NASA: Vesta may have had flowing lava and volcanoes »« An Experiential Comparison of General Anaesthetic and Dental Sedation

Feeding the troll yet again

Franc Hoggle wants nothing more than for people at FtB to be talking about him. He gets off on it. PZ just outed him as Victor Ivanoff, according to Ophelia’s source who knows him in real life, after Hoggle’s latest round of personal and directed threats. So now we are all left with the image that he is probably furiously masturbating to the thought that people are talking about him on FtB again.

Aside from this short post to tell you that this is happening and that the Global Atheist Convention folks are aware of his threats, and to make you aware of the conversation happening elsewhere and some terribly amusing photos making light of Hoggle’s intrinsic nature, so long as nobody at FtB or at any convention is in any actual physical danger, you’ll hear no more of him on this blog.

My official position on Victor Ivanoff is: I couldn’t give a rat’s ass. He is not worth our consideration, and we should deny him the attention he needs for his orgasms. Hopefully once his blue balls reach critical mass, he will simply find other targets for his hate, and take his slimy bootlickers with him.

Comments

  1. says

    Nice for you, but personally, speaking as a woman who’s planning to attend the GAC, it matters more than a rat’s ass. I am very pleased that it will now be much easier to avoid him, and that other men at the GAC will not be under suspicion of such a frightening depth of misogyny.

  2. says

    Don’t get me wrong, Alethea. Like I said, it’s very good that we know who he is and what he looks like, so conventions can be warned that the miserable fuck who loves to wander around acting like an asshat to strangers and especially strange women will be there, and proper security measures can be taken.

    That said, he relishes this attention. Protect yourself from him however you need to, but don’t give him the attention. It’s what he craves.

  3. Philip Legge says

    * Raises a hand up as another one unwilling to be surreptitiously stalked for the benefit of Victor Ivanoff’s candid photography at GAC next year *

  4. John Greg says

    “… the miserable fuck who loves to wander around acting like an asshat to strangers and especially strange women….”

    Except that aside from Franc’s loud mouthed, occasionally obnoxious Internet yabber at Grey Ling and ERV, none of that has actually happened.

    I know you think I am defending him, but I am not really, What I am defending is the essential requirement for fact over fiction, angry hyperbole, and fatuous anecdote before you clowns go about trying to fuck someone over.

    Paranoid twits, the lot of you.

  5. says

    Because when you add “on the internet” to the bit you blockquoted, that nullifies any emotional effect it might have on the women involved — because they’re not real women, right? Not like those real women at conferences like the one he’s going to, who have every right to know a virulent misogynist is in their presence?

    You howler monkeys are talented at sophistry, but not so much at making the sophistry subtle and appropriate to the situation. So, honestly, not actually that talented after all.

  6. John Greg says

    Jason said:

    “Because when you add ‘on the internet’ to the bit you blockquoted, that nullifies any emotional effect it might have on the women involved — because they’re not real women, right?”

    I did not say that because it was on the Internet it therefore negated the emotional effect it might have on anyone. I said no such thing.

    All I said was that your statement was factually wrong. If that’s being a howler monkey, pointing out an error in fact, so be it.

    Many Freethought bloggers and commentors seem to act/post as though absence of fact somehow magically equals truth on Freethoughtblogs.

    For example, aside from Franc’s recent statement regarding the stalking, pocket touch, and so on (which, by the by, I do not, and nowhere have condoned — I think it was wrong, but a minor wrong; almost a zero-bad), aside from that recent bit of foolishness, no one on any of the Freethought blogs has actually been able to provide any proof or even citations showing that Franc is in fact the vile, hostile, danger that the Pharynguloids, in particular, claim him to be.

    Writing angry mean-spirited stuff on the Internet does not equal dangerous. If it did, PeeZus would have been incarcerated ages ago.

    And yes, Ophelia Umbridge can run around yowling about the whole “cunt kick” thing, but anyone with ideology-free good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills who actually troubles themselves to go and actually read the entire exchange where that bit of rhetorical nonsense occurred will see that she is quite intentionally misrepresenting what Franc, in fact, said.

