It’s mid-month, and all you regulars know what that means: it’s time to poll you guys for the winners of the Molly award for June. It’s easy: just leave a comment with the name of the person you most enjoy stumbling across in the comment threads, I count ’em up, the winner gets the grand prize of getting his or her name entered on the Molly roll call. You might want to review that list before casting your vote, so you don’t nominate someone who has already won one.
If you’ve been wondering who the grand prize winner for last month was, it was a tie between Kseniya and BronzeDog. That means you have to read their comments with a special reverence now, and you also have to cast a vote for someone different.
Michael Egnor!
sorry, sorry.
You totally dropped the ball on last month’s Molly. Just now we’re getting the winners? Feh.
I’d vote for Egnor too, but he’s already taken. So my vote has to go for Ichthyic.
I don’t think you should exclude previous winners from the competition, because this will steadily erode the meaningfulness of the award, since the “best” candidates are removed from the running. This will eventually lead to “ok whose turn is it now” sort of thing, just like those employee-of-the-month awards.
No nominee- I just miss Molly and appreciate you honoring her menory.
You would do better to reward merit, rather than popularity.
Only if you assume the population of good commenters is relatively static, like the employees of a corporation. If, on the other hand, it is dynamic, and it follows a normal distribution, you’d expect good, bad, and indifferent commenters to always be joining and leaving in numbers roughly proportionate to their distribution. Under that assumption, there would always be good commenters to choose among.
Whosajiggawha? Well, I’m surprised. Thanks.
Merit over popularity? But I was gonna nominate Cal!
Congratulations Kseniya and Bronze Dog! Great choices. I always look forward to their insightful comments.
“And now for our trivia question: which two popular characters died in the previous seasons of ‘The Simpsons’? If you guessed ‘Bleeding Gums’ Murphy and Dr. Marvin Monroe, you’re WRONG. Those characters were never popular.”
Sadly, No, the Contrarian Autocrat Grumpus doesn’t get my vote. Indeed, he feels voting is inherently flawed, as it provides for people other than him to decide on things.
I have to vote for Ichthyic.
Oh, Stogoe, Stogoe. Whatever will we do with you?
A contrarian is someone who takes the opposite position for the sake of doing so – usually for spite, sometimes as a form of Socratic Questioning. But most of the time, if you know someone is just being contrary, you don’t need to look closer at what they’re saying or consider it deeply.
Since I don’t just disagree with whatever points are made, and I resist simplistic caricatures of positions, we might wonder why you’re so anxious to dissuade people from looking at my statements and trying to understand why I make them.
Stogoe doth protest too much, methinks.
Ohhh, Stogoe. You came so close to participating in a thread without firing off an insult.
I have my own concerns about the endgame of this procedure. How long will this new monthly tradition last? How low on the worthy totempole will recipients of this honor end up in a year?
But for the short term, I have no great problems with that fishy fellow, Ichthyic. Just as PZ has fed me nuggets of evo-devo which I kinda sorta understand, Ichthyic has graced me with partially understood fish knowledge.
RavenT wrote:
Actually, that assumption supports my point too. If the population were truly dynamic, you wouldn’t need to exclude anyone either, because they’ll eventually fade away.
Stogoe doth protest too much, methinks.
perhaps, but I have to admit to liking the term “Autocrat Grumpus”, applicable or not.
I’m gonna find some usage for that, somewhere.
I’m still partial to the long term for creobots I picked up over on democracy.org ages ago:
God-bothering Tub-thumpers.
I admit, I do think the world would be better run if I were made Malevolent Overlord of Earth.
But, deep down, everyone feels that they are best qualified to know what to do and how to do it. Even the people who don’t think they’re worthy and would defer in favor of another are still following their own judgement, after all.
I vote for Peanut Gallery!
Agreed. “Autocrat Grumpus” is the most original and amusing insult I have read seen Stogoe toss out.
I grok the God-bothering. Tub-thumpers? Is there an aspect of Christianity of which I am unaware?
