Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

d4m10n said:
Out of curiosity, wareyin, have you ever been to an avocational conference with a coat check booth? Is that the custom in Australia in early autumn?
Click to expand...

Do you commonly wear every item of clothing you have at the same time? Do you think Myers does?

ETA: Are you that unfamiliar with coat check booths, dry cleaners, or draping a jacket over a chair back? Is there some reason you can only consider Hoggle's threat to be wrong if you can find some way to call it assault?
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Indeed, a threat to put something harmless in a pocket, years ago, that never happened. Creepy, but irrelevant unless one has a fainting couch to hand.
Click to expand...

Fainting with the proper panache and timing is a gift.

I hear there is a creepy old man who will put something in your socks it's not an assault unless it explodes.
 
devnull said:
My god, so much time spent on irrelevancies.

Ill be over there.
Click to expand...

I'll simplify:

SP: PZ don't want us getting any. (demonization follows)

Others: No PZ wants women treated with respect.

SP: See, we said he doesn't want us to get any (full on abuse follows)


SP=slymePitter
 
tsig said:
Fainting with the proper panache and timing is a gift.
Click to expand...

I will take your word for that. Apparently some people practice fainting often enough that they may actually think they have a gift for it, at least.

tsig said:
I hear there is a creepy old man who will put something in your socks it's not an assault unless it explodes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is the creepy old man supposed to be Myers?

tsig said:
I'll simplify:

SP: PZ don't want us getting any. (demonization follows)

Others: No PZ wants women treated with respect.

SP: See, we said he doesn't want us to get any (full on abuse follows)


SP=slymePitter
Click to expand...

Yes, the "respectful" way PZ has treated women such as Skep Tickle and Abbie Smith is quite legendary. I think "full on abuse" pretty accurately describes it.
 
wareyin said:
Indeed, a threat to put something harmless in a pocket, years ago, that never happened. Creepy, but irrelevant unless one has a fainting couch to hand.
Click to expand...

Totes irrelevant, unless you're trying to explain why the largest draw at FtB displays a certain degree of paranoia towards designated out-group members and assorted folk demons.

Somewhat incidentally, PZ threatened to throw up on me at Skepticon. Where is my fainting couch? And smelling salts!
 
Last edited:
I... what in the world are we talking about? I leave for, like, a month and suddenly we're throwing up in people's pockets or something. Kids these days...
 
d4m10n said:
Somewhat incidentally, PZ threatened to throw up on me at Skepticon. Where is my fainting couch? And smelling salts!
Click to expand...

I trust you charged him with assault, as this is clearly offensive contact!

ETA: To be clear, I was being sarcastic. However, there actually is precedent for charging a person with assault for spitting on another, which gives me reason to believe intentional vomiting on someone is also legally criminal assault. Still no evidence that anyone has ever been tried for the tort of assault for putting something harmless in a pocket, that I can find.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I can think of that explains all this pocket-obsession is that PZ et al are thinking of "Night of the Demon": someone is trying to get him to, without his knowing, take some piece of parchment, that will end up summoning some demon-from-beyond that will come for him in 3 days time.

"I know what almost happened to Dana Andrews!"
 
bignickel said:
The only thing I can think of that explains all this pocket-obsession is that PZ et al are thinking of "Night of the Demon": someone is trying to get him to, without his knowing, take some piece of parchment, that will end up summoning some demon-from-beyond that will come for him in 3 days time.

"I know what almost happened to Dana Andrews!"
Click to expand...

I don't read PZ's blog, so perhaps he brought out the fainting couch and I missed it. So far, only d4m10n and one other have tried to frame the pocket threat as assault, to my knowledge. It is really throwing me that PZ actually threatened to commit something that legally is, and has been charged and convicted of, criminal assault against d4m10n. Yet d4m10n is laughing that off, while reaching for the fainting couch on PZ's behalf, for something that has never even been charged, much less successfully prosecuted, as assault.
 
wareyin said:
Yet d4m10n is laughing that off, while reaching for the fainting couch on PZ's behalf, for something that has never even been charged, much less successfully prosecuted, as assault.
Click to expand...

I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
Click to expand...

It would make for a nice t-shirt:


PZ puked on me.

In some circles that would be worth a free drink.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
Click to expand...

So this is another example of PZ doing the same as a "Pitter", yet in your opinion the "Pitter" is wrong and PZ is right. Ok.
 
wareyin said:
So this is another example of PZ doing the same as a "Pitter", yet in your opinion the "Pitter" is wrong and PZ is right. Ok.
Click to expand...

No, they are both clearly wrong.

It was wrong for Victor to threaten Paul with an unwanted offensive touching.

It was wrong for Paul to (jokingly) threaten to vomit on people like Damion and Chas because they don't toe the party line.

Neither of these men have covered themselves in glory, both of them are actively alienating potential allies.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
Click to expand...

You should have reported it, just to watch SJW heads explode.
 
wareyin said:
On my clothing. Where do you think they would be? Do you wear every item of clothing you own at all times? Some of us own more than one pair of pants, leaving the extra in the dresser, or perhaps at the dry-cleaners(I wonder what kind of security you imagine a dry cleaner uses?). Some of us get warm and take off jackets. Some of us even own more than one shirt with a pocket.
Click to expand...

Weirdo.
 
d4m10n said:
No, they are both clearly wrong.

It was wrong for Victor to threaten Paul with an unwanted offensive touching.

It was wrong for Paul to (jokingly) threaten to vomit on people like Damion and Chas because they don't toe the party line.

Neither of these men have covered themselves in glory, both of them are actively alienating potential allies.
Click to expand...

I am glad you can admit they were both wrong. Can you explain what makes you conclude that every time PZ threatens someone or propositions someone it is a joke, but when someone else does the same act it is not a joke? Why do you not apply the same standards?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom