Noooo! My brain!

The Canadian Cynic points out one of Denyse O’Leary’s less endearing habits: her penchant for constant self-promotion and linking profligately to herself. Reading it, what came to mind was the idea of a one-person circle jerk, and then I realized what that implied, and what we were seeing if we read any of her blogs where she’s … ack, snarfle … herself … yikes, beebadabeebada <tilt>. Doesn’t she know that’s a sin?

Well, I’m not going to look at those blogs anymore.


  1. says

    Sometimes I really wonder if these people are for real, or simply opportunists. Look for a highly controversial fringe bandwagon to hop onto, write some books supporting it, rake in the cash. I mean, if I was to write a book along the lines of The God Delusion, no publisher would touch it with a barge pole, simply because there are much higher profile, better qualified people already writing books about that very subject.

    However, if I was to compose a two hundred page screed of logical fallacies attempting to undermine real science and prop up some lunatic, ideologically-motivated pseudo-science of the hour, I’d be published in no time. I have Ph. D, after all, and regardless of where I earned it and what in, that would almost certainly secure me a comfortable advance and probably a bit of radio time…

    …wait a ruddy minute. Why the hell am I wasting my time writing comments on other people’s blogs when I could be writing a NYT bestseller about the unjust marginalisation of Alchemists by the shadowy and dogmatic conspiracy of chemists?

  2. Jsn says

    Well, when someone is so repressed that she is figuratively onanistic rather than actually hands on, it goes to reason that nothing gets her off like projecting her own idiotic ideology as masturbatory exhibitionism. You just know she has a cat o’ nine tails and stillettos buried in the closet, somewhere.
    Perhaps her desires can’t be met any other way since the reality of any “marital aid” wouldn’t measure up. -Insert your own punchline here- (“… If I could find my keys, we could DRIVE out…”)
    sorry, I couldn’t resist.

  3. Gingerbaker says

    Is it just me, but I seem to recollect from high school for murgatroyd that “Social Darwinism” is a term for the misinterpretation and misuse of Darwinism to justify elitism?

    That it has nothing at all to do with natural selection? And the very fact that these creationists use it, even inappropriately, is evidence that they simply do not understand natural selection and evolution?

    Is this a new trend of trying to make evolutionists responsible for Social Darwinism, or did I really take too much LDS in my early days?

  4. J Myers says

    … did I really take too much LDS in my early days?

    If you’re referring to a previous stint as a Mormon, then that is hilarious! If you referring to the drug, then I guess it’s just a typo….

  5. Dan says

    Social Darwinism is vaguely related to Darwinism, insofar as it’s related to eugenics, which is related to biology. It’s more or less an after-the-fact label for Nazi ideology, if I remember correctly. It’s …

    Oh, just google it. The wikipedia article is pretty good.

  6. AlanWCan says

    Re. the Social Darwinism thing. I’m sure it’s just convenient newspeak, the same way they wield the whole ‘it’s just a theory’ thing. I’m also sure they know what they’re saying isn’t actually true (well, some of them anyway — like the ones who come up with the ideas), but it plants the right cognitive seeds in receptive listeners. Social Darwinism is bad…hey that includes ‘Darwinism’ ergo evolution = nazis.

  7. octopod says

    Gingerbaker @ #5: Ouch. I’m a fan of LSD, but I’ve no intention of ever taking LDS. That shit will fuck you up, man.

    LOL. But no, you’re right. They like it because it has the word “Darwinism” in it. It’s about as honest, though, as people saying socialists are responsible for fascism because the Nazis called themselves “National Socialist Party”.

    And DSKS, man, don’t mess with the alchemists. They weren’t a bad lot, they just hadn’t figured things out yet. Most crucially, how to fix their experiments to be clean and not have lots of really weird complexation and alloy effects. It wasn’t quite science, but it sure was trying.

  8. says

    Bleah. That ought to read “You might need to explain to the young pups what tilt means”.
    Something in the comment code isn’t handling HTML entities properly.

  9. carlsonjok says

    Actually, even Denyse has her limits. She stopped posting her linkfests to several months ago. Apparently, it doesn’t get enough traffic for her to bother with. Which is, in its own way, surprising. OE is home to the Judge Jones School of Law flash-animation. You’d think that little piece of zaniness would be generating all sorts of traffic.

  10. Sili says

    I don’t think that’s a sin – unless we talk about the inhumanity to the rest of us.

    After all she doesn’t have any precious, holy holy holy man-sperm to spill. And even if she did it’d only be a sin if she spilled it instead of impregnating her older brother’s widow. If I recall my bible stories correct … man, that’s some fucked up shit …

  11. jeffox backtrollin' says

    You must forgive Granny Porcupine’s masturbatory habits. After all, there isn’t enough Moosehead in all Canada for someone of the male persuasion to get anywhere near her with sex in mind. (Shudders at the thought) :) :) :)

    Ain’t enough LSD neither. :)

  12. noncarborundum says

    … did I really take too much LDS in my early days?

    If you’re referring to a previous stint as a Mormon, then that is hilarious! If you referring to the drug, then I guess it’s just a typo….

    … or a reference to something Kirk says about Spock in the Star Trek whale movie?

  13. says

    (raises hand guiltilty)

    Actually, when I have the energy, grinding self-promotion is a Hatfield specialty. But that’s because I know that the callow public tends to respond to style over substance. I need to let them understand that someone’s really, really excited about science, and that they should get excited too, before I can tell them what thrills me. I know that sounds shallow and suspiciously like (gulp) framing, but years in the classroom have pretty much made me shameless in this regard.

    So I suppose I’m O’Leary’s evil twin. Or O’Leary’s evil twin cow. Something like that!

  14. says

    clicked on the ARN link
    saw research in the title
    What research have they done?

    No, they forgot the hyphen. It should be re-search. As in “Dammit, we’ve lost our evidence for the intelligent designer. Now we’ll have to search for it again.”

    Of course, all the time it’s in the cupboard, next to the whips.


  15. jeffox backtrollin' says

    “Of course, all the time it’s in the cupboard, next to the whips.”

    Over by the quills. :) :)

  16. David vun Kannon says

    Actually, I think Denise’s relentless self promotion is a fairly recent vintage. A year ago she rairly posted on UcD. Now that she has a book to flog, it’s a different story.

    Also her snark level has gone up with the frequency of her posts. She used to have this persona of a dim-witted but sweet Canadian Catholic grandma. Now she’s playing the dim-witted but sweet Canadian Catholic grandma with a journalistic shiv, like she’s prepping for her Crossfire debut. Unfortunately for Denise, they would have to change the name from Crossfire to Dodgeball before she fit in.