    Anyway, the best evidence provided proving how dangerous Franc is amounts to “Yes we did show proof”, and “He’s a vile MRA”, an idiotic bit of invective that has become the Freethoughtblogs favoured personal insult sans meaning.

    As with Watson’s possibly wholly false elevator story, Freethought bloggers are generally accepting anecdote as evidence.

    Sticking to facts, provable facts, not your misrepresentation, is what I am arguing against. Stick to the facts.

    Jason also said:

    “Not like those real women at conferences like the one he’s going to, who have every right to know a virulent misogynist is in their presence?”

    Again, I really think most Freethoughtblogs participants have become so deeply entrenched in FreeFromThought ideology that they have either forgotten, or never really understood what misogynist really means. Disliking one or even a handful of untrustworthy women, i.e., Benson, Watson, McCreight, and Zvan, does not equal being a misogynist. It equals disliking a handful of untrustworthy women.

  7. says

    And these women are untrustworthy… why exactly? If it is because they espouse feminist ideals and do not appreciate being denigrated, fighting back against virulent misogynists, then I am also untrustworthy. If you genuinely think only these women are untrustworthy, that’s one thing, but there’s a whole host of reasons to suspect that you believe all women who are also feminists are untrustworthy. Chief among them being that you hang out with, and defend, people who generally consider feminism to be their particular bugbear.

    Misogynist means against women. If I say someone says misogynist things, that means I’m saying they’re saying something that is against women. Talking about kicking women “in the cunt” ranks pretty highly on the misogyny scale. It is, at the very least, good circumstantial evidence to suggest that we are correct in our assessments of Franc Hoggle / Victor Ivanoff’s mindset with regard to women in general. All your “that’s not real evidence” protestations are, frankly, wishful thinking.

    I do appreciate that you’re, at least, intellectually honest enough to consider the “slip something in PZ’s pocket” nonsense to be over the line, even if you think that line is way at the other end of the fuzzy boundary of actions that most people would take offense at. I’m really very dismayed that you don’t also appreciate that other people might take offense at things that are significantly “less bad” in your estimation, because they might actually be worse in their own. It means that you have precious little empathy, in my estimation.

  8. says

    Additionally, David Mabus did absolutely nothing terrible — all he did was write angry, mean-spirited stuff on the internet. He appeared at a conference once and made a finger-bang motion. He never announced his intent to approach someone at a specific venue. And yet he’s in psychiatric evaluation. How does your beloved ally compare?

  9. says

    For example, aside from Franc’s recent statement regarding the stalking, pocket touch, and so on (which, by the by, I do not, and nowhere have condoned — I think it was wrong, but a minor wrong; almost a zero-bad), aside from that recent bit of foolishness, no one on any of the Freethought blogs has actually been able to provide any proof or even citations showing that Franc is in fact the vile, hostile, danger that the Pharynguloids, in particular, claim him to be.

    Of course, that wasn’t the claim you said was “factually wrong. That was:

    “… the miserable fuck who loves to wander around acting like an asshat to strangers and especially strange women….”

    Yeah, that would be what Jason was pointing to. Factually wrong how again?

  10. John Greg says

    Jason said:

    “And these women are untrustworthy… why exactly?”

    Okay, here are a few responses to that query to get started with.

    Benson not only deletes posts to render comment threads meaningless, but she has in the past actually edited commentor’s posts so as to render their statements either meaningless, irrlelevant, or even contradictory to the original intent.

    Watson plays manipulative word games, usually primarily layered with shaming accusations, when confronted with issues or questions she does not want to answer due to possible self-incriminations, and she is pathologically incapable of admitting error.

    Zvan because she habitually twists people words into saying things that were not in fact said, implied, or intended.

    McCrieght because she also twists words and meanings to suit her ideology, and ignores and deletes posts that she is uncomfortable with and that she cannot honestly respond to.

    And these are not, in my opinion, the actions of trustworthy people, especially people who make the claim that they are skeptics who practice critical thinking.

    Yes, yes, I know it all happens in their own ice cream shop so they can do whatever they want. Nonetheless, you asked why I felt those women were untrustworthy, and I supplied you with some reasons to get started with.

