Sunday, 25 August 2013

I actually agree with TheAmazingAtheist on extending the First Amendment to YouTube.

TheAmazingAtheist, TJ, thinks that YouTube should function as a phone company.

"Your phone company might cut your service if your harassing someone or something, I suppose. but they’re not going to cut your service because you espoused unpopular political beliefs on a phone call. "He wrote on his Tumblr.

I am actually for the idea that YouTube should function more as a phone company.
You pay for their service, and if you want to use it for commercial uses, then you pay even more. If you want to use long distance calls, you pay even more. And the ability to charge extra for the HD service sounds great. And just like a real phone company, they will not allow you use your service to scam people.
So I am all aboard the idea.</sarcasm>

And if you want to know my feelings on what I think about the supposed attack on ATHEISM, read this:
My Blogpost about Thunderf00t

Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Sources for Top 50 Dumbest Things In Spirit Science 12

50: It is spelled testament.
49: It is spelled Atheism.
48: Angels are not real. Footage from Dogma. 47: Survival is not equivalent of the meaning of hell. Footage from The Princess Bride.
46: Edgar Cayce was a fraud. Footage:
45: Scientists don't accept polar shifts.
44: And this is just not true.
43: Charles Hapgood was a historian, not a geologist.
42: This is just pure speculation, with no basis in science or anything.
41: No such thing has been observed. Footage from X-Men: The Last Stand
40: How convenient. Footage from Zoolander
39: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
38: The Sumerian writing system, Cuneiform script, was replaced by the Phoenician alphabet
37: The Aboriginals can not communicate via dreamtime. This has never been observed. Footage from Clerks
36: No evidence of this. Footage from Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back
35: Animals don't communicate through thougts. They don't communicate out of emotions.
34: Reincarnation has not been proved, ever.
33: Star Wars is not a documentary. Laser don't work that way.
Footage: Star Wars Episode IV
32: The earth is not alive.
31: There has been a reasonable explanation for all the disappearances. Footage from BBC - What Happened To Flight 19?
30: This is not true.
I like how they refer to Einstein as modern science. (He died 10 years after ww2). History Channel is not science.
29: I.. I don't know, okay? It's just stupid. Footage from Demolition Man.
28: This is supposed to be 13,000 years ago. It was also dry back then:
27: There is no recorded incident of this.
26: I have never heard of this, and given that I have worked with ~1500 musicians, I find this quite improbable. In all the research I have read about acoustic resonance, I have not come across this even once.
25: There are at least 60 male gods alone on that picture.
24: There is no evidence for the existence of these tablets, nor their indestructibility.
23: Sure if we discount scientific evidence for plate tectonics, the evidence for the occurence of storms, volcanoes etc..
Footage from Ghostbusters.
22: That is clearly the atmosphere.
Footage from Atmosphere - Hockey Hair
21: Holographic and solid gold? That is impossible.
20: No it doesn't.
19: Again it would seem that they having even done the slightest of research, and just accept anything without question:
Footage from 12 Monkeys
18: The Sphinx isn't that old.
That sign is not a sign of life.
17: I have nothing.
16: It is not scientific fact that there was a global flood.
15: There is no evidence of polar shifts happening within a day.
Brief is relative in geology.
Footage: Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication
14: There is still no evidence of this, neither is there any evidence of humans being effected by magnets.
Footage from Atop The 4th wall - Superman At Earth's End
13: I'd like to see some evidence for that, please.
12: Only the outer layer was built from the top down.
11: Yes, he came so much out of nowhere, that his father,Amenhotep III was the previous ruler of Egypt.
Akhenaten's real name was Amenhotep IV.
Footage: Dream Evil - Immortal
10: This seems a bit more advanced:
9: 7 is 7? Whuuut? And just briefly after the Lord's Prayer, this happens:
8: To be fair, they said there was little evidence for this. I would rather say there is no evidence, what so ever.
I looked through Paramount pictures, and I could not find any evidence of them opening King Tut's tomb.. except this:
The opening of King Tut's tomb, was done by CBS.
Why should Paramount have to pay for filming?
And a wall of light? Ehmmm
7: Well this just goes against all we know about biology.
Footage from Penn&Teller: Bullshit. Episode: Mt. Rushmore.
Footage from Kenneth Miller on Intelligent Design.
USA did not raise up from the ocean less than 13,000 years ago.
5: We are not physically advanced compared to many species. We are not that fast. Not that great at jumping. Not that strong.
Footage from Freakazoid - The Chip Part 1
4: Life could have existed on Mars.. 3.8 billion years ago.
Footage from Duck Dodgers - In The 24th½ Century
3: There is no solid evidence for any change on humans during the full moon.
If any, rapes would be fewer, due to better illumination.
2: Sure we are unable to build giant ass buildings. Just not happening.
Footage from
1: And then we found it couldn't exist because of Plate tectonics.
Footage from Madagascar

