Terms (Update)


By now you may have seen Ophelia’s posts on the attempt by Lee Moore to arrange talks between the “sides” of the deep rift. You may have seen Justin Vacula’s post on that as well. Or his original post.

I’ve been contact by Lee Moore as well. The idea, as he puts it at the moment, is to sit down for some public discussions of differences. Unlike Ophelia, I have said I would do it if my terms are met.

What are my terms? Any participant from that “side” renounces the slime pit.

As I explained to Lee, anyone who thinks they can settle anything is going to have to leave the slime pit behind, because the entire point of the slime pit is to contain vitriol against Rebecca Watson, FtB, and anyone who acts as though any of us have a point. You either change that (which is an impossible task) or the people you ask to lead a charge toward reconciliation walk away from it and say they’re not running back when they’re done.

What do they get from me in return? Moderated discussion on mutually agreed-upon topics with a mutually agreed-upon moderator. I know at least one professional moderator who has already helped an atheist and skeptic organization a great deal with regard to similar matters. I think anything less would be pointless now.

I have no problem discussing my views for a public audience. It’s…well, it’s rather the point of this blog. That doesn’t change with a camera and microphone on. I just expect something in return for my time and for all the crap that’s been thrown my way. If people are willing to further marginalize those who fling the most crap, that’s more than incentive enough to talk to them.

So those are my terms.

Update: Justin has made a response on Twitter that’s worth addressing.

Zvan wants me to renounce. leave Slymepit prior to having discussion. I wonder if she is willing to renounce, leave Freethought Blogs #Terms
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula

Justin, I’m not asking you to renounce Skeptic Ink. That’s your network of independent blogs. This is mine. All your statement does is highlight that our “side” has nothing equivalent to the pit.

Comments

  1. mandrellian says

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for your terms to be met, but good on you for stating them.

    BTW did Vacula entitle his post “A call for civil discussion” with a straight face? After all the flat lies he’s told and all the rank misogynist bile he’s enabled and tolerated and freely associated with (hello, AVfM)?

  2. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    Here’s hoping they do agree – given those conditions. I have sneaking suspicion they made this call not expecting anyone to respond, so now that you have, they have to either make good on it or admit they weren’t ever serious about it.

  3. says

    I think those are fair terms, but I really doubt they’ll agree. It’s not that they understand that the Pit’s full of bullying but just accept it because they agree with them on many issues; it’s that they actually seem to think that the Pit exists to Safeguard Reason And Rationality while the feminists furiously wage war on them.

  4. says

    What do they have to do to “renounce” the Slymepit? There are those like Damion and Notung who go there but don’t involve themselves in any of the nastiness, they ignore and don’t join in (mostly)… Then there are contributors to SIN who know of the pit but probably don’t lurk and post. Humanisticus would presumably be one example of this category who I’ve tweeted to a little.

    Do they need to post a blog post? Say the nastiness at the pit is not for them, Damion and Notung would fit this but I’m guessing not good enough. Or make a commitment not to post there as well from now on, which could obviously be broken after the call.

  5. Bernard Bumner says

    I regretfully suspect that this will simply feed Vacula’s desire to feel important; apparently his primary motivator. Your ability to muster an iota of good faith in this situation is admirable. I have been constantly impressed by both yours and Ophelia’s behaviour throughout the past months.

  6. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    Oh, and I’d probably also ask that pedantic definitional arguments be excluded as well – otherwise all you’re going to get is variations on “But there’s no definition of atheism that includes feminism, so why should we care what women think?”.

  7. says

    Wowbagger, I don’t think so. First of all, we’ve been explaining this for months, and we can do it again to their faces. Also, this is part of the point of a good moderator. They require agreement to move forward, and they’re not keen on moving backward once that agreement has been reached.

  8. thomaspenn says

    I don’t know if a fruitful discussion can actually be had here, and I think that your demands are reasonably, but it might be helpful if you were more specific about what you think should be renounced. If instead of asking them to renounce the slime pit you asked them to renounce the continued and past use of gendered personal insults, harassment, and threats of violence (or something along those lines). You may want to get even more specific than that or provide examples. That would allow the other side to make their own list of specific behaviors and wrongs that they feel you should renounce. They could list out the alleged sins of FTB and others, and you could choose to renounce specific behaviors that may have actually been inappropriate.

    This airing of grievances and apologizing for past mistakes is probably a prerequisite for any real and productive discussion.