I’ve got an idea. Anybody that thinks that they should decide how the Order be should run, should start a similar award on their own blogs. I would do the same, except that I have only one regular commenter, and he would be perfectly justified in voting for himself each month.
But this is Pharyngula, and PZ decides if there are rules. I am going to go a different direction this month and vote for the one poster who is most likely to piss me off on a regular basis.
Caledonian, for sticking to your guns.
I grok the God-bothering. Tub-thumpers? Is there an aspect of Christianity of which I am unaware?
it’s an old reference to when street-preachers used to use overturned half-barrels as handmade pulpits.
They’d bang their hands on it like a drum to attract attention to themselves.
hence: Tub-thumper.
This is from the the UK, or so I was told by someone who claimed familiarity; likely in the US you might have heard the term: “standing on a soapbox”, which referred in a similar fashion to the practice of street-preachers using overturned wooden soapboxes, IIRC.
I just liked the way the whole phrase rolled off the tongue..
God-Bothering Tub-Thumper.
Malevolent Overlord of Earth.
oh, a wise guy huh?
nyukk nyukk
As my financial debt passed into unrealistic imaginary numbers, I thought I’d buy myself a Molly. Name your price, and I’ll pay with quality comments.
If I fail, squid forbid, I have eight (8) fresh prehensile limbs to offer for a week to PZ’s evil machinations. (Not all are mine.)
The inanimate carbon rod! Either that or Caledonian, because I tend to agree with him/her and I’m shallow like that.
Ginger:
I’m willing to offer as much as two million carbon rods* for your vote… Let’s talk.
Yours,
The Next Molly
*Once I invent advanced nanotech assemblers, that is.
Are -ve votes allowed? Caledonian’s a bit of a jerk at times- especially over the past month.
Everytime the order of molly comes around, I truly wish that scienceblogs had a search feature for the comments section that would yield posts by given individuals.
If nominated, I will not accept. If elected, I will not serve. If awarded, I… well, whatever the appropriate verb would be, I won’t do it.
I’ve gotta go with the inanimate carbon rod. Is there anything it can’t do?
Of course you can change your vote… Don’t worry!
Luckily for you, the price of Caledonian votes have dropped a good deal. At this point, you can trade them for nearly any other candidate with a slight boost in your stake (minus the trasnfer fee, of course).
Now, I feel a little dirty mentioning this, but I just wanted to point out that you could move your votes over to me (squid guy), and as a first time customer, not only will we wave to fee, we’ll even kick in 10% to the cause!
Also, I’m not sure I’m legally allowed to say this (we’ll see if I get banned), but my most recent FOIA request revealed that 10% of the Sb ad money is set aside for the most recent Molly recipient to distribute to worthy researchers.
I do not mean to speak ill of previous Molly recipients, but the numbers suggest there is something near a 95% “overhead”. If I am your Molly, I promise all 100% will go to worthy researchers, and I will fully disclose our books.
Vote for the squid! You can’t lose!
I would like to nominate myself, as doing so is a hell of a lot easier than crafting a thoughtful and entertaining post.
An excellent point KSig, but can you arbitrarily recast your signature into something like “(I)’s (D)efinitely (S)ignificant”? No?
But I am no impoverished squid — 20 million carbon rods to anyone that thinks they can best me!
Me?
I meant to say, Me?
Ugh, including the damn ‘t’ after the (I).
(My team of personal editors don’t generally work this late…)
Holy fuck Hans — I was just joking around — that image should be reserved for cold war nuclear brinkmanship, when both sides are holding their thumbs over the button to trigger launches of primed ICBMs while they are screaming vulgarities into the red phone. Just before either commits to destroying civilization as we know it, they should have to click on “kill that kitten, too”.
That’s just not fair…
Kagehi.
Oh wait, I think I promised CalGeorge a vote some time back.
Kseniya and Bronze Dog! I am fully pleased, though I only voted for one of them (Kseniya) that time.
Wait, does this mean I don’t get to vote for Bronzie now? Like, forever? Bwaaahh!!
If this goes on, I will have to instate a long preemptive list. But for now I can make my vote retroactive. So here’s one for Bronze Dog – you deserve(d) to win!