Clips used throughout from Futurama - The Cryonic Woman.

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

NO MA'AM - No sexists here

Most of you are probably aware of the mid 90's sitcom "Married With Children" and are therefore familiar to "NO MA'AM" (National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood).
This was of course a joke. The male lead Al Bundy (Played by Ed O'Neill) was constantly nagged by his wife Peggy (Played by Katey Sagal), and therefore created a club to end the nagging and governing of his unemployed wife. But was Al Bundy on to something here? I am by no means more of a MRA (Male Rights Advocate) than I am a FRA (Female Rights Advocate).
But now I have read something that really forces me to channel my inner Psycho Dad in regards to gender equality.
Something called MA'AM - Men Against Assholes & Misogyny created by Jen Kirkman (Yes, a female), is what has caused this. Or specifically one post on there. I have only read the one I am responding to.

And as always my thoughts and corrections will be in italic and red, where as the article I am responding to will be in the default font.

The original article (a Tumblr) can be found here

Anyway here we go:

Will Forbes is a "MA'AM"

I’ve always had a hard time understanding sexism.
At least we start out on agreement. I do and I have always stated that both genders are equally stupid.

Maybe it’s because I grew up with two older sisters that are both smarter and better human beings than me.
I fail to see the connection here. How does having two older smarter sisters correlate to you not understanding sexism? Is there any particular reason why these sisters are smarter than you? And in all fields? Likewise, how are they better human beings? 

(One has 3 horribly perfect kids and the other just passed the bar while I’m currently picking Rice Krispies out of my chest hair)
How does having 3 perfect kids mean that the one is smarter and a better human being than you? 
And how does passing the (law?) bar, mean you are a good person? 

But it’s not just sexism I don’t understand.
No, there is quite a lot you don't understand. And that I don't understand for that matter. What I am getting at here, is that in order to qualify something following that sentence, you would need a semicolon; because else you make a full stop - onward to next sentence.

I don’t understand how anyone can treat one group of people with less respect than they would another.
Yes, you fucking do. Later on you treat males with close to no respect. But on a wider point, do you respect criminals as much as your siblings? Do you respect non-feminists as much as you respect feminists? If not, then you are a hypocrite. 

I don’t know if I just skipped that developmental stage where deep seeded disrespect is implanted or if these people are literally robots with anti whatever hate filled entitlement chips installed in their brain
Please for the love of god, use some punctuation. And do you even remember the previous sentence you just wrote? You are already disagreeing with yourself. It didn't take you long to contradict what you just wrote. Well fucking done.

but somewhere along the road a LARGE PERCENTAGE of otherwise rational humans have the ability to see a group of people and think “YOU ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN ME SO I CAN TREAT YOU LIKE SHIT AND STILL FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF”.
Like calling them robots, for instance? Or what we shall read later on? 

This can apply to sex, race, height, weight, hair color, webbed feet, etc…
Or implants?

but on the front of sexisim I have some simple advice for men that I believe may help.
I believe you don't.

This obviously doesn’t apply to all men or all women or all anything and I will be making some broad generalizations, but here me out…
*hear. I also make broad generalizations. I believe that broads should be allowed to salute my general. 

Dear (straight) Men,
Hey, that's me. (Men shouldn't be capitalized)

No one wants to fuck you.
No, I think you are quite wrong. Nobody wants to fuck you, Will.