  9. peterferguson says

    If you are not willing to engage with Justin, is there anyone on “their side” that you would be willing to have a discussion with?

  10. peterferguson says

    What I meant was if he doesn’t meet your terms is there anyone you’d be willing to have a discussion with.

  11. chasstewart says

    I frequent the pit now! I obsessed over it for a weekend and found grousing over posts made at FreeThoughBlogs and Skepchick (grousing is not the same as “vitriol against Rebecca Watson, FtB, and anyone who acts as though any of us have a point.”), heated discussions about the population increase and what that means regarding energy resources (went on for fucking pages), yelling at steersman (he’s a poster that writes incredibly long posts that don’t always have a point and many of the pitters want discussions to be clear and concise) and I saw many posts about Operation Smile and posters genuinely worried about the welfare of Natalie Reed even going so far as to contact her and donating to her.

    Some good, some bad, some boring. About any place you go on the internet.

  12. says

    Is “the entire point of [Twitter and Reddit] to contain vitriol against Rebecca Watson, FtB, and anyone who acts as though any of us have a point”? Take your inane questions and go away. You’re done here.

  13. peterferguson says

    I assume this will be held in moderation and deleted, but it is nice to see how react to people who come here in good faith and ask a simple question, which you never answered might I add. I understand your reasons for not wanting to discuss with Justin, but I was encouraged by the fact you were willing to reach across the void. So I simply wanted to know if there was a non-pitter you’d be willing to engage with.

  14. Matt125 says

    If you think their questions are inane, just ban ‘em. That’ll get rid of their pesky questions.

  15. says

    In fact, when I’m in the middle of full-blown migraine, I have work to do, and the questions don’t even take into account the post–then, yeah, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. Do you think I have some grand moral obligation to do anything else, particularly with someone who’s already in moderation here for not being willing to engage in productive argument? Should I house him and feed him too? Is there anything else he’s earned by virtue of being a dishonest ass?

  16. Matt125 says

    You don’t have a moral obligation to do anything, it is your blog. But don’t call us harassers when we call you out for it.

  17. says

    Charming logic. “You have no moral obligation to do a thing, but we’re going to say you’re doing something wrong if you don’t.”

    And no, I’m quite clear about what I consider harassment and that it’s quite different from disagreement. If you actually read what I write, you’d have seen a series of posts about that. Why? Would you like to point me to something you’ve done (presumably in the pit, since you say, “us”) and find out what I call it?

  18. peterferguson says

    Well I was banned for the Twitter-Reddit comment, which was a disagreement of sorts because I don’t think it is devoted to what you say it is, but I’d rather not discuss that as it is not the reason I came here.

    Like the above post says, I simply wanted to know if there was anyone specific from the other side, who is not a pitter, that you’d be willing to engage with. That is all I came here for, nothing more. But if that is too “inane” for you, so be it. You are under no obligation to answer, so don’t answer if you don’t feel like. I am ok with it.

  19. says

    My previous comment is awaiting moderation.

    The Slymepit is not a homogenous lump. There are people with differing opinions. You can’t delete or edit posts and the forum is largely unmoderated.

    Asking someone to ‘renounce’ the pit is asking someone to renounce an unmoderated forum of people of varying opinions (who have largely been the target of undue rhetoric from people at FTB for some time now). It doesn’t make sense.

    If he did something that was overtly wrong, ask him to renounce that. Otherwise, your argument is just empty.

  20. Martha says

    I hope the migraine subsides soon, Stephanie.

    And thank you for putting an end to Fergusons JAQing off. Some things should not be done in public!

  21. says

    Hehe, peterferguson/@Humanisticus and @D4M1ON are happily plugging away on Twitter that the pit is just like any other forum or Reddit, not obsessed with FtBs/Skepchick or A+… At all… I haven’t even read it for months so had to be sure. Google nicely illustrates what balls this is –>

    site:slymepit.com
    “FtBs”, 15K hits,
    “FftBs”, 8K hits,
    “Skepchick”, 85K hits,
    “A+”, 95K hits

    site:atheismplus.com
    “slymepit”, 139 hits

    Yup not 139K hits.. Just One Hundred and Thirty Nine! Most of those are probably due to me :-/

    Who is obsessed with who?

  22. doubtthat says

    But, but, his faith was so good. Why did you destroy something so innocent and beautiful? He was just a callow young denizen of the internet asking questions with absolutely no agenda. It’s not as though you gave a list of simple criteria to be met for the debate to take place. Criteria that any adult could apply to a potential interlocutor. How could someone with a beating heart and two or three buzzing synapses be expected to follow the tortured complexity of your single requirement?

    @Matt125

    You don’t have a moral obligation to do anything, it is your blog. But don’t call us harassers when we call you out for it.

    I will just point out that the comments you folks generate fall into two basic categories:

    1) Harassment.
    2) Dumbass nonsense.

    That post of yours wouldn’t be a great example of 1, but it certainly, along with Furguson, falls under 2. So this time, you aren’t a harasser, just a time wasting tumtwaddle.

  23. says

    I’m not looking for talks. Lee is. He approached me. Also already in the post. I already spend plenty of time talking on these matters. Also already in the post.

    If there were someone I particularly wanted to talk with, I would do that. I already talk with people who disagree with me. I don’t talk with people who harass in the place of substantive disagreement. There is no one harassing or defending harassers I particularly want to talk to. Why would I? Why would you even think to ask?

    Is that clear enough for you?

  24. says

    While I applaud your optimism, I’ve got to say that I’m a bit mystified by it. I haven’t seen any indication from anyone, least of all Justin Vacula, that an actual productive dialogue is either a) possible, or b) worthwhile. There doesn’t seem to be any goal for these talks. If anything, I’d say that it’s designed to cultivate the appearance that people who are willing to defend and promote disgusting and hateful behaviour are, deep down, reasonable people with a valid point. You might believe that to be the case; I do not.

    It also suggests that there’s any person or group of people who can exercise ‘control’ over anything or anyone. If the entire FTB platform ‘ordered’ people to, I dunno, stop using the word misogynist or something, even if such a thing were possible, do you have any expectation that such a command would have any effect whatsoever? Similarly, who is it on the “other side” that can have any effect whatsoever on the type of people who will create Ophelia Benson sock puppets, heap abuse on Jen McCreight, Photoshop dicks all over pictures of Rebecca Watson (or whatever it is these clowns think qualifies as ‘mere disagreement’)?

    All such a “dialogue” will accomplish is the same goal that William Lane Craig is trying to achieve by inviting Richard Dawkins to debate – to create the illusion that they have a valid argument that is an ideological balance to the “other side” (the side that seriously just wants to be left alone). We already have a dialogue happening in the community, and I’m really unsure as to what this moderated farce would achieve.

  25. says

    Re-reading your post and the comment above mine, I guess “optimism” isn’t the right word. I don’t think your expectation is much different from mine.

  26. Scr... Archivist says

    I really don’t see the point of talking to the character assassins for the simple reason that they have no point.

    Any disagreement that they may have once been able to articulate about policy within skeptical and atheist movements and organizations is now buried deeper than the Titanic. They have conceded their defeat about harassment policies without realizing it.

    There’s a movie quote that keeps coming to mind. “He’s telling me he’ll never bake bread, plant crops, raise livestock. He’s telling me he’s futureless. And eventually, he’ll tell me how long the infected take to starve to death.”

    These people have nothing to contribute. The rest of us can build past them. Sure, keep them at bay, contain their abuses, but more centrally keep up the constructive work that happens to make them even more marginal.

  27. says

    Honestly, what is there to discuss?

    What logical, rational position are they advocating for? That Rebecca is a twat? That Ophelia needs to be kicked in the cunt?

    Seriously, why in the world would you want to engage with these people? What possible topics would be under discussion that wouldn’t devolve into them defending their fried-brain straw version of feminism and their right to harass you at their leisure?

    I don’t engage in “dialog” with Skinheads, nor with Islamic fundamentalists, nor with Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor with Republicans who think that there is such a thing as pregnancy-free ‘legitimate’ rape, and a bazillion other flavors of irrational hate-filled nuttery. I don’t watch Bill O’Reilly nor listen to Rush Limbaugh. I have better things to do with my time.

    Why should you provide them a forum for their abhorrent views?

    It’s a demand that you acknowledge their existence. You lend credibility to them by even agreeing to engage in this kind of pre-dialog dialog.

    Nothing good will come of it.

    My recommendation: Leave them behind. Block who you want to block, ignore who you want to ignore, report to the authorities those who cannot take “no” for an answer (Hint, Reap: Cyber-stalking is a crime in the US). Make their self-important world smaller and smaller and smaller. Their right to free speech does not include the requirement that you listen to them. Or even acknowledge their tiny-brained alternative universe.