Now the fresh blood – seems that there will still be two winners at times, so two candidates will do.
Ichthyic has been on my “to vote for” list for a long time, as has Caledonian. As they both appeared here to remind me, that will do nicely. Ichthyic for his analysis and concern, Caledonian for his brevity and rantability.
Oh, btw PZ, I hear that Scott Hatfield has his own blog now. You may want to update your Molly list.
Kseniya and Bronze Dog! I am fully pleased, though I only voted for one of them (Kseniya) that time.
Wait, does this mean I don’t get to vote for Bronzie now? Like, forever? Bwaaahh!!
If this goes on, I will have to instate a long preemptive list. But for now I can make my vote retroactive. So here’s one for Bronze Dog – you deserve(d) to win!
Now the fresh blood – seems that there will still be two winners at times, so two candidates will do.
Ichthyic has been on my “to vote for” list for a long time, as has Caledonian. As they both appeared here to remind me, that will do nicely. Ichthyic for his analysis and concern, Caledonian for his brevity and rantability.
Oh, btw PZ, I hear that Scott Hatfield has his own blog now. You may want to update your Molly list.
Oh mock me if you like, but some day — SOME DAY — I will hold the Molly and I will crush you all!
Oh, the Molly isn’t quite like that? Okay. Well, you will all be BORED with my RANTS! Mwhahaha., etc.
Whatever; I still want to win for no good reason!
I’m not going to object to our fishy friend getting a Molly (it’ll piss Rich off, too. [INSERT EVIL LAUGHTER HERE]), but I’m going to nominate Christian Burnham, for being ever insightful and witty.
I guess the nominations of Caledonian should be for him being inciteful.
Bob
A Molly vote for a PNAS 1/2 paper?
This is not going well.
Ten billion shares of Enron stock for every Molly vote!
And as a bonus, special favors from Dubya’s Republican Presidential successor (or from his continuing martial law government) in 2009.
My first Molly supporter gets Kuwait’s oils fields!
RavenT. She’s been around here a looong time. And always with good comments.
I promise that every vote for me will automatically earn the voter a place on the list where you can nominate your favorite B-grade SciFi movie for the endless marathon in hell.*
*(offer void where prohibited; results may vary; in the event of any dispute, Joel Hodgson makes the final decision).
ooh, yes RavenT would be a good choice.
I promise DRM free upload with a minimum of 1,000 mirrors. Further, uploading “old-school” fair use clips (ie. more than 5 seconds) gets you a gold star.
Alternatively: does ATT get to decide IP laws now just because they have restored their comm monopoly?
Totally OT, but has anyone seen Dembski’s reply (over at UD) to Jerry Coyne’s “battering” of Behe? Seems that the strongest rebuttal Dembski could come up with was to call Coyne ugly (not going to link to it, but I’m sure you all know where UD is, sadly).
expect a fart montage featuring Coyne any day now.
does ATT get to decide IP laws now just because they have restored their comm monopoly?
no, not yet anyway.
IanR: As best as I can tell, I’ve now had five distinct accounts banned for trying to clarify that specific position. ucd is not what one would generally consider an open forum.
I must admit that I read the comments, but it’s rare that I read the author attribution. However, I have noticed Caledonian’s comments and something made me read his name often enough to stick in my mind.
And Hans, what you really need is this:
Cathulhu
CalGeorge, Ginger Yellow, Glen D.
My nominee: PZMyers for his magnificent post “We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved.”
Hooray for both! I voted for BronzeDog that time, but Kseniya was next on my list. Congratulations.
As the regular commenter who comes closest to my own views, I want to vote for Caledonian also. His posts engage me more than most others’ do, even when I am a bit disappointed in them. And for other, more subjective reasons….
well, that new guy “mats” kind of makes sense…
guh, snort, huh, what? Sorry, was I snoring?
PZ, it must be kind of tedious going through each post and counting up all the various nominees, especially since some posts mention names of people who aren’t being nominated. So why don’t you suggest that when we nominate somebody, we put that person’t name in bold so you can just quickly scroll through and count up the bold names?
