AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: hotshoe

form_srcid: hotshoe

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: hotshoe

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'hotshoe%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2012/11/03 03:02:20, Link
Author: hotshoe
Everyone is "in moderation" at TSZ because something is broken.  Nothing personal.

Comments can be approved by the author of each thread, and that's happening if the author knows they need to check the moderation queue.  

We need Lizzie.  Send out the penguin signal.

Date: 2012/11/03 12:04:13, Link
Author: hotshoe
There has been a miraculous recovery at TSZ.  The overall moderation issue has apparently fixed itself.  I think some replies may still be stuck in spam filter, but new replies are getting posted as of this morning.

Date: 2012/12/15 17:40:18, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 15 2012,16:52)
...PZ was disrespectful in a whole different light.  His attempt at flirting?/being funny? was highly inappropriate considering the atheist group he was talking to.  Most of those women, from what I've gathered in the past, are very sensitive to men making crude comments like that.

If he had been anyone else, they'd of tar and feathered him right there at the conference.  I've seen some of those women light into men for innocently flirting with them in an elevator for cripes sakes, but they have no problem with PZ's little display.

Goddamn, you're dopey.

Idiots like you can't understand consent and can't understand context - that it matters when persons involved have consented to be involved and that it matters what happened both before and after a supposedly-crude remark and it matters what the whole substance of the discussion was about.

You're doubly foolish because you're believing a cut-and-spliced video put up by Reap Paden, one of the slymeballs who notoriously wants to tell lies about feminist men.

You're a creep for misrepresenting - after two years of discussion - that Rebecca Watson's comment of "guys, don't do that" regarding elevator proposition has nothing to do with "innocently flirting".  And no woman since then has lit into men for "innocently flirting" (although they have lit into men for sexual harassment of many types.)  There's a huge difference and you're an idiot if you don't understand the difference.

Stop it. Stop lying/misrepresenting the authentic voices of real women (and men).

Date: 2013/01/10 22:56:52, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 10 2013,18:45)
It took my last comment only 2 - 3 days to get moderated, so I tried it again: At the [URL=

a-and-new-world-encyclopedia/]comment-thread[/URL] for the article [URL=


ruling/]"Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling"[/URL] I wrote:

The structure of "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" isn't well designed: Whom do you expect to read this?

1 ->
2 ->
3 ->
4 ->
5 ->
 21 ->
6 ->
7 ->
8 ->
9 ->
10 ->
11 ->

Heh.  Well, I'm definitely not on kf's list of proposed readers - and yet - read it I did.  Gah.

Here's part 21:

21 –> Given such a longstanding reply posted by DI on its site, in all fairness, Wikipedia has a duty to provide solid warrant for rejecting such and for justifying that to use the equation of Intelligent Design and Creationism in its introduction as a prime premise of the point its article makes, is very well warranted indeed. For Wiki is making an accusation — not of error — but one of outright, widespread large scale intellectual fraud.

Can anyone decipher that?  Would it even have a meaning if it were translated from IDiot to normal English?  Or is it just a Sokal?

Date: 2013/01/11 14:21:16, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 11 2013,13:57)


Hell, yes.

Date: 2013/03/31 23:35:16, Link
Author: hotshoe
[quote=Freddie,Mar. 31 2013,17:47]
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 31 2013,02:48)

To be honest, I was wondering the exact same thing about this series of posts:

It's tempting to think <i>it might be eagles' pheromones??</i>It's tempting ??
God save me, I could have lived my whole life without ever being tempted to think that flight-traffic control uses eagles' pheromones. Much less commit such thought to print.  Much less hit "submit" such to the entire planetary internet.  

God save me from ever being dosed with whatever drug Axel has ingested, whether xis eagle-pheromone idea is a joke or not.  

Now I feel sorry for that poor IDiot.

Date: 2013/05/11 09:03:04, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 11 2013,05:22)
Paging Lizzie. Your domain name requires attention.

Oh that's sad.  Seems like never-ending trouble for Libbie's site.  What got broken this time?

But I must confess I'm relieved it's not just something wrong with me or my computer ...

Date: 2013/08/21 12:51:32, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 21 2013,07:04)
A couple of questions:

1) What does "SJW" mean? I keep seeing it, but clearly I haven't spent time in the proper circles to get a clue.

2) Has anyone studied the apparent higher rate of assault at atheist venues and come to a conclusion as why the rate is so high?

