comprehension sucks. If I distorted an SME’s message that badly, I’d be fired as soon as the document hit the client’s desk.

    Also, notice the blatant word-gaming here: according to MRAs like Welch, it’s okay to “support” women, but the minute you actually say or do anything supportive, or stand by a women when she’s being atatcked, that’s “imagining them as being these delicate helpless beings who need protection,” which isn’t really “supporting” women. This is the logic of the bully and the con-artist: “butt out, my victims don’t need your help. See, bitch, this guy thinks you’re weak — aren’t you insulted?”

    Oh, and I had a look at Welch’s own blog: the false macho and bluster is so over-the-top it’s downright childish. Threats of physical violence in a copyright notice? Really? Who do you think you’re fooling?

  80. says

    I’d ask her why she finds “gash” offensive, though, since she said words only have power if you give them power.

    Yeah, that’s how a highly skilled tech writer like Welch dresses up standard victim-bashing. He’s basically trying to say “It’s not my fault for insulting you, it’s your fault for being insulted” and look clever. And failing.

    Welch is just another boy trying to pretend to be a man, while tying himself in knots trying to avoid adult responsibility.

  81. julian says

    Welch is just another boy trying to pretend to be a man,

    No he’s an adult. Being a man isn’t synonomous with maturity or responsibility.

  82. says

    @Tristan and julian,

    With respect to the “rusty knife” quote-mine, today I happened to find the real-time documentation of Wally Smith’s original escalation of his quote-mining from Pharyngula under the guise of “Petra”: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/episode_xxxiv_you_can_say_that.php#comment-2319572

    Scroll down from negentropyeater’s timeline (#115) of Petra’s/Smith’s ever-changing, ever-worsening, throwing-it-all-up-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks story, and you’ll see that in a few minutes, up pops “Philip Jr.” (also Wally Smith) with a totally fabricated and malicious quote (trigger warning!) that even PZ can’t find on Pharyngula.

  83. says

    Greg: Thanks. The deer population is also way down in northern MN, It’s very close to the target density determined by the DNR with local resident input.

    I like the idea of supporting a hospital wing but only if it gets named ‘igetemail.’

  84. illuminata says

    I left a comment at Abbie Smith’s blog for you, and I hope it pisses you off.

    Now, this just makes me sad. Someone who writes this is clearly in desperate need of friends and a life outside the internet. Poor kid. I pity him. He must be very lonely.

  85. says

    illuminata: Nice try, ilumma, but Beeeeeep! Wrong answer.

    First things first–I like the internet to get away from “all the life” I have–much of it a life that people like yourself would probably kill to be part of. I ‘entertain’ all of you whiners and your personal dramas daily, and babysit your incessant anxieties, ego trips, and other selfish finagling and banter, for a living.

    I flatter your ego’s and pad your seats, so that we talk about ‘my’ uncomfortable chairs instead of your fat asses. And, in what I do–those fat asses swing on all sides of the gender line, believe me.

    julian: you don’t listen well do you? Or, is the problem your hearing? But we don’t need to talk, k? You make absolutely no sense.

    Steph: Before I am forced to methods that neither of us find agreeable, I request also that Julian refrain from commenting in my direction. I made it clear in my last response to it that we would be better off not speaking–for it’s sake–unless you, stephanie, allow me to go full blown pornalysis on its waffling, repetitard, drunken ass.

    Now on substance: In my world, you either bitch and complain about something, or you solve the problem. That is, if it’s a real problem. I could literally lose my life by weighing into all the sel-interested battles that others orchestrate.

    And if the problem for you, as stated by yourself and others , is actually that you feel harassed with what appears to be a DOX? Then do what all grownups do, and take it to Abbie now, not later. Or take it higher.

    But inaction proves the point that I or franc is making: it’s and orchestrated event, employing a dubious ethical basis, and dragged out ad nauseum because your side is inherently dishonest and clearly attention seeking in presentation–and stands to gain much, while the dissent does’nt want a thing!

    There are healthy adult ways of getting attention, you know. But those ‘ways’ go out the window when team ‘silence dissent’ goes into rapeflation mode. I see it EVERY night.

