AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Roland Anderson

form_srcid: Roland Anderson

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.138.180

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Roland Anderson

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Roland Anderson%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/09/09 03:05:31, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I've lurked in this thread for a while (50+ pages or so) and I just wanted to say that I've never seen arguments as hopeless and misinformed as those presented by AFDave in support of his "hypothesis"; furthermore, his obstinacy in the face of the most transparent facts is quite incredible.

As Elizabeth Bennet would have it:

"Allow me to say, Lady Catherine [I'm sure she'd say the same to Dave], that the arguments with which you have supported this extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was ill-judged."

Can't stay too long otherwise I'll get a headache.

Date: 2006/11/11 04:48:48, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Just checking in as a lurker and occasional poster to say thanks for all the informative posts refuting AFDave's garbage. It really beggars belief that he's still at it. What kind of cognitive dissonance will this poor chap go through when he finally starts to crack? Dear oh dear oh dear.

Back to your regularly scheduled programme...

Date: 2006/12/26 16:51:51, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Jumping in late - I'm in Vauxhall in London. Would be nice to see more Londoners here - though I guess I'm a bit of an impostor as actually I'm from Birmingham. Totally not a scientist but v interested in everything evolutionary.

One thing that interests me is how old people are. Through the anonymity of the net everyone seems to me to be the same age as me (34) but Russell's post reminded me that that's not the case. (Kudos to Russell and many others incidentally for their contributions to the afdave thread)

Date: 2006/12/27 05:02:48, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I used to teach French, German and history at a radical boarding school, then I sold pianos at Harrods, then I taught piano, cello and singing and conducted various choirs, then I trained as a chartered accountant and now I work for a music company in the finance department. I've always been fiercely interested in anything scientific ever since I saw a Horizon programme about the Voyager spacecraft.

Nice to have a week off before new year. Ach, Kennington might be near Vauxhall but does it have our murder rate? And I bet we wouldn't have been burgled nearly as effectively last year if we'd lived in Kennington.

Date: 2006/12/28 04:02:17, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Hobbies - rugby mainly. Am cross at missing last London shandy. Plans for another?

Date: 2006/12/30 18:38:30, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Well I used to have a beautiful old 1930s Danemann grand piano - all 6 feet 8 inches of it. I had to sell it when I moved to London so now I play a Yamaha P250 which is about the best impression of a real piano that a reasonably portable keyboard can make.

And soon I'm going to take the plunge and spend £3,000 or more on a proper cello, since I'm so tired of my old one, which I've had for 22 years and which outlived its usefulness a long time ago.

No guitars though I'm afraid. As a classical musician I think I might be in a bit of a minority on this thread...

Date: 2006/12/31 03:38:37, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Always keep tubes of haemorrhoid ointment and Deep Heat cream well separated in your bathroom cabinet.

Date: 2006/12/31 13:20:05, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I've enjoyed this thread enormously and I think it should be left as a monument to the intractability of some Creationists - but as a mostly-lurker and occasional poster I think it's running out of steam. AFDave's incredible inability to recognise even the most clear-cut evidence or comprehend the simplest argument is now so obvious that there can surely be nothing left to say.

If he ever decides to say that he was censored or run away from anywhere else on the net, then a couple of links to this mega-thread and its predecessor should be enough to silence debate on the subject.

Date: 2007/01/04 11:58:37, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
My degree is in German Literature and I have no formal science qualifications beyond GCSE (that's exams taken at 16 for those unfamiliar with the England/Wales system) and even I could understand Wesley's point about recombination creating new alleles in seconds. Once again, Dave is playing on the fact that words have interesting and complex meanings in order to attempt to obfuscate the issue. Yes, a new allele created only by recombination does not result from a point mutation at the time of the recombination - but that doesn't make it any the less a new allele. And the variation required to make a new allele in this way will have come from past point mutations anyway - that's my understanding.

I'm sorry, Dave, but in this case (and in many others) your feigned incomprehension doesn't wash. Your attitude towards truth and honesty is contemptible. You know that creation science is a lie. You know that Intelligent Design "theory" is a lie. However, you still push them on kids. This is despicable.