    “Chief among them being that you hang out with, and defend, people who generally consider feminism to be their particular bugbear.”

    This is a very typical intentional misrepresentation of the people you disagree with. Most Freethoughtblogs bloggers and commentors appear to be incapable of simply saying “I disagree with your position” without also finding myriad ways to dismiss, diminish, belittle, misrepresent, and shame their opponents. It appears that most Freethoughtblogs bloggers and commentors feel compelled to invent, or misrepresent their opponents position. And of critical importance is the regular action of deleting posts and banning posters with whom the blog owners disagree.

    How can anyone claim on the one hand to condone and support free thinking when with the other hand they make regular practice of deleting and banning posters with whom they disagree? Yes, occasionally those who get deleted and banned are actual lunatics like Mabus, but more often then not they are simply well spoken people who are seen as dissenting with the blogs particular ideological position. Laden, Myers, and Benson are particularily free with dismissing, shaming, deleting, and banning people who present well worded argument that the bloggers cannot honestly dispute.

    As to “the people I hang out with”, in point of fact most of the people you are talking about feel not that feminism in general is a bad thing, but more specifically that Gender Feminism, as defined by Christina Hoff Sommers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers) — and yes, I know many Freethoughtblogs people feel that Sommers is some kind of gender traitor — is a severly flawed form of feminism that intentionally ignores huge portions of women the world round, and has no desire for egalitarian socio-political policies at all, but is in fact more interested in simply turning the tables: distaff Black Pantherism, as I’ve been calling it for the last decade or two.

    It may or may not be relevant, but some of the people you so glibly mischaracterize are old enough, and socio-politically active enough to have actually been involved in the first major wave of feminism that began its primary struggle in the late 60s and early 70s.

    If you say misogynist things that does not make you a misogynist. It makes you someone saying misogynist things. It is closely related to the whole “teh bad werds” thing that Umbridge gets so hot under the collar about. Saying bad words does not make the person saying them an evil person; bad words do not cause direct harm; context is always important, and intent even more so.

    “Talking about kicking women “in the cunt” ranks pretty highly on the misogyny scale.”

    It can, depending on the context and the actual intent. As I said, the context wherein Franc said that renders it pretty darned harmless. And yes I know you buy into Umbridge’s misrepresentation of the comment, but buying into it does not make it so.

    And I know this has been asked dozens of times, in dozens of ways, but why is it that most Freethoughtblogss bloggers and commentors find “kick in the cunt” so deeply, and emotionally scarring, but “kick in the balls” and “kick in the (male) crotch” is just teehee ha ha funny? Why isn’t it a dismissive misandrist assault?

    Any comparison of Franc with Mabus is simply ludicrous. The fact that you are incpable of seeing that only highlights your blindness and your insistence on buying into ideology rather than using critical thinking, objectivity, and context to make your claims.

    “I’m really very dismayed that you don’t also appreciate that other people might take offense at things that are significantly “less bad” in your estimation, because they might actually be worse in their own. It means that you have precious little empathy, in my estimation.”

    You can be dismayed as much you want, but that dismay is of your own making. I do indeed appreciate and understand that other people feel that Franc’s comments are significantly bad. I do not agree with them. And the primary reason I am not very empathetic towards them is the same reason I am not very empathetic towards Mabus. I feel their reaction to Franc’s comments to be over the line, irrational, and intentionally ignoring the context, the larger critical context, within which those comments were made.

    And more specifically, I do not for a moment trust PeeZus’s position on this issue. I suspect he feels no threat and is not honestly at all concerned, but is using this event as a way to aid and abet his hate-campaign against Franc.

    Zvan said:

    “Factually wrong how again?”

    Factually wrong because, for one thing, Franc hasn’t done that: he does not wander around acting like an asshat to strangers and especially strange women. Please provide evidence that he in fact does that. His words on his blog are not evidence that he is the miserable fuck who loves to wander around acting like an asshat to strangers and especially strange women. They are simply a passel of angry words that express his deep mistrust and disrespect for people he believes are deceitful liars, hypocritical bullies, and self-interested manufacturers of false crises. He, in his own way, is simply stating his wish that these people stick a dead procupine up their collective ass and get on with the real world.