Social Justice Warrior.  

I haven't heard anyone claim there is an (apparent) higher rate of assault at atheist venues. Why would anyone think that?  There is an overabundance of sexual harassment and sexual assault everywhere.  

Why we are suddenly seeing several different atheist-skeptic leaders being named for bad behavior is a different question.

If that's what you really want to know, think about San Diego's Filner for an example.  Each of the (sixteen!) women who have named him as a harasser/assaulter had originally kept quiet for their own reasons - because they assumed they would not be believed, because they were afraid of repercussions if they spoke out, because they were thought that just warning their coworkers to stay out of his arm's reach (watch out for Filner, he's grabby) was better than publicly rocking the boat, or perhaps out of misplaced shame that she had done something to deserve the harassment.  

That was status quo.  But at some point in July, women who had heard more than one of the warnings about Filmer realized:
1) his behavior is seriously harmful, not merely a handful of possibly-misunderstood "jokes"or "harmless flirtation"
2) the reports were corroborated by multiple persons
3) the pattern of behavior is unlikely to stop spontaneously, since Filmer thinks he's doing just fine
4) the moral obligation of people who know Filmer is to warn other unsuspecting future victims, who weren't privy to the insider knowledge, to be careful around Filmer, and - they hope - to get Filmer to stop, and get help for himself.  

Once one or two people come to the moral realization that they must report publicly, it gives other victims the courage to come forward.  

So suddenly we have a compilation of reports which make it appear as if San Diego/atheist conventions are much worse for sexual assault than anywhere else.  It's not actually, though.

Date: 2013/08/21 14:52:59, Link
Author: hotshoe
Thanks, point taken.  We don't actually know if any cluster of activity represents a "hotbed" or not, without more data.  Maybe it's not significant, maybe it is.  

Also good point about libertarian and/or skeptic males --> plausible correlation with higher sexual assault rates than some other populations. Youth and privilege, yes. And after all, no god, no rules, eh?

Well, I hate to think it's true of people I know, but it's at least plausible ...

Date: 2013/08/29 04:27:37, Link
Author: hotshoe
[quote=OgreMkV,Aug. 28 2013,13:56][/quote]
There's a fundamental difference between telling someone "You know, I've heard some unpleasant rumors about that guy.  Just so you're aware of those and are OK.  Let me know if you need any help."

Jesus fuck, this is stupid.  What goddamn unpleasant rumors are you quietly telling this person about?  Rumors about "that guy" having on more than one evening at more than one convention deliberately gotten a woman drunk enough that she could neither resist nor consent when he maneuvered her out of the bar and into a bedroom for sex.  In other words, rumors about "that guy" having committed rape. Why would you be coy about it?  Why would you risk being misunderstood about the serious risk you're concerned that your friend is taking by drinking with that - rumored - successful repeat predator?  

There is no moral superiority in saying "just so you know, there are unsavory rumors about that guy" versus "just so you know, there are rumors that guy is a rapist".

Except that first one will merely confuse her with not knowing whether she has to worry that he'll slither off and leave her stuck with the bar tab, or whether he'll embarrass her by shoving his hand down her dress in pubic, or whether the "unsavory" is something else she's not comfortable with. The second one might actually be specific enough to save your friend from rape.
... and

"X is a rapist" stated on the internet to a readership of tens of thousands of people ...

Now that you've realized it's moral to warn your friend that you've heard rumors that guy is a rapist, how can you stand to live with yourself if you deliberately withhold the same warning from tens of thousands of potential victims of that guy, people whom you cannot approach personally at the bar and quietly whisper a warning in their ears. You have an amplifier, you have a platform to allow the warning to reach thousands - how could you sleep at night if you refuse to speak loudly and another innocent is harmed because of your inaction?  

... who will promote and attack on command.
Since that bears no resemblance to what has happened in the Shermer situation, I have an idea why you bring it up, but it's not an idea which reflects well on your integrity.

One is a conditional statement.  One is stated as a fact.  One is done out of concern.
Okay ...  
One is done out of malice.
And that is either a delusion or a lie on your part, and definitely with zero evidence.  Since we know for certain that you're not a mind-reader, we know for certain that you have zero evidence for your claim that it was done out of "malice".

And here I thought you were all about the evidence.  Huh.  Silly me.

Date: 2013/08/29 14:49:25, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2013,07:46)
I've obviously let things get out of hand here.