This is my last post on this subject so in the vein of credit-rolling may I say thanks to all the posters for the splendid variety of knowledge which has come my way thanks to reading this thread. Good-bye - and good luck!

Date: 2007/01/14 05:31:50, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Much though I find this debate entertaining etc etc this has been done for 11,000 posts on Dave's other threads. I don't think that being hijacked by a finished debate is what the bathroom wall is for. I would recommend not responding to Dave at all. He's had his chance and he blew it.

A presumptuous semi-lurker xx

Date: 2007/03/29 04:56:41, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 28 2007,09:46)
Grrrooooaaaan!

Wanna be a fly on a wall? How about a bacterium on a fly on a wall? How about a mitchondrium in a bacterium on a fly on a wall?

You know what this reminds me of? Girl gossip in school - something I was never good at (because I was too busy reading Gould and Sagan and finding excuses for not going to dances like my mom wanted me to - oh, the irony). :)

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart. I'm watching somebody implode, and it ain't Ken Miller.


What I can't understand is why Dembski posted this. He sure as he11 doesn't actually believe this stuff about the Darwinian paradigm being overthrown etc etc because he's an intelligent person - so why post evidence on an intelligent design blog which blows everything Behe has said about the evolvability of irreducible complexity totally out of the water?

Behe wanted a mutation-by-mutation account of how something irreducibly complex evolved, and here it is. Is Dembski taking the piss out of his acolytes by trying to get them to ridicule something that is absolutely cast-iron proof that they're wrong? A kind of Blairite approach.

What a chump.

Date: 2007/04/18 05:07:44, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I read my friend's copy of "The Selfish Gene" back in 1993 or thenabouts and since then I've devoured everything I can find about evolutionary theory. I had heard of creationism I think at that time but I didn't take a serious interest in it until I took a trawl through the Skeptic's Dictionary (now I feel dirty - it should be Sceptic's - ugh!) and found the entry on Creationism. From there I found my way to the TalkOrigins archive and amused myself by reading the kooky feedback. From there it was but a short journey to talk.origins itself, and then to the Panda's Thumb, AFDave and richarddawkins.net.

The way that the creationists completely deny reality is a subject of some fascination to me. I think I would like to see if I could spend some time in a hospitable Bible belt town (perhaps on some sort of secondment or working holiday) and find out a bit more about what makes them tick. We really don't have people like this in the UK, and I haven't been anywhere in the US except DC, LA and San Francisco, which are not exactly hotbeds of fundamentalism (well, maybe excepting 1600 Pennsylvania Ave). My impression is that they are mostly perfectly nice people who just have a curious religious blind spot.

I've recovered from the time when I'd go all political firebrand on anyone who disagreed with me, so perhaps it would be possible to spend time in such a place and not explode.

Curiously, what I see of the way creationists defend their beliefs reminds me of how I used to defend my political beliefs in younger days. I was convinced I was right and I wouldn't even look at any evidence which seemed to contradict them. I would only notice evidence which seemed to support them. I think it was because I felt comfortable with their simplicity, and also because it was a way of feeling at home with my family, who shared similar beliefs. It was a difficult thing to give up and to see politics for the complicated, messy thing it is - but it can be done.

I think that most of us have believed like that in something - whether it's religion, a childcare method, a political doctrine, a sports team or crank medicine. I guess some of these beliefs do more harm than others.

Date: 2007/04/18 05:11:47, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
One other thing: as a layman, I sometimes hear creationist/ID arguments which I don't know how to refute. Keeping tabs here, on PT, talk.origins, richarddawkins and other places helps me to keep abreast with things so that should I ever run into a creo-kook I'll know what to say.

Date: 2007/07/03 12:40:58, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17)
Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM)

I do wish that people would refer to Lady Thatcher by her correct title, which is "That Fucking Thatcher Cow".

I hate her more that I hate anyone. I hope she dies in pain.

Date: 2007/07/14 03:44:52, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Got it! Wesley, that press release contains what I think could well be the name of the next scam:

"Inquiry-based approach."