  11. says

    Okay, here are a few responses to that query to get started with.

    And do you have any proof of those assertions, or are they true by your mere assertion? Remember, I don’t consider YOU a trustworthy entity in this “conversation”.

    How can anyone claim on the one hand to condone and support free thinking when with the other hand they make regular practice of deleting and banning posters with whom they disagree?

    Freethought doesn’t mean letting spammers have their run of the place. Period. We’d no sooner let a Catholic priest blog (or comment freely) on these pages than we would let a neo-Nazi white supremacist or an expressly anti-woman bigot (I mean the real MRA types, like some of your friends, not just an anti-feminist like yourself — both of which being unpalatable, but you’re just hobo vomit whereas the MRA types are hobo vomit with a side of dog feces).

    Freethought is the philosophy that one’s opinions should be informed by scientific investigation, evidence and reason, not by dogmatic adherence to any authority or tradition. Freethought Blogs is, therefore, a safe place for atheists, skeptics, feminists/egalitarians, and other folks who are free of dogmas or outside the expected norms of this patriarchal rich white society, to talk about these issues without having to worry about getting squelched by those dogmatic or oppressive elements in the greater society. If it was “free” in the sense you’re talking, then FtB would be primarily privileged folks talking about primarily privileged things from their religious perspective, which would probably be Christian since that’s the majority of English-speakers. That’s not what this is about, and you damn well know it.

    You have your own safe spaces for talking about how evil some women are. You even have a woman or two willing to hang out with you and call those other women names right along side you. Go back to those places. There, you’re in your own safe space, and won’t have to be confronted by people doing things like removing insults from comment threads or blocking you for abusing your privileges over and over again. We’ve built this for people who are disabused of your evident notions of enforcing groupthink. The very idea that a woman is untrustworthy for having moderated her threads against frequent and unnecessary name-calling is proof enough that you’re not interested in free thought — you’re just interested in being able to call a woman a cunt to her (digital) face and get away with it.

    Don’t worry though. Just because your insults don’t come through, doesn’t mean these people are free from being insulted all day, every day, by practically every part of this society which shames them and punishes them for wanting to be equal. Here, on Freethought Blogs, those people who are silenced so often and so thoroughly have safe berth.

    And I know this has been asked dozens of times, in dozens of ways, but why is it that most Freethoughtblogss bloggers and commentors find “kick in the cunt” so deeply, and emotionally scarring, but “kick in the balls” and “kick in the (male) crotch” is just teehee ha ha funny? Why isn’t it a dismissive misandrist assault?

    Privilege. Period. While being kicked in the balls is bad if you’re a man, you’ve got it so much better than women that it’s simply not enough damage to make up the difference.

    Kick a hobo and kick a rich man. The rich man can retaliate in myriad ways. The hobo can’t. In that case, because of privilege. Same deal. Kicking a hobo is classist in the same way that kicking a woman in the crotch is sexist because of underlying privilege.

    But I know you’re not asking seriously. And I know by answering, I’m just giving you more material to go back to your hateful, hateful buddies to tell them about all the funny things Jason Bieber thinks and what a milquetoast little toad he is.

    No matter what context you put Ivanoff’s comments in, they are now tied to his real name. And even in context, they are terrible things exposing his ultimate hatred of PZ and Ophelia (and secondarily, everyone who dares defend either). His nonstop ranting about FtB and how ridiculous we all are is rather silly, and sad, and exposes the same sort of fixation that Mabus did, though not nearly as bipolar.

    Though I notice there are some recent posts that AREN’T about Rebecca Watson or someone on FtB on Grey Lining — send my congratulations to him for me that he might actually have interests other than us. It’s a good step, and one that he probably should have taken six months or so ago. He should also consider a hobby next. Maybe collecting butterflies.

    “Factually wrong how again?”

    Factually wrong because, for one thing, Franc hasn’t done that: he does not wander around acting like an asshat to strangers and especially strange women.