    The problem isn’t mythical MRA’s, or masseuserists and massage fans, the problem is that certain wings of what likes to call itself ‘feminism’ and those who claim to ‘speak for all women’ are kind of ,um, ah…well, really really white, and middle class, privileged and sociopathic, short sighted, and selfishly invested in the process. Which kind of lays a turd at the buffet table that everyone has to sit down at.

    Some people might even like a turd at the table–there are those kinds, too. It gives them something to bitch about (ooops..! Oh my)I know I am not one of them, and neither is franc apparently.

    And the disingenuous nature of labeling a whole host of issues as MRA issues reflects your mentor Myers’ deep seated general insecurity about males, and casts a light on his inner world as well, and I had hoped you weren’t that short sighted.

    My My: the infamous RW makes an appearance. Well. How are you holding up after the trauma of making yourself into an internet sensation? One never knows where the chips will fall when you bust a bag of Dorito’s open on a crowded bus.

    What do you think of francs writing, honestly? Detach yourself, and read it as parody for one moment, if you can. Then, ask yourself about the golden rule of PR ” There is no such thing as BAD PR.”

    Did franc hurt, or help your efforts there? And really, one could not possibly have picked a better controlled opposition position if one tried. What’s the harm there?

    Ben Z: “There is no such thing as a warranted sexist advance/attack”

    Um. Stop being a dick, ok? You put all the responsibility on men to denounce sexism–you dick.

    But maybe you are a nice non-sexist dick? A lovely dick, with a velvet heart and a bow on it–”a dick in a box…”. Could you show me more of yourself, and your view about dicks, so that I can see? [pause...] I am sure that not all dicks are created equal, and you might be right–but maybe clarify your position about the difference between an advance and an attack? Look deep in your dickish heart for the answer, it’s there…

    It would help me to know how a dick stands in this matter–then, I could focus less on you as a dick, and more on your thoughts as a dick…because guys are such dicks, we all agree it’s impossible to tell one from another. Or, that’s what my mom, or PZ, or Laden told me anyways…

    Meantime, I know plenty of women who like–no–they LOVE the words you guys despise–hearing those sexist ‘advances’ actually has a net effect of sexual arousal on most that I have known. Or didn’t the monolith tell you that?

  86. Stacy says

    Wait–are these polymaths actually confusing use of the word cunt to denote a woman’s cunt–

    and use of the word “cunt” as an insult (as in “You cunt”)?

    –And assuming it’s the former we object to?? *

    * Yes. They’re that stupid.

  87. julian says

    You put all the responsibility on men to denounce sexism–you dick.

    hehe

    porn, I think you have issues with feminist men and personal responsibility.

    And save your classwar bullshit for your ERV friends. Believe it or not some of us are dirt poor. And, shockingly, we aren’t all middle class white people. I know, amazing, isn’t?

    You worthless, self-centered fuck.

  88. Ben Zvan says

    Oh please enlighten me. When is a sexist attack warranted? No, stop, I know your answer: whenever you feel like making one. Never mind.

  89. says

    Wow, that was a hell of a post, pornalysis.
    Telling all of us what sad little creatures we are compared to you, threatening to employ means nobody wants you to use if julian keeps replying to you.

    the problem is that certain wings of what likes to call itself ‘feminism’ and those who claim to ‘speak for all women’ are kind of ,um, ah…well, really really white, and middle class, privileged and sociopathic, short sighted, and selfishly invested in the process. Which kind of lays a turd at the buffet table that everyone has to sit down at.

    But fortunately, it is one made of straw.

  90. says

    porn [79]:

    Then, selfishly, I think it’s brutally disingenuous how you have that dome full of smarts, full of all those facts about anthro and evo, and you waste it to pot-shot at male survivors of rape. Maybe you could put that anger, or snark to good use on the prison industrial complex

    I don’t take potshots at male survivors of rape. It is possible that I take potshots at the MRA movement. Not the same thing.

    And you aren’t banned at Abbie Smith’s blog. She doesn’t ban people, or edit their comments into or out of dialogue.

    What people think Abbie is doing with comments and what she actually has done with comments may not be the same thing.