I am looking forward to the Chesterfield, VA "Inquiry-based approach" trial already.

Date: 2007/11/01 21:36:35, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
An insomniac night inspires me to the following:

1: Brief Encounter
2: Casablanca
3: The Maltese Falcon
4: All About Eve
5: The Wizard of Oz

I like the old 'uns!

Good day all. Nice to see you again.

Date: 2007/11/11 06:45:24, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2007,04:13)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 10 2007,06:56)

I don't even bother with the irony meters any more.  The search for a UD-proof irony meter is about as fruitful as the search for integrity from UD or the DI.

O ye of little faith -- behold the construction and operation of a UD-proof irony meter:

1. Procure standard cereal box.
2. Cover with pink construction paper.
3. Using crayon, draw irony sensor on narrow side of box.
4. Also using crayon, draw analog dial with needle pegged at "11".

To perform a measurement:

1. Point irony sensor at UD.
2. Read irony level from dial.
3. Repeat as necessary.

P.S. Don't even think about it, church-burners.  I've filed for a patent.

OK, I tried it and read the "new atheists" thread at UD, and now I have a smoking black hole on my armchair where my nice new cereal box used to be. Care to explain?

Date: 2008/01/26 03:04:14, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Just reminds me of Dawkins's cricket narrative in response to Gould's "laced with baseballism" Full House:

"The home keeper was on a pair, vulnerable to anything from a yorker to a chinaman, when he fell to a googly given plenty of air. Silly mid on appealed for leg before, Dicky Bird’s finger shot up and the tail collapsed. Not surprisingly, the skipper took the light. Next morning the night watchman, defiantly out of his popping crease, snicked a cover drive off a no ball straight through the gullies and on a fast outfield third man failed to stop the boundary . . ." etc. etc.

And Louis is quite right. Why anyone would bother with any of this while the 6 nations is on is a bit of a mystery.

Date: 2008/01/26 14:54:28, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote
If, like most Americans, you only speak English, then you will just have to settle for Oxford.


Oxford? OXFORD??!? Those of us who went to the actual English university will have to bite our tongues and look unimpressed.

*bites tongue and looks unimpressed*




edited for misquote

Date: 2008/02/21 17:21:09, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
This "atheism is a religion" thing. Those who insist this is true never seem to answer the question: if being an atheist is the same as being religious, what do you have to do in order to be *not* religious?

Date: 2008/03/14 17:42:56, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I would go with Edinburgh if I was in this situation. It's spectacularly beautiful and pretty cosmopolitan and it's very easy to get to Glasgow, Newcastle and London. But then I don't know much about Swansea - much more industrial I imagine, but south Wales has been experiencing something of a renaissance recently.

Which university is she going to? That makes a difference too - there are more than one in each city I think.

Date: 2009/02/21 15:18:43, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Gee whiz. I've posted a little and lurked a lot - but RFJE has been the turning point for me, which is to say that I was able to predict his/her behaviour from the outset.

I just want to say kudos to Louis for being so splendid about the whole thing. Yes I am gay actually but this doesn't involve man-love in that sense.

Keep up the good work!

Edited to say RFJE actually

Date: 2009/02/25 04:34:09, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 25 2009,03:48)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,09:06)
   
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2009,00:37)
Is there some hidden code CSI in Dembski's tie?

ETA: replaced cody by CSI

Yes. I have calculated the CSI of that tie at 4.2 X 1042. It's a special number in Science as I'm finding it occurs frequently in nature when calculating CSI. I'm going to call it "Lou's number".

If my result is incorrect, I'd be happy to have Dr. Dembski give a correction and explain how he came to his answer. Also, it'd be peachy if he could supply me with a standard unit of measurement. Otherwise, I'm going with the metric standard of "obfuscations", symbolized with the Hebrew* letter Shin (almost like a w with a dot over on the right side).





*because all the cool Greek letters have been snapped up.

I love hebrew letters in mathematics. Still find them hard to write*, but it's hard to beat the coolness of for example Aleph.