Unless you’re Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Channing Tatum, or another one of the 1 percent of men that women actually find physically desirable, no one wants to fuck you.
I would like to see the research behind this. No actually I won't. I am not interested in your ass, Will. This is complete fucking bullshit. 

Not the girl at the grocery store with the nice ass.
How do you know? 

Not girl at the bar you keep force feeding drinks.
I really wish someone was force-feeding me drinks at the moments.

Not your gay friend that you assume is just waiting for you to be drunk enough.
What the fucking hell? I am sorry burst your bubble. But most straight guys are aware that gay/bi people don't wanna jump in our pants. 

Probably not even you’re girlfriend.
No, they absolutely hated the sight of males. They almost vomited.

If you don’t believe me allow me to say it in all caps.
Because saying it in caps, somehow makes it true.


If you’ve had consensual sex before it’s most likely because you made her laugh, you seemed nonthreatening, are relatively clean, or some other reason…but you weren’t her first choice
First off, you outline it like consensual sex isn't the norm. And I wasn't her first choice? Oh no, I mean, all the women I have fucked, were obviously my first choice. They are the one that I wanted the most, oh wait..  
The girl in my grocery store (Fakta) with the nice ass, is not my first choice. 

Even if you think you’re a 9 outta 10,  you’re gross. If you need proof, take off all your clothes and look in a mirror. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Unless, you are quite fat, you are able to see the most of your self without the use of a mirror. A mirror is primarily used for the face. 

See all that loose skin flopping between your legs? That’s a penis and it’s primary function is to become engorged with blood until it shoots out a sticky white substance that smells like a dead animal.
No, I really suggest that you take some classes in biology and anatomy. The primary function of the penis is not to become erect and ejaculate. It is most commonly used for taking a piss. 
And no human sperm isn't a strong odor.

Sound appealing? Sound like something you want inside of you?
Have you ever seen a vagina, Will? They are not pretty. Sorry to break it to you, but evolution didn't really rely on males finding them objectively attractive. You might think a pussy looks good, but take a second to think about it. And now go watch an unshaven one. It is a vast cave perfect for storing things. 
So no, they are not pretty.

(Unless you’re a gay bottom, but the chances of someone being a gay bottom being sexist are none to none)
Yeah, because gays can't be sexists right? Of course they fucking can, you fucking sexist. You have now judged all gay people to be incapable of something, just so you can fit it into your narrow narrative. Seriously, go fuck yourself. 

Now, in no way am I saying women don’t want or like sex.
Good. Because they do.

In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I know I’m making some VERY broad generalizations here, but most women if given the right situation and comfortably like sex MORE than men.
Citation fucking needed. Stop making fucking baseless fucking assertions, you ignorant fuck.

And they should.
Hooray for equality?

The female body is basically a landmine of erogenous zones.

Women cum harder
Define harder!

Citation needed.

and in more interesting ways than men with little to no mess
Ha ha ha. Seriously, have you ever made a girl cum, Will? I am not talking about squirting here, but women cumming can be quite messy.

while all the the male body has is that fleshy thing and whatever fucked up thoughts are in their head.
Wait, what? So only males think about fucked up things? Seriously, Will. I think you need to get laid. And no, males can cum in more ways than that. In fact, a male orgasm can occur before ejaculation. Don't you know anything? And regards to your statement about males thinking about fucked up things:
 Luckily for us men, many women are genetically predisposed to be attracted to men and male genitalia no matter how gross and sweaty we are.
This is a two way street, Will. 

While they hope that someday their Ryan Gosling will come,
And now you are demeaning to women. You really are despicable. 

they also know the reality of the 1 percent and have evolved their sexual taste to appreciate more than just the physical.
Where as men only think about the physical, right? 

So even though it’s not ideal, many women allow the kinda funny, kinda cute, kinda clean men of the world to thrust their engorged skin inside them to a messy finish.
I am really at a loss for words. Seriously, Will, you need help. I think your sisters, or someone else fucked you up badly. 