  28. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    LOL wow Vacula is a complete fucking dipshit. I’m amazed he can figure out how to dress himself, or remember to breathe.

  29. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    There doesn’t seem to be any goal for these talks.

    Oh, I disagree. The goal is to make uppity bitches who won’t shut up when a man demands they shut to apologize for this egregious transgression. Lee might not have intended it that way, but that’s exactly how his proposal reads to me. Because, there has been no harassment of Hate Pitters from their targets. It’s the Hate Pit people who post private addresses, who make paraody blogs and twitter accounts, who make rape/death/abuse threats then call them “jokes”, who make photoshop pictures attempting to humiliate the targets of their hate, etc.

    The other side writes blogs posts objecting to bigotry, organizes grants to help others attend conferences, and refuses to be silenced by hate-mongering bullies.

    Yet, Lee wants “an end to the attacks from both sides as a show of good faith”. What attacks came from FTB, Skepchick, etc again? Oh right, fucking none. He’s starting off in dishonest bad faith.

    Lee’s intentions may be to have everyone sit down, confess their sins against each other and have a cuddle party, but anyone from the Hate Pit that he invites will have an entirely different goal – to get as much sexism and misogyny in the conversation as possible, because their favorite hate targets will be there.

    All such a “dialogue” will accomplish is the same goal that William Lane Craig is trying to achieve by inviting Richard Dawkins to debate – to create the illusion that they have a valid argument that is an ideological balance to the “other side” (the side that seriously just wants to be left alone). We already have a dialogue happening in the community, and I’m really unsure as to what this moderated farce would achieve.

    Bingo. The Hate Pit is already on the wrong side of the issues, and losing badly. They are desperate for validation that they aren’t just garden variety bigots with a religious-like devotion to the status quo. Lee wants to give it to them, and wants the women the hate pit targeted to apologize to their harrassers and stalkers.

    I ask again: why should we *want* to “heal’ the rift?

  30. thomaspenn says

    I don’t get the purpose of this discussion. Why don’t they just write a blog post with their list of alleged grievances, as well as the rational points they are trying to make? If such a post was actually reasonable, then you and other FTBers could address the points they make and list your own grievances, which they could then address. I don’t get how taking a tense and anger filled situation to a venue with even less filtering and time for thoughtful responses would be helpful at all, especially in the absence of plainly stated rational areas of disagreement.

  31. says

    Having had the occasional “dialogue” with these people, I can tell you that they will leave the table with full faith that their “calm, rational arguments” were completely convincing and won them the praise of the internet. The only good thing I can see coming of it is publicly demonstrating the need for actual conversations about the issues facing underrepresented groups in skepticism.

  32. thomaspenn says

    Ben, what are their rational arguments? How do they feel aggrieved by the FTBers and Skepchicks and such? Sorry, I followed the Stephanie’s link to slime pit earlier, and I don’t want to go back.

  33. Ham says

    To add on to Oolon’s post at 26, here are a few more searches:

    site:slymepit.com
    "myers" -> 110K hits
    "benson" -> 65K hits

    "skepticism" -> 70K hits
    "atheism" -> 93K hits (Hmm, I'm noticing a trend with the results this brings up. Let's try...)
    "atheism" -"atheism plus" -> 57K hits

    The funniest part of this: They have a forum called “Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science” and this forum title shows up at the top of every message posted there so every single post on this forum shows up in the search results. Despite this, “Skepchick” and “Myers” still manage to score more hits. How? Because the “ranting about FTB and Skepchick” thread has over fifty times the number of posts as the entire “Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science” board. This board has had four posts in the last two days. The rant thread has had 670.

  34. Caveat Imperator says

    thomaspenn

    Ben, what are their rational arguments? How do they feel aggrieved by the FTBers and Skepchicks and such? Sorry, I followed the Stephanie’s link to slime pit earlier, and I don’t want to go back.

    I’m pretty sure Ben was being sarcastic. Hence the quotes around “calm, rational arguments.” Because when members of the Pit of Despair make their presence felt here, their arguments are anything but.

  35. Scr... Archivist says

    thomaspenn @37

    The closest thing I have found to a rational-sounding argument is Rocko 2466’s petition. Stephanie wrote about it on January 13, and Jason wrote about it at “Lousy Canuck” the next day.