For starters, it looks like it belongs on the cover of third rate ninja movie. As if that wasn't enough, it denotes the cardinality of infinite sets, which is pretty sweet any way you look at it.

* Except with LaTeX of course. Sweet sweet LaTeX.


Cardinality of one particular infinite set - that of natural numbers. (Or integers. Or rationals. There are more real numbers. Now that is cool!)

Date: 2009/03/14 04:42:09, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I couldn't let this pass from Clive:


Quote

Allen_MacNeill,

“In brief, “fitness” is a measure of reproductive success.”

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy?

And secondly, Darwin must not have been very fit himself by that measure.


So the only reason scientists propose theories is that the said theories make them look good - Darwin's theory makes Darwin himself look bad - ergo evolution is rubbish. Words fail. Actually, just FAIL.

Erk! My first excursion into the TARD mines! What horrors await?

Date: 2009/03/14 05:08:42, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Ooops comment number above in link should be 307724. What happened to my edit button? It used to work. I mildly taunted FtK with it once. *sulk*

Date: 2011/04/15 10:28:12, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Just a small contribution to the wisdom of the world: was at Foyle's in Charing Cross Road yesterday morning and spotted "Signature in the Cell" in the popular science section. I found an assistant and explained that the book is a fraud and it shouldn't be in a science section - perhaps in a religion or pseudoscience section. I don't even know if any bookshop has a pseudoscience section! Well he wrote it down and said he'd mention it to the buyer. A small thing but I felt better having done it.

Date: 2011/10/29 22:45:27, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I would like to say that I agree with Louis on the sexism/misogyny thing. I only post very occasionally here and at Pharyngula among other places, but long-term reading of Pharyngula in particular tells me that the general direction of the commentariat is rarely totally wrong, and is normally self-correcting. (I am going to read the pharynguwiki thing preparing to be disappointed, however.) 3 things in particular:

1: When I read the endless threads on Rebecca Watson and sexism in the atheist community, if a commenter exhibits even the slightest scepticism from what you might call the "party line", then 99% of the time they really are a misogynist arsehole. It's quite startling. This leads on to:

2: If you are going to be sceptical about the party line then you had bloody well better be able to back it up. One aspect of the party line as it appears to me is that women in the world at large feel it necessary to exercise caution with respect to men (strangers or otherwise), and that men at atheist events can make those events more welcoming to women by taking that into account. So don't proposition a strange woman in a lift (YES LIFT! what the fuck is an "elevator" grumble grumble) at 4 in the morning. It seems to me that the reason this has been adopted as the party line at Pharyngula is simply because it is true. If you want to argue against that, then I think you should have a long think about why. Which leads on to:

3: Most of the misogynist arseholes at Pharyngula don't realise they are being misogynist arseholes. In fact they may well think they are bending over backwards not to be.  But actually you quite often see posters who disagree with the party line I quoted above. They disagree politely, but they disagree because they are not listening to what women are telling them. The commentariat point out to them (with various degrees of porcupinity) that they are wrong and that they should listen. And they dig their heels in and they refuse to listen. And refuse and refuse and refuse. I think that commenters like that suffer from deeply ingrained and unexamined sexism and having this pointed out to them is extremely surprising and so uncomfortable that they refuse to examine the possibility that it might be true. And for me this is a much more intractable problem that the loudmouth sexist trolls. Incidentally I don't think adopting a politer tone would help.

I did not knowingly read any of SD's contributions so none of this is meant to be a commentary on that particular case.

But anyway thanks Louis for posting on this. I have not always been comfortable with some of the remarks I have read here on this subject and you said a lot of what I was thinking.

Date: 2011/10/30 00:25:17, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote
#1 - Bullpuckey.  All the females who disagree are also misogynist assholes as well?  Or are they just gender traitors?


You're saying women can't be misogynist? Citation needed I'm afraid. Also have a quick look at the definition of the word "all" in any nearby dictionary.

 
Quote
#2 - there's plenty of evidence, but the point you raise is a minor and all but irrelevant one now.  The issue has gone far afield from that point, dealing with how all individuals have to think on some specific points, and if you disagree (i.e., have an opinion of anything other than Watson or her Older Privileged White Knights), then you are labeled as stated in #1.