    Rebecca Watson[93]: If the blog posts, comments, and that strange wiki-thingie actually did have an effect, there would be at least some links coming from those locations. Well, there are some links, but very very few. In order to find evidence that anyone is arriving at any of my posts from those sources, I have to extend the list of links sources and scroll way way down. I wonder if the Scientology Symps have more of an effect.

    Ben[102] I had no idea the deer pop. was down that low. I have personally noticed fewer deer in my stomping grounds over the last five years. You no longer have to push them aside with a stick while driving through town. BTW there is an unconfirmed report of an actual wolf pack in central/upper Cass County which some local hunters claimed earlier in the year they planned to hunt out. I expect that is just trash talk and the wolves probably survived the hunting season, but in the mean time they eat a lot of deer.

    Illuminata [104]: Now, this just makes me sad. Someone who writes this is clearly in desperate need of friends and a life outside the internet. Poor kid. I pity him. He must be very lonely.

    Actually, it is probably time that Porn and I went and got a beer or cup of coffee or something. We can invite Ben Z along.

  91. Paul says

    If you’re engaged in talking to anyone in this thred – anyone – you’re feeding the trolls. Its depressing to read, coming from the outside. I don’t know much about the situation, I just want you to stop fighting and get along. Or, at least, grudgingly tolerate each other. Please?

  92. says

    Its depressing to read, coming from the outside.

    Yeah, cause living here is such a peach. You should try it sometime…like…maybe…before you post about how my situation affects you while ignoring how it affects me.

    I don’t know much about the situation, I just want you to stop fighting and get along. Or, at least, grudgingly tolerate each other.

    You’ve just asked me to get along with/tolerate people conducting a four-month hate campaign who have posted information they thought would hurt me. Did you want to rethink your response to that, Paul?

  93. says

    julian: Refer to above comments about ‘you and me’, k? You middle class white person panderer and feeble racist–you have likely internalized your own ‘repression’….

    Gilliel: I don’t recall saying anything to or about you. Get over yourself. Or go read Janet Swim’s bogus feminist study about benevolent sexism in Germany and the United States.

    Her conclusion? “attitudes about benevolent sexism are the same” in both countries despite the fact that a) Germany has legalized prostitution (yummi!) and the US doesn’t[..]

    2) she split her research results ‘across the ocean’! She literally asked different research questions to different research subjects! Results “same answer”….talk about splitting the baby.But then again, she works at Penn State…

    Greg: i”I don’t take potshots at male survivors of rape. It is possible that I take potshots at the MRA movement. Not the same thing. “/i

    No–you have clearly pot-shotted male rape survivors, in your post about Congo rape.(I can’t crowd source all the B.S. you guys are running–I am only one “MRA”.)

    Whether you intended it or not, it had that net effect-and I have read you long enough to know that you left it as an ‘arguable’ point of plausible deniability. As I posted at Abbie’s your exact words about raped men are that they are ‘crybabies.’

    And then, to make matters worse, you allowed your buddy RB up there to follow me around your blog for about two months ‘rape-shaming’ me because of my experiences with women–as did others here in this crew. That’s beyond double standard, in anybodies rapeflation kit.

    Then: I hope you realize how badly this question of extra-legal sleuthing has compromised simple, ‘potentially’ enjoyable situations like having a beer, right? Seriously. Very seriously.

    But coffee? Man am I gonna rapeflate the shit out of that…”Greg Laden suggested a cup of coffee in a discussion about sexual harassment, on a blog that censors! I felt so cornered….so vulnerable…”

    Steph: no matter how many times you say it, doesn’t make it true. It’s not a hate campaign: it is for the most part, reasoned, aggressive opposition to a flawed ethical paradigm, and a reaction to another form of sexism: white privileged female’s on stage instead of ‘othered’ groups and individuals.

    And either franc is pure genius, or franc is RW herself, because every yin needs a a yang. The really bad ‘opposition’ critiques are obviously from ppl who know her. Bunch of yingyangs…who could do a worse job of ‘hate’ than that encyclodramatica page other than a friend?