    I do not find the claims in that petition convincing, but it shows that at least one person on that side has made an attempt. Too bad the others don’t even bother. (There’s a long run of comments discussing the petition on Stephanie’s post about it.)

    By the way, that petition against “gender feminism” has stalled with little support. Meanwhile, Adam Lee’s petition in support of feminism and diversity in the secular community has gained more than 2,000 signatures and has been delivered to its intended recipients. Congratulations, Adam!

    I also have to wonder if the 2000:50 ratio might be a good indicator of the split within the “community”. Let them wither.

  36. thomaspenn says

    I understood the sarcasm, and I probably should have put quotes around “rational arguments” when I asked. I believe that people are generally good, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I truly don’t understand what their points are. What is their subjective end goal? What great injustices do they see themselves fighting against that justifies such vitriol? I don’t know if such discussions would be productive, but I’d personally like to know what the hell they are thinking.

  37. says

    I’m pretty sure Ben was being sarcastic. Hence the quotes around “calm, rational arguments.” Because when members of the Pit of Despair make their presence felt here, their arguments are anything but.

    You are correct. They’re usually along the lines of “See? I’m right!”

  38. Caveat Imperator says

    Occasionally, we get an MRA here on FTB who seems to have formed his opinions from legitimate ignorance, instead of willful ignorance. The results after his arrival tend to vary wildly.

  39. says

    Thomas Penn, a standard line of complaint about hypocrisy, Freedom-from-Thought Blogs, and censorship was quoted in this post over at A Million Gods, which in addition to Reap Paden’s inability to use paragraphs to delimit walls of text (he may have learnt to use bullet points?), the thread showcases the rhetorical masturbations of the odious pitizen John Greg in the comments.

  40. Steersman says

    Methinks you’re engaging in some egregious “four legs good; two legs bad” in making it a precondition that anyone to be involved in healing those “deep rifts” has to “leave the slime pit behind”. In addition, the implication that there is no one there “who acts as though any of us have a point” is simply poisoning the well as I at least, among others, have frequently conceded the contrary – for which I have received no small amount of flak, although no banning.

    But that is not to mention that that precondition being decidedly unrealistic – what do you expect? An oath of allegiance to FTB and Gender Feminism plus some ritual spitting on Evolutionary Psychology? Seems to that those issues are substantially or significantly the bones of contention generating those “rifts”, not some peripheral questions about the seating arrangements.

    One might suggest, as a starting point, a drawing up of a list on each side followed by a determination of which items are in common. Non-negotiable ultimatums hardly seem to qualify.

  41. Cipher says

    I certainly support you, Stephanie, if you want to do the debate thing, but I personally am puzzled as to what precisely is supposed to be in it for you. They’ll surely treat it the same way they treat everything the FTBers and A+ers do. But if you see an upside to it, then that’s awesome.

    If they decide to take you up on it, I saw Wowbagger talking about pedantic definitional arguments above, and I wanted to mention for the sake of people who might not know that bell hooks, in her books Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center and Feminism is for Everybody (we’re reading the latter over at A+ for book club right now, and it is available in PDF format online for people who might be interested in reading it), gave a definition of feminism that I feel should get wider use because it is clear and simple and centers on the problem well (p. viii): “Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.”

  42. J says

    @thomaspenn #41

    From what I’ve seen, once you strip away the frothing, screaming obscenities, the core of their ‘arguments’ come down a grab-bag of the following points:

    1a. The skeptical community has no problems with sexism (or racism etc), and by trying to address this issue you are making the movement look bad/making straight white dudes feel bad (hereafter abbreviated to SWDs)

    1b. The skeptical community does have problems with sexism but so does everywhere else so trying to solve a problem in your own back yard rather than everywhere are once is making the movement look bad/making SWDs feel bad. Also hypocrisy or something

    2a. The skeptical community is all SWDs is because straight white dudes are just smarter/better at rational thinking, so by trying to address that issue you are in fact somehow disadvantaging straight white dudes

    2b. The skeptical community is not all SWDs so by trying to increase the ratio of non-SWDs to SWDs you are somehow infantalising/condescending to non-SWDs

    3a. Women in western areas are already equal to SWDs, so there is no need for feminism, thus you are wasting everyone’s time

    3b. Women in western areas have things *better* than straight white dudes, so feminism is somehow disadvantaging SWDs

    4a. Having it pointed out to you that something you did/said might be sexist is worse than experiencing sexism, so by pointing these things out you are making SWDs feel bad

    4b. Having it pointed out to you that something you did/said might be sexist is an affront to free speech and everyone knows that your constitutional right to be a asshole (though strangely, only to women) and not have to apologise for it is more important than the feelings of non-SWDs or the diversity of the skeptical movement

    Anyone feel free to add any I’ve missed, but I think those are the core ones.