The point is not minor or irrelevant. In fact I think it's the main point. There are a lot of commenters (mainly male it seems to me but some female) who really do disagree with this - no problem so far - but when they are presented with evidence that they are wrong they will do absolutely anything rather than admit it. That tells me that they are very strongly wedded to a sexist and misogynist point of view - a point of view which, moreover, affects their actions. They may not even be aware of it but it's really very obvious when you see the pattern again and again and again. That pattern is one of the easiest-to-see manifestations of the systematic sexism which (among other things) makes atheist gatherings less welcoming than they should be for women.

The idea that people are lambasted for having "an opinion of anything other than Watson or her older Privileged White Knights" is a straw man. However I see nothing wrong with lambasting people for clinging on to opinions which are manifestly wrong.

 
Quote
I do see enough that the patronizing and superior tone taken by many of the posters is offensive to many people who aren't part of the echo chamber.


This is the very definition of being a tone troll. No battles in the history of destroying privilege have ever been won by people being nice. You can post pretty much anything you like at Pharyngula (though PZ can delete anything he likes too - it's his blog. I don't always understand or agree with his reasoning but it seems to me that within reason you can say whatever you want.) If you are actually right then you should be able to prove it. I do agree that the commentariat can sometimes get its knickers in a twist about irrelevancies, sometimes goes off on the wrong track, and can have a hair-trigger reaction to certain sorts of fairly mild wrongness.

 
Quote
Reading the quotes from PZs fanbois is like reading The Uncommenly Dense thread here.  Facepalms all around.


This is just false. I can't understand how you would come to this conclusion. I have no particular reason (does anyone?) to big up PZ's blog. Contrast that with the religious motivations of the UD crowd.

Oh dear - it's insomnia SIWOTI syndrome - won't somebody please think of the children???

Date: 2011/10/31 04:40:52, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Louis said:
 
Quote
I really don't think many of the Party Line Dissenters are genuine misogynists, oh they are there all right, but the majority are simply what I am/was/will perpetually be! In other words a "mostly clueless, sort-of-sexist, benefiting from unexamined male privilege". Actual misogyny is really serious, properly active hatred, it's not the low grade (genuinely unpleasant) sexism exhibited by the (greatest number) of Pharyngula Party Line Dissenters.

I'm not sure I completely agree here. There are certainly very few commenters in what you might call the progressive blogosphere who would explicitly express the hatred you describe. But the low-grade sexism of the PPLDs really does harm women (wherever they express it - part of the reason it's so damaging is that it's so pervasive). You can point this out to a shiny new PPLD and back it up with evidence. What happens next is the interesting bit - do they stop, think, and change their behaviour? Those who are clueless but basically well-intentioned will do it - perhaps not immediately, but I think fairly soon. Or do they dismiss or ignore the criticism? Note that in most cases it is not possible for them to correctly disagree - depends on what the exact point of contention is, but remember the point we both agree on that the PPL is basically true.

If they dismiss or ignore or otherwise fail to listen, then what they are doing is either recklessly or intentionally continuing to behave in a way which harms women. They do it with a tenacity which is pretty breathtaking. Even at this relatively low-grade, inexplicit level, is it really so unfair to call that misogyny?

*edited to fix quote fail*

Date: 2011/10/31 07:52:49, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 31 2011,07:21)
...
Sexism is still harmful, one doesn't need to inflate the language to its most serious extreme to describe what is in effect far less harmful...even though it is still actually harmful. In fact doing so cheapens and lessens the serious nastiness. Worse, painting with such a broad and blackened brush makes it impossible to distinguish between idiots and scumbags! ;-)

For what you say to be correct it assumes that people are rational actors, rationally considering inherited ideas and cultural norms. They....we....aren't. I've never been religious, but look at how the religious people deconvert, look at that process. It doesn't happen over night and it happens with varying degrees of denial. These people aren't "reality haters" (necessarily, although some of them are), just as the sexists described above aren't "women haters" (necessarily, although some of them are).