    Lastly, I hope Ben Z. ‘get’s it’ that I was not only sexually harassing him up there, but also sexually harassing him again and again–and not one person here took issue with that! Not even Ben…

    I am a sexist pig–but Ben, apparently it’s O.K. if men harass men? And not one woman lifted her voice to stop it, protest it, or decry it–including your wife!! They never do, unless its a gay guy getting heat.

    But believe it or not Ben? The world is bigger than most of your imaginations. To answer your question, here is a case in point when sexist harassment is tolerable:

    1) I walk up on two huge drunk guys who are harassing a man.
    2) I realize I am out numbered, and out muscled, and there’s DANGER!!!
    3)I quickly use my wits, and hit all of them at once, with a lisp, and a swish–talking about their proportions(use your imagination, Ben)
    4) the two big guys decide they are ‘out-gunned’ by the two ‘homo’s’, and, after a minute or two of name calling and poop flinging, they leave.

    I just love drunken gong fu…

    Stacy: stop getting all cunty up there…or not. I kind of like it when you do that. But I am well aware of the effects of the word, and I adore every stinkie little ‘nuance’ of it, you big dick. I wouldn’t give up my right to one lick of the word, not one.

  94. says

    CMF, you’ve decided to make the rules about how everyone gets to react to what everyone else does. Or more specifically, you’ve decided to make the rules about how I am supposed to react to whatever you do. That was a mistake.

    Don’t press me even one more inch, you bastard.

  95. Tim Groc says

    Rebecca Watson says: calling for my arrest over a prank on an Internet forum.

    Stop telling fibs Becky. No one called for your arrest. People just compared what you did to what others (all males) have done that has earned them jail time. That’s right, prople have gone to jail for less than what you did.

    And it was not a “prank” but a “crime” in most jurisdictions, which is sooo easy to look up, even you can do it.

    http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494

  96. says

    Actually, Tim, you’ll have to do better than that. What Rebecca did doesn’t fit into the criminal statutes in my state, nor in the state in which she lived at the time.

    And use your own fucking name. You’re no one’s conscience.

  97. Stacy says

    I wouldn’t give up my right to one lick of the word

    Ah, it’s all about pron, bravely fighting for his rights.

    Um, your “rights” are not the subject under discussion. Much as you’d love to think otherwise, your civil rights are not being attacked when people discuss civility, or when bloggers decide whether or not to moderate comments.

    Funny though how you assumed a comment that wasn’t directed at you was all about you. NPD’ll do that.

    In fact, on this thread, both Welch and you confused the use of the word cunt as an identity insult like nigger or kike, with its use as a term for the vagina. Which makes you stupid. When I pointed that out you chose to change the subject with a non sequitur about “rights” in hopes we wouldn’t notice, which makes you stupid and a weasel.

    I likely won’t address you again, because I’ve no desire to feed your bottomless need for attention. But I’ll be laughing at every unintentionally self-revealing dribble of self-indulgent, grandiose silliness you post.

  98. says

    Albright (if that is your real name),

    That was sexual harassment? If you have a job, you might want to ask your employer about sexual harassment training because you’re doing it wrong.

    And your solution to a bunch of big, burly guys picking on someone is to act gay? That’s likely to get you “picked on” yourself, which is really too bad. Gay people deserve to be treated like everyone else. You clearly can’t figure out how to deal with other people in a non-confrontational fashion or you’d have walked up to the big, burly guys and said “hey, don’t do that.” It’s short, it’s polite, and most people will listen to you if you say it.

    Overall, you’re doing a great job showing that you neither understand what sexual harassment is, or why it’s harmful. Ironic since you seem to be claiming to have suffered harassment yourself.

    You really need to grow up and find someone you can pay to listen to you talk about your life and give you advice about how you can operate reasonably well in polite society. Listening to women when they say “this makes me very uncomfortable” would be a good start.

  99. says

    Gilliel: I don’t recall saying anything to or about you. Get over yourself. Or go read Janet Swim’s bogus feminist study about benevolent sexism in Germany and the United States.

    Whut?
    First, this is the internet. You’re talking to everybody and everybody can talk back.
    Secondly, what’s your point? What has that study, if bogus or state of the art or only existing in your head have to do with whatever I wrote?
    You really do have issues

Trackbacks