So what do many men do with this glorious privilege?
A privilege? But you also previously stated that women enjoy sex, even more than men.. Oh fuck it. You are all over the place.

They cat call, they gawk, they denigrate, they objectify, they condescend, they abuse, and overall treat women like they’re a lesser species. It’s like Willy Wonka giving you the keys to the candy factory even though you don’t deserve it and instead of thanking him, you shit in his mouth so you can feel superior.
Is it a defense mechanism born out of intellectual insecurity?
Centuries of unequal gender roles in western society?
Religion says it’s okay?
Ehm. Why should men thank women for having sex? Really. We just established that women enjoy sex. 

Whatever the reason is, that reason is bullshit. Grow the fuck up.
I seriously feel that you need to grow the fuck up, Will. 

Listen, I get it. Deep down you’re just an animal and are following your primate instincts.
Actually we are animals.

Women have lady parts and when you’re around them it makes your penis brain go OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH GIMME GIMME..

but for fucks sake is it that hard to take the ONE SECOND to think HEY SHUT UP PENIS BRAIN THIS IS A HUMAN I’M TALKING TO I SHOULD BE RESPECTFUL?
If she is worthy of being respected. Respect is not given, it is fucking earned. 

Well, some women want to fuck, we already established that. 

So next time you’re thinking about calling a woman a slut or tell them that their asking for it or calling them feminist when they try to defend themselves,
If one calls her a slut, obviously she wants to fuck. For fucks sake, Will. 

stop and think for that one second. If after that second you still want to be sexist, kill yourself because you’re probably Chris Brown.
How is it sexist to call a woman a slut? It isn't. It is sexist to refer to women as being sluts. Or referring to men as unclean. 

But if after that second you can prevent the horrible shit from coming out your mouth congratulations,
If only you had prevented that horrible shit coming from your mouth/fingers.

you just avoided ruining a woman’s day for no reason.
So now women are also delicate flowers? 

Who knows, maybe if you treat women with respect all the time one of them might eventually think you’re kinda cute, kinda clean, and give you a chance to navigate the minefield even though you’re disgusting and sweaty.
Because women don't sweat, fact. There is a difference between people with respect, and then sticking your nose so far up their ass, that your shoulders become brown.

So in summary, Will.
Women smell. They also sweat. If they don't sweat during sex, it is because they are just laying there, doing nothing. Which isn't to be preferred. 
Women are also disgusting. Our sexual drive makes us see past that, but they are.
And here are some pointers for you.
Women also shit. They also pee. They also puke. Their sexual organs are not objectively attractive. 
If you think otherwise, you should go get some help, Will.
Women are not better or worse than men. They are exactly the same. 
If you think otherwise, you are per definition a sexist.

Saturday, 17 November 2012

HappyCabbie And Papa John's Economy

As per usual for this blog my correction and opinions will be in red and italic, where as the original will be in the default font.

The original text can be found here

Papa John's and Obamacare 

Today is the Support Papa John's Pizza Day. 
Well, actually it is called "Papa John's Appreciation Day".
The owner of Papa John's Pizza, John Schnatter, has been an outspoken critic of Obamacare because of the impact it would have on his business. 
Which is slim to none. 
 The chief of his complaint is that to comply with the law to provide health insurance for his current full time employees (over 30 hours) would cost him $5 to $8 million.
There is no such expression as "chief of his complaint". And $5 - $8 millions dollars annually is still a drop in the bucket. It is only twice/thrice the amount of compensation John gets for himself:

Or in practical terms it would force him to raise costs by 11-14 cents per pizza. 
An astronomical amount, I must confess.
His solution is to cut back hours on corporate owned stores. 
The only solution there is.
Some of them are owned by franchises, who of course will make up their own minds. Cenk Uygar <sic> takes him to task however, I think toward the end of his rant about the wealth that John Schnatter has - was way out of line. So I wish to respond to that.
Well, you voted for Romney, so one shouldn't be surprised.