I stand by my Autocratic Grumpus comment. If you’ve read Caldeonian’s comments, then you know that he holds the very idea of democracy in disdain, and honestly, that’s the opposite of a Molly.
Just to clarify something: there are no rules here. This is an acknowledgment by the commenters of another commenter — if you all vote for someone who already has a Molly, I’ll go along with it. If you all vote for a piece of gravel you found in your shoe, I’m not going to argue with you. If you pick someone I can’t stand — yes, even if it’s some stupid creationist troll — I’m not going to turn up my nose and say no. It’s all in your hands, people! Great power, great responsibility, spider-man schtick, yadda yadda yadda.
I vote for a piece of gravel I found in my shoe. Better yet, it’s a stupid creationist troll piece of gravel.
There’s something very fishy about this Ichthyic guy, but he gets my vote. I’ll get the tarter sauce.
As someone who has actually worked with inanimate carbon rods (actually carbon fibre rebars) I have to admit they are pretty snazzy. Strong, light-weight, they don’t interfere with MRIs, they don’t corrode, etc. You can’t beat them.
That said, if I have to vote for a real person, Ichthyic is it this month. Not as a good as a carbon rod though.
How ’bout the Kansas troll?
I second CalGeorge, he is a shoe in. But don’t forget about Steve_C (My apologies to Dr. Labonne)!
Where is Kseniya’s acceptance speech? Or has she retired now that she finally won the Lombardi Trophy?
Great little Molly Awards graphic, PZ (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). :D
My votes are definitely for
Ichthyic: outstanding contributions, and strangely unslippery
Caledonian: well – being Scottish should be enough for anyone… but if not, injects a solid dose of reality and mercilessly punishes pedantry
Kseniya: Again — eloquent and direct, a rare combination
re: Carbon Fiber Rods…
King Aardvark: You may not be able to beat them…. but you sure can beat with them
I can imagine a new superhero, with her ‘Carbon Fiber Rod of Restitution’, beating the crap out of ‘evil IDiots’ who don’t know how to admit when they’re mistaken….
I vote for Caldeonian. Jumping Jebus on a pogo stick, we’re atheists for christ sake. We’re all contrary. We all tell the norm to go to hell. I’m glad that we have members of our community that speak their mind and tell us to go hell sometimes. On that note, thank you Caldeonian for your unabashed comments and keep it up.
It would be nice if we had some kind of system for ranking and linking worthy and profound posts over the month. Just a way to tag them so that they can be reviewed later. It would make awarding this thing much easier.
Then maybe PZ could have a sidebar link to the better posts of the commenter who got the award so that we could see the wisdom that earned it.
oh, and I vote for Ichthyic.
Caledonian: Why would you possibly settle for Malevolent Overlord of Earth
Have you no ambition?
I hereby declare myself “Floccinocinihilpilificationistic Arbiter of Arguments, and Cuddly Overlord of the Multiverse”
You make worship me from afar, no photos please, interviews by appointment only (see my agent).
Note to self:
I am not changing my vote; but I will come back in July for the comments on the Molly Tally and see this post:
Don’t forget about A.J. Milne.
And no, I can’t be bought.
Carlie – and Rich, teh warlock.
What? I’m supposed to be reading the names associated with the comments now?
Yeah, like I’ve got that kind of time on my hands.
I want to nominate Gremlin for humorously using the term ‘free-bootery’ in a post. I’m capricious like that.
I’ll vote for Zeno. It seems like he always has a good comment, then I click through to his blog, and read an interesting post, then forget about him for awhile.
Ichthyic, but with a round of applause for ids for making this comment thread so entertaining (and potentially lucrative!). Maybe next month you’ll hit our price.
I take this time to remind everybody that a vote for me is one less vote for somebody who actually has a chance.
And not only do I not stay bought, I do not honor lease agreements.
As someone who responds to the name Molly who gets really really weirded out whenever one of these comes around, why is it that Molly Ivins is so commonly referred to as “Molly” instead as “Ivins”?