    Except he does, in fact, do exactly that — he only doesn’t do that if you exclude my implied “on the internet”, which you must omit to make your statement factual. You see, and you might not be aware of this if you somehow comment on his blog without reading it, he spends an extraordinary amount of time talking about how terrible certain women are, with a very small percentage of his rants being about how awful certain men are. He does not, by his own admission, know any of these people. He was counting on his anonymity to see him through “shaming” FtB bloggers by taking his picture with them and slipping who-knows-what into their pockets. PZ removed that anonymity, so we are significantly less strangers now. I do kind of hope he sues PZ so the judge could hear all the fun details of his hate campaign.

    Why do you howler monkeys keep calling PZ “PeeZus”? Do you think we take orders from him or something? Or think he’s infallible? Don’t answer that… I’m sure your answer will be grossly counterfactual and involve more bait-and-switch. That seems to be your modus operandi after all.

  12. says

    And I know this has been asked dozens of times, in dozens of ways, but why is it that most Freethoughtblogss bloggers and commentors find “kick in the cunt” so deeply, and emotionally scarring, but “kick in the balls” and “kick in the (male) crotch” is just teehee ha ha funny? Why isn’t it a dismissive misandrist assault?

    Who is laughing at this? Where? Where did someone say this to the delight of FtB bloggers or commentariat? Your straw man has straw balls.

    Also, the 60s and 70s were second-wave feminism, not first. And none of the women you list as untrustworthy are second-wave feminists. A bunch of people telling each other so doesn’t make it so. Perhaps you should do some research on the topic.

  13. John Greg says

    “And do you have any proof of those assertions….”

    Well, it’s pretty darn hard to prove that one’s posts have been edited or deleted, now isn’t it? Of course now, when I remember, I try to take screenshots of most of my more contentious posts, specifically so that proof does in fact exist. But at the time, no, I did not take any screenshots. So, I know it’s just my contention (there are other folks who have experienced this, but I have not kept track of who they are) without proof. As I say, it is kind of hard to prove something that is now invisible.

    “Freethought doesn’t mean letting spammers have their run of the place. Period.”

    I understand that and agree whole-heartedly. The problem is though that Benson, Myers, Laden, and some others seriously abuse this privilege and ban folks for simply disagreeing with them, or for saying things they don’t like.

    Benson initialy banned me before I even posted at her blog; Laden banned me after I asked him a question he did not want to answer; PeeZus banned me after my very first post, which by the way, was actually a post in agreement with the associated blog article — and he blacklisted (inDungeonated) me before he changed his mind about the the pink bunnies.

    “… an anti-feminist like yourself….”

    Ah, now, c’mon. Stick to the facts. I am not an anti-feminist, I am an anti-gender feminist. And those are valid distinctions whether you like them or not.

    “you’re just hobo vomit whereas the MRA types are hobo vomit with a side of dog feces”

    Ain’t that sweet.

    “Freethought is the philosophy that one’s opinions should be informed by scientific investigation, evidence and reason, not by dogmatic adherence to any authority or tradition.”

    Sure, but if you are going to insist that most folks who comment or even blog on Freethoughtblogs do not inform their thoughts through dogmatic adherence to any authority or tradition, I can only laugh.

    Here is a link to a more comprehensive explanation of what free thought is. You might find this quite interesting actually: (http://ffrf.org/publications/nontracts/What-Is-A-Freethinker/).

    “…abusing your privileges over and over again.”

    Except that aside from posting at PeeZus’s blog after being banned, I have not in fact abuses my privileges. I have consistently been calm and polite. I have called no one any names. I have never called anyone by a sexist epithet — oh wait, no, I once called Watson a bitch, but I think that was after she called Dawkins a dick. I have tried to remain as tightly on topic as I can (though everyone strays from time to time, and usually when I strayed OT I was being dragged down the OT path by some other commentor putting words and intenions into my mouth). I have not made any threats. I have not wished for people to anally insert rusty knives or dead porcupines. And I have not spammed.