First it should be noted that the Forbes article Cenk is quoting from can be found HERE

He also brings up the fact that John Schnatter is giving away 2 million free pizza's (pizzas), this year at an estimated cost of $24 to $32 million.
And then we can calculate using that 14 cents figure you gave earlier, that Papa John's is selling roughly 57 million pizzas a year.
Which is just blatantly un-fucking-true. The amount is closer to 2 billion. Source
Or said more bluntly, which seems more likely; that every American buys 1/6 of a Papa John's Pizza a year, or that every American buys 6 Papa John's pizzas a year?

Well it should be noted this is no different than standing in front of a store front (storefront) giving away free samples.
Well, I actually agree with Happy here.
he idea is not to give away free food (Your guess is as good as mine), rather it is to get new customers. It is simply part of the advertising budget. So I myself am going to discount that.

Even though Forbes did an analysis of the numbers and projected a much lower expected price increase of 3 to 4 cents per pizza, I am going to use John Schnatter's numbers.
Yeah, because why use an independent analysis? And just for the record, I did the calculation, and I got the same results as Forbes. 
And no, it is not 3 to 4 per pizza, Happy. It is 0.3cents per pizza. 
Let's break it down real simple here. 
We know that the total amount to pay is $8,000,000 we then divide by a million, so it becomes $8.
Now we know the amount of total pizzas sold is about 2,000,000,000, we then divide by a million, so it becomes 2000.
We then divide 8 by 2000, and voila. $0.004

After all he owns the company, it is theoretically possible he knows something that Forbes doesn't.
No, he is just a liar. 
Still a 11-14 cent increase on the price of pizza is NOT a deal breaker. 
It is not. Especially when that amount is way higher than the actual amount. 
Especially when you consider Dominoes (Domino's) and Pizza Hutt (Jabba The Hutt?) (the two of Papa John's main competitors) have to incur the same cost.

Skipping some boring stuff here

A few months ago, conservatives rallied around Chick-Fil-A for their outspoken support of groups that oppose gay marriage.
As well as their financial support.
While I disagreed with those who supported this, at least I could understand it.
A business owner has the right to spend the money as he or she sees fit. 
Not exactly, no. There are limitations on what he can spend the money on.
Those who view those decisions as immoral also have the right to protest and boycott.  

Now we have a group of people rallying around a business for their decision to cut employee pay. It is very difficult to live on a part time salary. In many cases these people will be forced to get second jobs. Those with families will have to sacrifice family time for sleep as jobs may not line up back to back. Despite your views on Obamacare, it puzzles me how any one can cheer for John Schnatter's decision to line his pocketbook instead of maintaining his current level of full time employees who depend on those hours for their living.
And you are the guy who wanted to vote for Romney?

Cenk Uygar (Uygur)  then goes off the deep end, chastising John Schnatter for living in such a huge house and having so much money as his employee's suffer.
Where is the problem in this exactly? Should he be allowed to exploit the workers?

It is not a crime to be rich and successful.
But it should be a crime not to cover healthcare on your employees.
John Schnatter started out delivering pizza's and worked his way up. Papa John's Pizza pays a comparable wage. You will never get rich working in a pizza joint for someone else. You are not supposed to. 
Nobody ever talked about getting rich. This is a complete fabrication. 

It is entry level work. If you work hard you can make more money as a manager or even save up to buy a franchise. You can also simply do what John Schnatter did, sell your car, and build a business. If you succeed then you can afford a nice house.
Or you can just borrow the money from your parents, isn't that right Romney?
I was right up with Cenk until he attacked John Schnatter's wealth. This is one problem I see far too often. The demands to tax the rich, the rich need to pay their fare (sic) share. 
Well, if they pay less tax than the rest, then shouldn't that be straightened out?
There is an anti-rich mentality in our country right now and I think it is harmful to our society. 
Citation fucking needed. 

That being said, I don't think 11-14 cents extra is too much to pay for a pizza. Prices go up all the time as the price of gas continues to climb and other things we use everyday.   
You are aware of the reason why gas-prices are going up, right?

This entire blogpost by Cabbie seems like it was co-written by Brett Keane. He clearly shows that he has done no research, what so fucking ever. He furthermore shows that he has clearly no understanding of the economy, as he parrots the 14 cents amount given by Schnatter. 
As shown, even the smallest amount of math, can verify that just doesn't make any goddamn sense.  