...

I wonder if the distinction between the actual haters and the unexamined sexists is similar to the distinction between vicious fundamentalists and nice, friendly kumbaya (but still wrong) religionists? In each case the apparently less harmful group perpetuates a culture which to some degree enables the really nasty lot to do their really nasty things. In which case that's a distinction worth knowing about, not least because it's a good way of explaining to said unexamined/kumbaya people why changing their behaviour would improve other people's lives.

So I agree with you. Interestingly enough, I don't think that makes any difference to what we should actually do. Which is call sexists/religionists out on their harmful behaviour and try to get them to change it - and realise that quite often "them" includes "us". I guess what I'm saying is that in many cases it seems that if you scratch a clueless but apparently reasonable sexist or kumbaya religionist, you can find something very ugly underneath. Often enough to explain the Pharyngula hair-trigger on this anyway.

I don't think I'm assuming everyone is a rational actor here. It took me a long time to realise how serious and ingrained sexism is. I've done very poorly by female friends of mine in the past, which I'm very sorry for now; even relatively recently I was called out by a woman I've known for a long time for taking a man's opinion more seriously than hers on a subject there was no reason to expect he was more expert on. But I'm getting better (I think) - not because people were nice and kind and gentle, but because they got angry. I don't get the impression we are advocating different things.

Date: 2011/10/31 08:01:21, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2011,07:30)
what's the actual sexism/misogyny part again?  seems like we are back to "what you type in a comment box harms women".  sorry if i can't possibly believe that no matter how drunk i get.

Doesn't do much harm in any one case. Doesn't have to. Are you saying that typing in a comment box has no effects at all?

Date: 2011/11/01 06:52:51, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 01 2011,03:53)
Hi Roland!

I stumbled upon this article while surfing on Cracked.com (hangs head in shame) and was wondering if you are the Roland Anderson from the Seattle Aquarium.

If so, I'd like to say kuddos on working with one of the most fascinating invertebrates ever. Paint me jealous!

I'm not I'm afraid! Would be fun though. Nor am I the Roland Anderson who received 15 Oscar nominations as an art director but never won. Maybe one day when I receive international acclaim for my opera (in preparation for the last 10 years) of "The Earthquake in Chile" I will leapfrog these august namesakes in the Google rankings, but until then I'm just little me.

Date: 2011/11/01 12:38:59, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 01 2011,06:56)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 01 2011,12:52)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 01 2011,03:53)
Hi Roland!

I stumbled upon this article while surfing on Cracked.com (hangs head in shame) and was wondering if you are the Roland Anderson from the Seattle Aquarium.

If so, I'd like to say kuddos on working with one of the most fascinating invertebrates ever. Paint me jealous!

I'm not I'm afraid! Would be fun though. Nor am I the Roland Anderson who received 15 Oscar nominations as an art director but never won. Maybe one day when I receive international acclaim for my opera (in preparation for the last 10 years) of "The Earthquake in Chile" I will leapfrog these august namesakes in the Google rankings, but until then I'm just little me.

Damn! You just crushed all my hopes, you bastard!

:)

Your hopes will rise again, old chap. Don't be disheartened :-)

Date: 2011/11/28 11:13:58, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
I'm with Louis pretty much all the way on this one. If you want to show Pharyngula is a cult, cough up the evidence. So far, nothing. This is basically a tone troll argument.

And there is no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist. Reading that phrase used seriously makes me want to dismiss out of hand everything the writer says. The attempt to equate the dictionary to a religious text is beyond silly - almost as silly as comparing Pharyngula to Uncommon Descent.

I don't comment on Pharyngula much. I have no dog in this fight. But where there's a consensus there among the regular commentariat that's a pretty good sign there's something in it. No fanboyism here, no cult-worship - just standing back and examining substance rather than tone.

Date: 2011/11/28 11:52:04, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,11:24)
Roland: just go check what's going on at Bunnygate. See people first cheering PZ for his postion, then all of a sudden make a 180° turn because some regular points something they have missed that endangers the "dogma". Even PZ is getting tired of this, it seems...