  43. penn says

    Thanks everybody! I had thought that the glimpses I had seen of these people were just the worst of the bunch. I had naively thought that beneath the screeching MRA bullshit that I had been exposed to there might be some reasonable kernel of an argument. After reading this comments and looking deeper myself, I don’t think that is the case anymore. This really makes me doubt that a productive discussion can be had. The “reasonable” ones in their ranks looking for a discussion should just make a list like J did outlining their position. If it’s not batshit insane (and perhaps even if it is) then someone will respond and a discussion could be had.

  44. says

    J: I thought you’d nailed it, but I’d add one to the list:
    5a-d. Rebecca Watson [was naked in a calendar | called someone a pussy | calls herself a chick | is scared of elevators] therefore everything SWDs do to women is justified.

    Penn: I think the glimpses you’ve seen of these people are actually the worst of the bunch. The “other side” is a very small group of very loud and sometimes very prominent people in skepticism. They’ve served primarily as incentive to make changes in the movement and to harass people trying to make things better.

  45. says

    He demanded you give up YOUR OWN BLOG?! Seriously? That alone proves he’s arguing in the worst of bad faith, and there’s absolutely no point in taking his “dialogue” stuff seriously.

    Or, he’s implying that the Slymepit is his treasured vehicle of self-expression, as this blog is yours. In which case, he OWNS all the evil crap there, and cannot/will not give it up.

    “I’ll be nice to you, but only if you give up your own vehicle of self-expression and all the friends/colleagues you have there.” Sounds like a classic example of an abusive controlling husband. Fuck Vaculous, and fuck the entire lot of them. At this point, Stephanie, you only degrade yourself by taking them seriously.

  46. says

    Methinks you’re engaging in some egregious “four legs good; two legs bad” in making it a precondition that anyone to be involved in healing those “deep rifts” has to “leave the slime pit behind”.

    Methinks you don’t know what that phrase means or refers to. If you did, you might be a bit more embarrassed by your own behavior around FtB lately. Repetition of a simple argument doesn’t make it true. I, on the other hand, have gone to the work to explain what it is about the pit that makes it an enemy to any “healing” and why I think it shouldn’t be a big thing to leave it behind.

    But that is not to mention that that precondition being decidedly unrealistic – what do you expect? An oath of allegiance to FTB and Gender Feminism plus some ritual spitting on Evolutionary Psychology?

    No. I expect that anyone who actually wants to find common cause with me will understand what a toxic environment the pit is and won’t have any trouble leaving it behind. In fact, that’s exactly what I ask for. Making up oaths and rituals so you have something to get all frowny about strongly suggests you understand that what I ask isn’t that much in itself.

    One might suggest, as a starting point, a drawing up of a list on each side followed by a determination of which items are in common. Non-negotiable ultimatums hardly seem to qualify.

    One more time: These people want my time and attention. They leave comments that they demand be posted here. They send me mentions on Twitter after I tell them conversations are over. They tell me I need to show up on their podcasts. They set up a fund to send a spokesperson to a convention at which I’m speaking. Apparently, they want something I have. They consider my attention valuable.

    If I am going to give them something they want, they’re damned well going to give me something in return.

  47. hardlyever says

    Your, and Adam Lee’s posts are not extended hands of reconciliation, or evidence of a willingness to try to find common ground, or to solve anything. it’s just another post in which you lay out your demands for dogmatic purity. when you include in your offer of a tentative association, the requirement that each participant be investigated to ensure that they, their friends, and the sites they and their friends may visit be vetted and approved by you before you’ll even consider a conversation, you sound like a rather nasty parody of yourself, one which if I had seen on one of the blogs you’d like to burn ( god, the inflammbility of the internet is a bitch, isn’t it?), I would have thought they were being rather uncharitable to you. And while I realize your main focus is on destroying the reputations of other people, and not on creating a compelling and coherent message of your own, you may want to consider at least not writing your detractors’ jokes for them.
    I was sincerely hoping for something…well… at the very least, something.
    thank you for your time

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>