Friday, 14 September 2012

As read on Skepchick

I will start by linking the article:

This is the headline that got my attention: Top female golfer might be kicked off boys team. I hear, “This isn’t fair because a girl is kicking our ass.” Suck it up, dudes. From Alyssa

I would like to enquire if it also works the other way around? Or if it just a one-way solution?
Because that would be sexist.

Let me tell you a little story. When I was younger, I was of even smaller stature than I am now, believe it or not, but I was playing soccer. I wasn't very good. So the time came to there being a tournament. The team that was in my age-group had sufficient players, where as the one below didn't. (It was 11-12 and 13-14 for instance). So I had the option of playing on the younger team. So I did. And we won. I scored the most goals. As a midfielder. This was of course unfair, right? So let's just say that I got the chance to lead the female team to victory, would this be unfair? Why? If the roles were reversed, would it still be unfair?

So if a female is allowed to play on the boys team, why isn't a male allowed to play on the female team? Or should we make exceptions only in certain situations?

So suck it up girls? 

Sunday, 15 July 2012

Radon reviews "Freethoughtblogs and PC Lyers"

The original blog is here:

Original text is in black, and my opinion and corrections are in italic and red.

So PZ Myers is the man who gave me his personal assurances; that Freethougthblogs really didn’t have any interest in controlling the content.
Okay, great, do you have any evidence of this? You have also claimed that you haven't banned people on YouTube, which is blatantly untrue. I know for a fact that you have. Before all of this happened. 

This was evidently a verbal assurance made in bad faith.
Really? How so? Are you suggesting that PZ was interested in banning you right from the get-go? Or that PZ had seen all possible scenarios you could write about? Would you feel the same way if a person wrote about the best way to obtain illegal files and porn? 

The rough time-line is one week before I was banned, PZ sent this to some mailing list Freethoughtblogs has:
This is beyond incomprehensible. Just "some" mailing list? Are you inferring that the list was/is random? (I think you are looking for "a mailing list")

Well that's basically what I did, and what's more I even told them on their mailing list.
Do you have any evidence of this? And you cannot use them when you refer to a mailing list. 

Then ~1 week later, PZ kicks me.  Maybe he wasn’t joking about that ‘Except me. I’m perfect, don’t you dare say otherwise‘ bit, or maybe this was one of those ‘many a true word spoken in jest’ type things. 
The correct phrase would be "many a true word is spoken in jest". 

Indeed how quickly opinions can change when it’s him who is getting ‘ripped into’
Pot. Kettle. Black. 

There was no open consultation in this group about what anyone else thought of my ideas prior to my expulsion, giving this a very totalitarian ‘execution by fiat’ type feel.
How the fuck do you know? No, seriously how the fuck do you know? Can you read minds? 

Everyone else on the groups was told of my ‘expulsion’ AFTER it happened, I mean hell, they wouldn’t have wanted an actual discussion or to give anyone the possibility to dissent about what is permissible ‘freethought’ on ‘freethoughtblogs’ now would they!
Even thou it is a rhetorical question, you really should use a question mark. 
And how do you know this?

Now I really didn’t care about offending these people at this point as on their mailing list I had already been accused of being a ‘rape culture apologist’ (FFS, I don’t think I’ve even touched on the subject), guilty of ablism, devaluing addicts, an not being careful between challenging islam and outright racism.
So wait, they never talked about it, but they called you a "rape culture apologist"? How is that even possible? Because when you refer to 'had already..' this implies it was previous to your blogs. And it is spelled ableism. 

 All of this based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER (well that’s unless you are happy to count rumors as evidence).
Well, you have been more than willing to count rumors as evidence. Remember that video you made about Coughlan? Was it based on anything but rumors? 
And what did you say to Dawahfilms, again? "go home to your own country". How is that not racism? You had no other reason to claim that Dawahfilms should go home to his own country. Perhaps a strong xenophobia. 