    In almost every case wherein I have been banned, it was specifically because I posted several posts answering requests for either evidence or clarification of statements I had made. When those clarifications either angered the blog owner or presented questions they or other commentors could not honestly respond to, I was then banned.

    “Privilege. Period. While being kicked in the balls is bad if you’re a man, you’ve got it so much better than women that it’s simply not enough damage to make up the difference.”

    ROFLOL! You are a jewel of interpretive illogic.

    “No matter what context you put Ivanoff’s comments in, they are now tied to his real name.”

    Except for the fact that it might actually turn out that that is not his real name nor his poicture. It seems that the individual who sent that info to PeeZus is actually some disgruntled woman who actually for-real stalked Hoggle in the physical world. And someone else who knows Hoggle in the physical world states that that is neither his name nor his picture.

    Of course, her claim is at this point in time no more supportable or provable than is PeeZus’s claim that the name and picture are legitimate: PeeZus doesn’t know; I don’t know; you don’t know. But of course most of the Freethought folks whose opinions are informed by scientific investigation, evidence, and reason, have determined that PeeZis right, inerrantly right.

    “which you must omit to make your statement factual.”

    You really are a jewel. How on Earth can I omit something you didn’t place there in the first place? Sheesh. Okay, so let’s be specific:

    “… the miserable fuck who loves to wander around [the Internet] acting like an asshat to strangers and especially strange women will be there, and proper security measures [for anticipated violence for which there is no actual precedence] can be taken.”

    Now that statement is factual. Your was not factual.

    Why do you howler monkeys keep calling PZ “PeeZus”?

    That’s a pun. You could call it an associative pun, or perhaps a sort of auditory pareidolia, or more correctly apophenia. You know, Jesus = PeeZus. You do understand puns don’t you?

    Sorry for the absurd length of the post, but there was much to answer to.

  14. says

    For the length of the reply, you’ve addressed none of my larger points. Each thing that you’ve scoffed at as being illogical, came with it a perfectly serviceable analogy of its own. And your shot at the end about my not understanding puns should be obviated by my suggesting that we don’t think he’s infallible. You know, like someone might think Jesus was, if they followed him. For someone so eloquent, reading comprehension is evidently not your strong suit. Nor is recognizing or understanding the problem of privilege. Or that none of the women mentioned here are gender feminists (or they might all, you know, hate me and PZ.)

    Please, expound at greater length if you need to. But do actually read all of what I wrote when you reply, don’t just reply to the first sentence of each paragraph. It will help considerably with your ability to discuss someone’s actual arguments, rather than a strawman thereof.

  15. John Greg says

    Nonsense, Jason. I most certainly did address your points. Just because you disagree with my opinions or position on those points does not mean I did not address your points.

    What, specifically did I not address? Specifally please, and maybe number them one through whatever, because apparently I am either too dogmatic, or too literal, or too stupid to figure that out on my own.

    Jason said:

    “We’ve built this for people who are disabused of your evident notions of enforcing groupthink.”

    So, let me get this straight. We at ERV, the Slimepit as it is fondly known around Freethoughblogs, enforce groupthink by encouraging a wide diversity of opinion, and by arguing with each other over the many varied and different opinions we disagree on*, and we further ensure this groupthink by not editing, deleting, or censoring posts, nor banning posters.

    And Freethoughblogs avoids groupthink and ensures open and free thinking by editing, deleting, and censoring posts, and banning posters.

    Um. Ya. Right. Okay Jason. It’s your ice cream store, you can do whatever you want with it.

    *For the record, there is currently a lot of disagreement regarding the now infamous conference comment by Franc. Some folks are very angry with Franc, are extremely opposed to his comment, and think Franc should own up, apologise, and withdraw.

    Some others are somewhat on the fence and undecided.

    And yet others pretty much endorse it.

    Some folks, like myself, who, while not endorsing his comment, do not think it much of anything to be so overly concerned about (an almost zero-bad), especially when taken in the larger context of the discussion in general, and the back-and-forth, so to speak, between Franc and PeeZus, at the same time expressing a range of reaction towards his stated intended actions such as feeling that his intent to e.g., go incognito is borderline good/bad, making friendly and sitting with other conference attendees is zero-bad, having pictures taken is zero-bad, planting something in PeeZus’s pocket is wrong, but not particularily terrible.