As someone who’s more of a lurker than a (substantive) commenter, I’d cast my vote for Caledonian as well. When I come late into a long thread, Cal’s comments are among those I specifically look for; even though I sometimes vehemently disagree, I always find them interesting to read.
Ummm… Here?
I’ve been afraid to peek. The last Molly voting suggested there was a BronzekseniyaDog Molly in our future, and sure enough, here we are. I’ve been struggling with feelings of inadequacy for weeks.
But the other day it hit me: It’s a Molly! Not a Sagan, a Gould, or an Einstein. Science credentials aren’t required. Besides, who am I to claim to know better than the voting community?
I do appreciate the positive feedback. I’m not ashamed to say it feels good or to admit that it means something to me. Thank you.
The merit vs. popularity question is one that’s been rolling around in my head, too (yup, more pathos) and I’ve concluded that “merit” means whatever the voters decide it’s going to mean each month. (Sorry, Caledonian, I’m not intentionally trying to induce that biting-on-tinfoil feeling!) The criteria are vague: “The best and most interesting and most deserving of acknowledgment.” Which again prompts me to ask myself, “K, what are YOU doing here?”
Finally, I’ve also concluded that taking it too seriously and getting all tangled up in it is silly, and probably not in the spirit of the Order. Heh. :-)
I’m all for the no-rules approach, save one: If someone wins three months in a row, they get tossed in the dungeon. That could make things interesting. Don’t you think so, Blake Stacey?
This month, I vote for RavenT.
#57 “Just to clarify something: there are no rules here.”
Well, duh. We are amoral atheists after all….
Has “for the children” had a shot at this yet?
Huzzah for Kseniya! Here’s another vote for RavenT. Maybe that’ll help balance out opening the floodgates so Cal could find out how popular he is. Disagreeing with him is half the fun. What’s more disturbing is finding yourself on the same side, as often as not.
I have to go with Ichthyic.
I am only an occasional lurker here, so I am not able to link names with any particularly great posts. But I want to help out. So for the Molly, I nominate the unknown random poster whose post precedes this one (I promise that I have not looked).
Unknown random poster, your contributions to this blog have been funny, insightful, and courageous. You honor your species, whatever it may be. You are truly a marvel. Only a moron would fail to recognize the brilliance behind your writing. If you have a link to your own blog, I will be reading it faithfully (for at least one week).
I wish you luck in the competition.
A certain Christian (and future Molly candidate) wrote:
“Are negative votes allowed? Caledonian’s a bit of a jerk at times- especially over the past month.”
Well, just on the off chance that Caledonian DOES end up with a Molly next month, that will signal the end of my relationship with Pharyngula.
So, if you want to get rid of me (the self-proclaimed scholar) forever, while simultaneously giving Caledonian the Molly award, go ahead and vote for Caledonian.
This is not a negative vote for him (I already tried that method a few months back), nor a threat, though it may seem so, it is simply a fact. (as orac says “facts can not be threats”, or was that insolence?)
I will even go so far as to agree that Caledonian deserves to win if you guys (gals) really decide that he has achieved superior merit/popularity. I do actually respect the way he is able to take criticism, not many people who dish it out are able to take criticism well. You just won’t see me here anymore if he wins, and I wanted to explain why. Call me shallow, but this “Caledonian for Molly” idea is absurd, I know she is rolling in her grave with each mention of the C-word.
Hope we can still be friends!
please tell me the above was an attempt at parody?
If not, do you really take things people say here in the comments so seriously?
everybody here has information to share that is useful, at least to some extent (or they end up in the dungeon, eventually). How they impart that information shouldn’t be taken so seriously.
now if this was a blog where the participants were there to plug themselves for public office, you might have a case for rejecting the blog based on some or ALL of the comments any of us have put forth.
but here?
Call me shallow,
sounds like nobody needs to?
The same thing goes for Ichthyic, if he wins. Just kidding. :P
Maybe I am just looking for an excuse to leave… I am telling it like I see it, don’t take everything so seriously Ichy. The point is, this should be about Molly, and I am willing to excommunicate myself from something which I try enjoy (Pharyngula) if a smart-ass wins it, which, I know deep down, he won’t, so I am safe.