To be honest, I was hoping that there would be a higher standard of conduct than that, but the chatter made it clear that FTB really was somewhere between a bitching slimepit, and StrawmanCentral.
I don't see the need for the Oxford comma here, but isn't it funny how you suspect this of others, but does not have a standard of conduct yourself?

It was also plain to me from just watching the chatter on this mailing list that there was a significant amount of bullying of weaker members/ opposing viewpoint.
So you read the mails? And still you claim that there was "no open consultation". How can it be both, TF?

If this was an academic environment I would have called bullshit on them in an instant, however by this time it was clear the standard of people that I was dealing and that as a group they were essentially a lost cause.
Thunderf00t, for the love of the moon, please proofread your fucking blogs. And I have no alternative but to use this:

I was happy to write a blog there, but I certainly wasn’t going to waste my time ingratiating myself with such people.
So what was your purpos.. Oh I guess I asked too soon, you will answer this in the next sentence, right?

Incidentally FTB claims that it can deliver ~150 k ad impressions per day, which could mean as little as ~15k hits per day (~10 ads per page).
I was pulling in ~ 10-15k hits per day on my blog until I was blocked.
FTB never paid me a penny **EDIT Ed Brayton contests this point, see comment below** (again something that PZ said they would), but to be honest I have little interest in such things.
So it was all about the money? Don't you make enough in donations, any longer? 

Integrity is MUCH more important than money on such issues.
Then why did you bother to even bring it up? Besides trying to white knight it? Why did you mention the exact amount, if it wasn't that important?

So I blogged about something which, I thought they were way off base on, namely the disproportionate amount of time they gave sexism compared to other subjects, and the way they attacked, strawmanned and demonized people who bought up sensible concerns.
And you did so poorly. 

I had expected that PZ Myers (an university lecturer) would at least keep his word on the academic integrity thing, but to be honest, after about the 3rd day after posting my second article, it was clear that wasn’t worth spit.
How exactly did he not keep his word? You got peer-reviewed. 

When a man is willing to jettison the value of his word so readily, I was under no illusions ‘ If you see something you don’t like, rip into it. ‘ in reality meant that you should only rip into it as long as PZ thought it was okay.
I still think it constitutes okay to rip into. Problem is that you did so extremely headless. 

However, I was not going to be bullied into submission by a bunch of second raters, and so despite a series of threats, and Ed Brayton making it clear that if I felt PZ hadn’t kept his word I was free to leave ‘and not let the door hit your ass on the way out’, and that ‘no one would miss me’.
Again with the Oxford comma. And wait, weren't these threats just trolling? 

That’s right, the fact that PZ was lying to people faces to get people into the blog really didn’t phase anyone at freethoughtblogs at all!
People faces? I mean, if he was lying to dog faces.. And what did he lie about? 

Nor did such explicit threats on the mailing list seem to phase anyone else (no one stepped forward to question such action), which I think shows that bullying is just so widespread on FTB that it is just the socially accepted norm (that’s unless like me, any of the competent people there simply regarded FTB as a lost cause, or at least a cause not worth fighting for, and just got on with their own thing).
Action should be plural, if there were more than one threat. And how is that bullying? No seriously. You were free to leave whenever you wanted. 

Y’see this is the slippery slope of becoming intolerant to criticism, eventually it will consume you to the point where you cannot take any criticism….
To borrow a quote from Yathzee here "You are projecting so hard, you could point yourself at a wall and show off Powerpoint presentations." 

where you become intellectually soft and are happy to strawman people en mass for simplicity, then ban them when they call you on your bulk strawmanning!
How many fucking strawmen do you build? This is just beyond pathetic. 

Anyways, it turns out the ‘cover story‘ for PC Myers banning me was that I made an argument that existed nowhere outside of his head.
Use punctuation. Do you have any evidence for this? (I feel like I am repeating myself a bit.)

Then why didn't you do that? 'The difference between the experience of sexism on FTB and YT - a comparative study' would have been a great post, I reckon.

To me it was obvious that the community I was aware of at conferences, and on youtube was widely different from FTB on the issue of feminism.
Both conferences and YouTube are a bit bigger than FTB. 