    Nuance is important when enforcing groupthink, don’t you think? Think.

    NO!

  16. says

    I’m off to bed. I’ll reply more thoroughly when I have time. But this cannot stand.

    So, let me get this straight. We at ERV, the Slimepit as it is fondly known around Freethoughblogs, enforce groupthink by encouraging a wide diversity of opinion, and by arguing with each other over the many varied and different opinions we disagree on*, and we further ensure this groupthink by not editing, deleting, or censoring posts, nor banning posters.

    There are far better ways of enforcing groupthink. For instance, the slimepit tactic of pillorying comments contrary to your own inherent antifeminist biases (admit it — you’re against feminists in general, since you have no issues with conflating the various sorts of feminists), leaving those commenters outraged and off kilter and saying things that you can mock in great numbers, leaving them there as a head-on-a-pike (ON THE INTERNET, since you’re so damned literal) to warn off other transgressors that this is not a safe place for them to disagree. Simply removing all instances of “so and so is a shrivelled cunt” is not enforcing groupthink, it’s reducing the noise so the signal of conversation can get through.

    And if you weren’t running around [ON THE INTERNET] taking great pains to insult your hosts [ON THE INTERNET] and generally abusing your posting privileges [ON THE INTERNET], you might be allowed to remain part of these conversations for far longer than you’ve managed [ON THE INTERNET]. That one blogger blocked you for actions on another’s blog simply helps preempt whatever nonsense you plan on spreading from one blog to another. You’re only on here defending Ivanoff because it’s quiet in my particular ice cream shop, and you haven’t yet managed to hit my Butterscotch Ripple with your repeated attempts at urinating. You really haven’t even managed much of a flow yet. We’ll see.

    Like I said, more tomorrow. You have a pleasant evening!

  17. John Greg says

    Jason said:

    “For instance, the slimepit tactic of pillorying comments contrary to your own inherent antifeminist biases….”

    Except we do not do that. Yes, indeed, some folks at ERV, and of course at several Freethoughtblogs blogs, do often post angry dissenting comments directed at commentors whose opinions they disagree with — is that not a fully legitimate part of discussion and debate — but pillorying? I don’t think we do that. Care to show me some pillorying?

    And please, let’s do keep in mind that if we look at the thousands of posts in several threads there are invariably going to be some people somewhere getting rather harsh with each other, so some random post from some random wanker does not provide much evidence. Remember, you are accusing a large number of people of regular, consistent, intentionally hostile tactics designed to provide an easily perceivable warning, “head-on-a-pike” as you put it, to others who may drop in for a post or two.

    “(admit it — you’re against feminists in general, since you have no issues with conflating the various sorts of feminists)”

    Well, I cannot admit that which is not true about myself. In what way do you feel that I wrongly conflate feminists? I do think that Sommers’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers) division of feminism into two primary groups, equity feminism, and gender feminism, is real, valid, and useful. I support equity feminism; I do not support gender feminism.

    “… leaving those commenters outraged and off kilter and saying things that you can mock in great numbers, leaving them there as a head-on-a-pike (ON THE INTERNET, since you’re so damned literal) to warn off other transgressors that this is not a safe place for them to disagree.”

    That is quite the florid imagination you have there Jason. Again, is it at all possible to give me something tangible to sink my teeth into, for example some links to this pillorying and heads-on-pikes and outrage and off kiltering that you say is going on? Are you perhaps mistakenly referring to the rather hardcore emotional beating that blu-harmony took at Butterflies and Wheels and at Pharyngula?

    And even if what you say were true, it is my opinion that it is better to proceed with an honest tally of posts (because not deleting posts represents truth and reality), however mean-spirited they may be, than to revise history and create a wholly false congruence.

    “Simply removing all instances of ‘so and so is a shrivelled cunt’ is not enforcing groupthink, it’s reducing the noise so the signal of conversation can get through.”