ETA: this is, of course, not fundamentalist atheism, but fundamentalist/radical feminism, which IMO has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism. That's another battle. Read Marcotte, and then cry...

I've read a fair bit of Bunnygate and I can't see cultish behaviour I'm afraid. Point something specific out and tell me why it's cultish. In so doing you will need to address the substance of what's being said, as I need hardly add that if what someone is saying is true and can be backed up by evidence, then this is a good defence against accusations of cultishness.

Fundamentalist feminism eh? Sorry, you'll need to back that one up too. Unless you can point to someone arguing furiously that X is true because Simone de Beauvoir said X and not providing any other justification - and furthermore being supported by the rest of the commentariat who try to silence everyone else -  then I'm afraid it's not going to fly.

Why do you dislike what you see as "fundamentalist feminism"? If you're interested in pursuing this line, give me some examples of what you mean and why you don't like it - from Pharyngula if you like. I'm curious as to your reasoning. Feel free to ignore me if you like though :-)

Date: 2011/11/28 14:48:56, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,12:01)
Roland: I will admit to being a bit tired to do the research work for you, but this small exemple by Tis'Himself should help you understand what I mean:

Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


Now, what do you think is wrong with this comment? Because, "Roland" you are having a very sexist attitude right now, what with you being named "Roland". This is not pro-women at all!

I do acknowledge that we have diferences in our views, I do acknoweldge that I'm wrong on many things, but one thing I'm not wrong about is the crazy dogmatic view of the FFTB regulars. Do your research!

You're the one who's asserting Pharyngula has been taken over by fundamentalist feminists - I was thinking you might have done the research yourself before making the assertion. And if that's the best evidence you can come up with even at a cursory glance then I'm sorry I'm not convinced.

I don't think your point that I have a man's name is terribly relevant.

Again, I didn't assert that the FTB regulars' view is crazy and dogmatic, you did. So you do the research. Convince me. I am perfectly ready to be convinced.

Date: 2011/11/29 04:21:10, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

Date: 2011/11/29 04:24:32, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
 
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Date: 2011/11/29 10:23:23, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:28)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

What I don't like about them? Do you really want to go back to my post and read those quotes from Marcotte and Skeptifem? If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have a serious problem.

Non-answer noted.

Date: 2011/11/29 10:26:42, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:29)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
   
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Louis Armstrong used to blow a lot too.

Again, your point?

So the imagery isn't homophobic? I feel like I'm playing "20 questions" - give me something here! I want to know what it is you dislike about this.

Date: 2011/11/29 10:38:04, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,06:18)
[

Quote
Quote
Quote

   
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?

The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Maybe, maybe not.  It could be homoerotic.  Your hetero-normative bias is showing.

The issue, Roland, at least for me, isn't whether a cartoon with a stuffed bunny is a tool of gender oppression, but rather that there are people who spend entirely too much time looking at stuffed bunnies for things to be offended about.


Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

I think you're getting rather close here to saying that the people pointing it out are just doing it to annoy you. That position has unfortunate implications in my opinion.

Date: 2011/11/29 10:45:09, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:34)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:23)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:28)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
 
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

What I don't like about them? Do you really want to go back to my post and read those quotes from Marcotte and Skeptifem? If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have a serious problem.

Non-answer noted.

Ok Roland, let's play: For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!

Pet peeve, maybe, but still my opinion.

Now, let's play silly fucker and look at that quote from Tis'Himself again, since you've given the best non-answer possible: not answering:



Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


See any problem there, "Roland"?

This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.

I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.

Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.

Date: 2011/11/29 10:46:12, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:35)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:26)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:29)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:24)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
     
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Louis Armstrong used to blow a lot too.

Again, your point?

So the imagery isn't homophobic? I feel like I'm playing "20 questions" - give me something here! I want to know what it is you dislike about this.

"Roland", please step away from the internet...

Very happy to - got to get to the gym soon anyway :-)

Date: 2011/11/29 11:05:53, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:55)
Since I'm a very kind and patient man, I'll try to parse this.