Well, I can’t say that I’ve ever been a fan of Caledonian myself–I’ve never understood his reputation for rigor, unless “rigor” is redefined to mean “name-calling, unsupported blanket assertions, and appeal to obscure Objectivist authority”, in which case it makes perfect sense.
But having said that, this attempt to, I dunno, take yourself hostage to prevent him from winning tempts me to vote for him out of sheer principle. (I said “tempts”, PZ, so don’t count it that way just yet; I’ll let you know if I decide to go for it.)
If you don’t like an individual commentor, well, that’s exactly what Daniel’s killfile is for. But you have to admit that threatening to leave forever over it is kind of weird. It’s tempting to precipitate it by voting for him, kind of like a button labeled “don’t touch”.
a) If you’re not also objecting to my own nomination because you don’t consider me a smart-ass, then I clearly am not trying hard enough; I will redouble my efforts.
b) Molly was kind of the queen of the smart-asses in her writing; now if you want to object to Caledonian as an oligarch winning the Molly, that would make a lot more sense, I think.
Somehow I don’t think you’re as enthusiastic about the rule of the people when the people don’t want the things you think they should want.
I suppose it’s not impossible for a people to have sufficient enlightened members for democracy on a large scale to function, but we’re living in America, not a hypothetical utopia, and the American people are collectively idiots.
Quite frankly, I suspect the only reason you favor ‘democracy’ is that our society has been taught to accept it as the best form of government, and you value convention and consensus so much. Have you ever actually sat down and thought about why it’s supposed to be so great?
I would be more impressed by your implied claims to be sophisticated, nuanced, and thoughtful if you didn’t persistantly fail to grasp that I am not an Objectivist.
It’s as though you were declaiming what an excellent impression you make on people while picking your nose with both hands. The effect is… arresting… but probably not what you had in mind.
It’s tempting to precipitate it by voting for him, kind of like a button labeled “don’t touch”.
careful! don’t hit the history erase button by mistake.
…The jolly, candy-like button…
you’re not gonna touch it, are you?
(Well, the temptation to vote for him has passed, anyway. That was quick.)
I’m not particularly impressed with your reading comprehension, either: I didn’t say you were an Objectivist, I said you appealed to obscure Objectivist authority. I could even provide the comment and the cite where you did it, if I wanted to arse myself to find it.
nah, the moment passed.
uite frankly, I suspect the only reason you favor ‘democracy’ is that our society has been taught to accept it as the best form of government,
yeah, ain’t that a bitch? they tell us all to favor democracy, and then give us a damn republic instead.
bloody hypocrites.
I don’t count negative votes (so I guess maybe there are some implicit rules, after all).
This is supposed to be a positive thing, where you reward the people you like to read — so less arguing about who the bad people are would be nice. It’s not in the right spirit, you know. Rather than saying you dislike someone, it would be better if you’d lobby for someone you like better.
Just saying, anyway.
and btw, you are truly evil, Ichthyic.
see you in Hell!
and btw, you are truly evil, Ichthyic. see you in Hell!
well, i gotta get that promotion, after all. I got some changes i wanna make around there.
No more ex-evangelists, for one thing.
damn, but that Falwell is a bore.
you’re right, PZ.
in that spirit, I’d like to nominate Keith Douglas. There are a lot of people whose comments I always click on when they show up, but of them, Keith is–for me–a good troll antidote, since he’s always so calm, positive, and knowledgeable.
I virtually never appeal to authority, so your statement is doubly inane. Appealing to any ideological system as authoritative is the kind of thing only a true believer in that system would do. You are correct that you never explicitly stated the claim, but you’re a deceitful fraud when you suggest you never made the claim at all.
Most students of the Founders and their philosophy have noticed that they put a great deal of restraints and safeguards to prevent “the people” from ever directly wielding political power. Those safeguards have been steadily eroded in the centuries that followed, which probably has a great deal to do with our current situation.