    Well, except you know very well that that is by no means even a slightly significant proportion of the kind of thing PeeZus, or Benson, or Laden, for example, delete. Such comments represent a vanishingly small percentage of the posts that Freethoughtblogs bloggers remove to help create a false congruence.

    “And if you weren’t running around [ON THE INTERNET] taking great pains to insult your hosts [ON THE INTERNET]”

    Except, Jason, that I very rarely do actually insult anyone. Dissent, yes indeed. Disagreement, certainly. Insult, occasionally, perhaps, but very, very rarely. And for the record, not one of my bannings was the result of insulting a blog host. Not one.

    “… and generally abusing your posting privileges [ON THE INTERNET]”

    Well, yes. Except that that is so vague, isn’t it. These privileges you speak of are so changeable and ephemeral, especially as most Freethoughtblogs bloggers change their minds on a regular basis as to what is or is not a posting privilege, and usually base the daily definition on how much they dislike the poster in question.

    But, as has been said before, it is your ice cream shop and you may do whatever you wish in it — except, of course, when it is a real ice cream shop in which case we all need the righteous guidance of PeeZus to say what is and is not allowable in one’s ice cream shop.

    “You’re only on here defending Ivanoff….”

    Except that I am not. If you read carefully, you will note that I quite explicitly stated where I think Franc was in the wrong. That’s not actually defending him. I am critical of some of his actions; not critical of others. I do believe that is called expressing one’s opinion. Again, nuance does not seem to be your strong suit.

  18. says

    Care to show me some pillorying?

    Pillory: to expose to public contempt, ridicule, or scorn

    So, John, which of those isn’t happening?

    Except, Jason, that I very rarely do actually insult anyone.

    Says the man who goes around calling Ophelia “Umbridge,” suggesting Rebecca is lying, and calling people who believe me credulously naive.

    I once called Watson a bitch, but I think that was after she called Dawkins a dick.

    And where did Rebecca actually do that?

    Again, is it at all possible to give me something tangible to sink my teeth into, for example some links to this pillorying and heads-on-pikes and outrage and off kiltering that you say is going on?

    The perfect example of a head left on a pike is this “gender traitor” bullshit. Do you know where that phrase came up? Do you know it met quite a bit of resistance? Do you know it was apologized for about a day later? If so, why do you keep suggesting anyone around here endorses it?

    Time to clean your own house, John, instead of running around looking for specks of dust elsewhere.

  19. Bobby Jenkins says

    Remember when I said this was some smart perspective on this entire nonsensical mess? Yeah. I take it all back.

  20. says

    Wow. I don’t think I really even need to revisit, at this point. Only thing I can really add now that Stephanie didn’t touch on is, for all your literal interpretations of what FtB bloggers say, which appears to be the only way you can prove we’re factually incorrect (by intentionally misinterpreting what we’re saying, you see!), and for all your inability to forget slights to you and yours by people who later apologized and were equally vilified for making the slights by the bloggers you presently assail, you have a very generous interpretation of and grant a great deal of poetic license to anyone “on your side”.

    I mean, in your cohorts’ interpretation, obviously Ivanoff wasn’t being totally literal about stalking, or about putting things in people’s pockets, or about “besmirching” them (whatever the fuck he thinks that means), or about kicking women in the crotch. But you erase the implied “on the internet” from my message — because all of these events so far have happened on the internet, so you’d have to be a first-class dunce to not realize it was there — and suddenly you can claim I’m not sticking to the absolute and unvarnished truth!

  21. says

    Bobby: what part of “Ivanoff doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things as long as people can protect themselves from him as appropriate in real life” is changed by anything I said? Or is it that you didn’t read my original post correctly the first time through?

  22. says

    John Greg:

    My name is not “Umbridge.”

    I don’t “run around yowling about the whole “cunt kick” thing.”

    I am not “quite intentionally misrepresenting what Franc, in fact, said.”

    And you wonder (or rather, you pretend to wonder) why I won’t let you comment at my place.

  23. Bobby Jenkins says

    I am referring to the subsequent discussion this post has generated. You advise to not feed trolls, and then spend several posts doing so. Good job, son!

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>