 
Quote
This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.


I answered: "For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!"

Problem?



 
Quote
I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.


Again with the Tis'Himself quote, never challenged by any regulars.

Problem?

 
Quote
Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.


Have you ever been to Pharyngula before?!?

You're saying that the quote from 'Tis Himself, which I understand is this one:

Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


means "most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent"?

Please can you explain your reasoning?

Once again, I don't feel my question has been answered. It's because you said the thing you don't like about Pharygula is that people there say most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent, and that's wrong. Well saying that is wrong, so I'd like you to show me where the Pharyngulites say this and are supported in so doing.

Date: 2011/11/29 11:08:49, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:01)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,10:38)
Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

What exactly are you after?  Every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture must necessarily be male?  Or would you rather that all cartoon characters be Shmoos?

   
Quote

I think you're getting rather close here to saying that the people pointing it out are just doing it to annoy you. That position has unfortunate implications in my opinion.

No.  What I am saying is perfectly encapsulated in the paragraph that you didn't quote. Equality won't be obtained by seeking out grievances to nurse, but through achievement.

Here's the paragraph I didn't quote:

Quote
I work in manufacturing, which, as you might expect, is a male dominated field.  However, throughout my career, I have seen many successful women. I've had the pleasure to work for some, and the honor of promoting the careers of others.  And what was their formula for success?  Well, they didn't spend their time complaining about the patriarchal subtext of the Successories prints that littered the corridor walls.  No, sir. They just put on their big girl pants and got shit done.  Who do you suppose is making a better case for equality?


Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Date: 2011/11/29 11:16:49, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,18:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:55)
Since I'm a very kind and patient man, I'll try to parse this.

   
Quote
This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.


I answered: "For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!"

Problem?



   
Quote
I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.


Again with the Tis'Himself quote, never challenged by any regulars.

Problem?

   
Quote
Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.


Have you ever been to Pharyngula before?!?

You're saying that the quote from 'Tis Himself, which I understand is this one:

 
Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


means "most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent"?

Please can you explain your reasoning?

Once again, I don't feel my question has been answered. It's because you said the thing you don't like about Pharygula is that people there say most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent, and that's wrong. Well saying that is wrong, so I'd like you to show me where the Pharyngulites say this and are supported in so doing.

Mmmmhhh... Where have I said that?

Ah OK sorry I misread you. You said that the 'Tis Himself quote was fundamentalist feminist - apologies.

Can you explain the reasoning there then? This is really what I'm trying to get at.

You still haven't come up with anything from Pharyngula saying men are mostly wannabe rapists, guilty till proven innocent etc

Date: 2011/11/29 11:17:47, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)
Here's the paragraph I didn't quote:

 
Quote
I work in manufacturing, which, as you might expect, is a male dominated field.  However, throughout my career, I have seen many successful women. I've had the pleasure to work for some, and the honor of promoting the careers of others.  And what was their formula for success?  Well, they didn't spend their time complaining about the patriarchal subtext of the Successories prints that littered the corridor walls.  No, sir. They just put on their big girl pants and got shit done.  Who do you suppose is making a better case for equality?


Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

Date: 2011/11/29 11:28:01, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

Date: 2011/11/29 11:35:08, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:32)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
   
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

So, all women hold exactly the same opinion on this?

Have you tried listening to them to find out?

Date: 2011/11/29 11:41:47, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,11:38)
Sorry, not playing anymore. "Roland" is boring.

FYI, "Roland", yes, we've listened to women. Ok, maybe women who have lost their vagina-card, but still women nontheless.

OK I'll draw my own conclusions.

Date: 2011/11/29 11:44:15, Link
Author: Roland Anderson
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:36)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:35)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:32)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
   
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
     
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

So, all women hold exactly the same opinion on this?

Have you tried listening to them to find out?

Have you?

Yes, and some of them said that minor though this is, it's still sexist and it's still worth pointing out. I'm not the one making a big issue out of this! The big issue is the incredible amount of energy expended by people who want to deny that this sort of sexism is worth any attention at all.

 

 

 

=====