People like Rebecca ‘Rape Threat’ Watson were widely regarded at conferences as a toxic asset (no matter if she had been an asset previously) who left a bad taste in the mouths of most people.
Citation needed.

This is certainly true on youtube, where ZOMGitscriss can put up a video with her in, and her ratings go from something along the lines of 95 % positive to something along the lines of Venomfangx.
YouTube is not conferences. Just because it is true for A, doesn't make it true for B.

Unremarkable claims require unremarkable evidence, and so I did what was sensible, I simply put up a spoken word version of my blog, and PZs reply (who views really are seen as vanilla on freethoughtblogs) and asked people who watched to the end who they thought was nearer the mark, my views or the views that could pass as the plurality on freethoughtblogs.
It was not like you cherrypicked or anything here. 

Sure there will be some bias in the data, but not enough to nullify the point that FTB are widely seen as off base on this point.
What the fuck are you babbling about? No seriously, if you don't think there is enough bias in the data, then please hand in the scientist card. And remember those videos Coughlan made about you? The ratings were in his favour. So you are off base?

I mean it could be easily examined.
PZ could read both my post, and his reply on his YT channel and see what the voting would be like, I would guess that he might make 60:40 in his favor (not far off his post-hoc justification for banning me video).
Oh that sounds fair. It is not like you have 100k mindless followers. Oh weren't you just complaining about "no open consultation" ?

But of course, PZ was mostly interested in challenging the methods, rather than the conclusion.
Yes. That is called science. Perhaps you have heard of it? Or maybe we should conclude that the body loses 21 gram when dying, and this is it soul. 
Or perhaps the conclusion creationists come to? Yes, fuck their method, let's just discuss conclusions, that is what it is all about.

Personally I think this is an unremarkable claim, and as such requires unremarkable data, which it has is scads!
We could test this easily. You could make a video of you doing nothing but fartnoises, and then ask people how high they would rate it. Then make a video with complete bogus claims. And see that. And then you could see if it differs greatly from your initial point. And you only accepted the first 500 posts. That means people who subscribe to you, thunderf00t. I think we all can agree that you got those views within an hour

Anyways, that’s pretty much my experience of the slimepit of ‘Freethoughblogs’ the PC Lyars.
Always differ from your title, that is good. 

It’s not the whole story yet though.
Dunn dunn duunnnnn

It turns out that freethoughtblogs are not only happy to ban people as a typical creationist would (for something that they never actually said), but are perfectly happy to actively support the abuse of copyright specifically used to stifle active debate.
Not like you ban people, is it? Oh wait, you do. Not like you wanted to kick people off YouTube, for being "a little bit outside the envelope"? Oh wait..

More on that later.
Oh great. 

Truth be told, this is beyond pathetic. If this was his writing style on FTB, this should be sufficient reason to kick him. Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, flawed data, erroneous conclusions based on flawed data, references to hear-say and use of personal experience as a factor makes this post seem very biased, as well as unreliable. The constant appeal to being strawmanned is just pathetic. If I changed a few things, I bet I could post this as a picture perfect generic creationist post. 
So the final score of this is D-. 

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

There Is No Fare Amount Of Striving For Peace, When You Deal With Certain Individuals

Maybe it is my cynical nature, maybe it is my experience. I reckon to say it is a collection of both, that makes me think that the person who shall not be mentioned, is unredeemable. I am addressing this to HappyCabbie, which is why you will perhaps see the pun in the title. Or maybe not.
The individual who shall not be named, let's call him Gabriel, is a known abuser of the DMCA, HC.
He used the DMCA to get the name of straightd0pe. And failed. But more importantly, he also obtained my personal information. Which he was so kind to share.

I have of course blacked out certain information.
So my question is, HC, why the hell are you helping out Gabriel?
He does not deserve any help. He let himself into this mess.
Especially since he has said this:
And was behind this:
And this:
And not to forget:
If you misuse the DMCA, you have no right to complain when it happens to you. Gabriel never claimed those videos, after my counter-claim. 
Peace is not achieved by helping Iran (Asia) to build nuclear warheads. Sometimes the best thing to do for peace, is to let the person drown in his own urine.