Last call: is anyone going to defend a political system in which Michael Behe and Michael Egnor are given as much power to influence the system as you or I? Anyone?
somehow, it just doesn’t seem like the right thread to do it in, Cale.
another time and place, perhaps.
Ah, you’re trying to make me arse myself to search through a ton of comments, which I’m not going to do.
And PZ’s right that this is not what this is about. I don’t want to pollute the thread any further, so I’ll just defend myself, and then cease to engage with you.
But since you called me a “deceitful fraud”, I’ll just refresh your memory about sometime around last January when your entire post was basically an appeal to a quote from an Objectivist book, and Chris Clarke snarked on you about how most people had gotten over that author and moved out of their mother’s basement by now.
Rigor, indeed. You do something, then you deny it, and call *me* the fraud.
But I don’t want to do this anymore, here in this post or anywhere else, so I’m not going to argue with anything else you say. Have a nice life.
And I won’t engage in any more negativity on this thread, PZ; it’s positive or not at all.
PZ routinely cites various authors, pundits, and speakers in his quote section. I don’t recall anyone here suggesting that he agrees with any or all of the positions espoused – he’s explictly said that the purpose is to showcase interesting sentiments and (hopefully) make people think.
Is quoting a section of an author’s work in the context of a discussion now equivalent to claiming the work or the author possesses an authority on the topic?
You look for things to criticize, and when you fail to find worthy flaws, you invent them from whole cloth. I don’t particularly value the “Order of the Molly”, but the thought that anyone here would nominate you for a meritorious award concerns me deeply.
Ah, at last, a thread that fairly pulsates with the consideration of the merits of the old Scot, who rather memorably once suggested that it was fortunate for me that we didn’t meet in a dark alley!
Quite true, I suspect. But, in the cold light of day, I find much that is ‘meritorious’ in the misanthrope’s pronouncements. Caledonian, rest assured that you are NOT popular in the conventional sense: your posts are difficult for a lot of folk to stomach, for a variety of reasons. If you should be honored with a ‘Molly’, it would doubtless reflect a grudging admiration, not so much for your views, but for the uncompromising way that you present and defend them. I would be dishonest if I did not confess that I find your posts stimulating!
In the meantime, however, I would like to nominate Keith Douglas. Like Thor-Bear and Blake, he often provides links to original material that provides support and context for his views, which are invariably (like the other two mentioned) are well-considered.
My two cents…SH
(PS Thanks PZ for providing the link in the comments section: much appreciated!)
I nominate Caledonian for enrollment in clinical trials for atypical antipsychotics for his many Cluster B personality disorders.
I nominate Graculus for a Molly, since GWW hasn’t been around.
I nominate Madame Nature.
Can’t go wrong there. Here’s some anecdotal evidence supporting my claim: when she speaks, few listen.
The rest argue about what they THINK.
Anybody gonna second it?
I, too, must confess that Caledonian is stimulating. But then, so is Dulcolax.
I vote for both Ichthyic and RavenT. When I see their names by a comment, I know there is a great likelihood of learning something, and certaincy of enjoying reading it.
These days, I lurk a lot more than participate, so I don’t know if I should get a vote, but if I do, I vote for Caledonian.
Yes, Cal can be arrogant, wrong, and sometimes both, but s/he often manages to turn threads from nebbish choruses of agreement into actual discussions.
Few of our nation’s other mentally ill accomplish so much.
Y’no, maybe you’d have a better time convincing people of your positions if you didn’t keep characterizing the people who disagree with you as mentally ill.
Stupid? Uninformed? Unthinking? These are entirely acceptable because they can be easily demonstrated and confirmed. But mentally ill? That’s ad hominem if anything is.
CalGeorge
I vote for Caledonian. He provokes conversation without the brain cell killing annoyance of the creo bots.
RavenT: Why thank you.
That makes two ravens …
Am I too late? I want to nominate ajay for his brilliant and almost certainly correct analysis of sex bias in coastalostiy
Ajay’s
Comment
what will you do when all your readers have won a Molly Award? is there a statute of limitations on these things?