There will be a modicum of decorum and respect offered between participants in discussion here. People who cannot find it within their repertoire to do so will be invited to find other places to discuss things. One can be abrupt and rude about an idea or stance; personal castigation, though, is not going to be tolerated any longer. I really don't care if that turns AtBC into a whistling graveyard of past conversations that I wander through alone, enough is enough.

Am I clear?

No, you're not clear.

Might help if you gave some specifics on "personal castigation".

As far as I can see, there's nothing one might call "personal castigation" in recent posts, neither in my own nor in others' comments, and yet, you just posted about it ... so, logically, you must see it in recent posts; logically, or else why would you even mention it?

Please be specific: are you pointing at me? At David Holland? At Ogre? You can't be pointing at Driver, who has been unfailingly polite.  Yet, there is a difference between being unfailingly polite (a standard to which I could never aspire) and being so lacking in decorum that one deserves to be "invited to find other places" to go.

I ask out of genuine concern since I am a relative newcomer to this community and did not wish to get off on the wrong foot here.

Date: 2013/08/29 18:48:16, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 29 2013,14:52)
I think my opinion is fairly well reasoned and polite, even if it is wrong. I reserve the right to be wrong or partially wrong.

I agree.
I spent seven years in children's protective services. I investigated at least a dozen instances of sexual abuse by adults
Thank you for trying to make things better.

That is simply non-responsive to my argument. Of course it not okay for men to be pigs. I'm simply saying that there is not and never will be a comprehensive list of bad people. One has to maintain control of oneself, even while partying.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that we could have a "comprehensive list" of bad people.  But then, how many known-or-suspected rapists are actually at a skeptics convention?  How long would that list have to be t be at least somewhat useful?  

Men are not in fact usually rapists.  Abut six percent of US men will admit to having forced/coerced someone into sex (as long as you carefully avoid using the word "rape" to describe what they admit doing).  That's not a big percentage.  IF it were a huge convention with 1000 men attending, that's about 60 self-admitted predators.  But out of those possible 60 men, it's likely that only one or two of them will be looking for victims there - it's statistically impossible that every one of them is going to commit a rape at that convention. 57 or 58 or 59 of them, perhaps, have a different modus operandi and are not in fact a danger to the unknowing women we wish to warn at the convention.

Suddenly it's clear that publicizing a "list" with only one name on it - the name of the known-or-suspected man who has a specific history of predation at that specific type of convention - will result in orders of magnitude improvement in the safety of women who now know who is specifically dangerous to them there. Suddenly, they don't have to worry about all 1000 men, neither the 940 "good guys" who could never consider committing an assault, nor about the 57-59 "bad guys" who have committed an assault at some other time and place but who are not planning one there.  Now they only have to worry about one identifiable guy, plus maybe 1 or 2 more unidentified guys still dangerous.

I know what I want if I'm in a similar situation - I want my odds improved from 1/1000 of avoiding the guy who's dangerous to drink with, to 1/1 or 1/2 or 1/3 of avoiding that guy.  I have the right to know. Knowing who is on the (perhaps incomplete) list won't lull me into a false sense of security, but it will allow me - and all the women at the convention - to focus on the single most-likely danger and not to look upon every one of those 999 guys as potential rapists when they're not.

Everyone, men and women, will be more happy when the list is made public.  Everyone, that is, except the named known predator.  My heart does not bleed for him.

Date: 2013/08/29 23:54:00, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 29 2013,21:25)
It would indeed be ideal to have such a list, so that sexual predators could be barred altogether.  The problem is with the word I bolded in your final paragraph.

We do not have knowledge.  We have second or third hand reports from anonymous sources.  We have rumors and gossip.  We have, in some online fora, what looks very like a witch hunt.

PZ Myers himself recognizes that rape accusations are so serious that they "could have totally destroyed my career."

As a husband of a wife I adore and the father of daughters I would do anything to protect, I strongly empathize with the desire to do anything possible to prevent sexual assault.

As a person who values his reputation, I do not want to live under a legal system that would allow that reputation to be destroyed based on anonymous hearsay and unfounded accusations.

We need a solution that achieves both goals.  What PZ Myers did is not it.

It would indeed be ideal to have such a list, so that sexual predators could be barred altogether.  The problem is with the word I bolded in your final paragraph.

We do not have knowledge.  
That's not quite correct. You maybe don't have knowledge.  True, for you, this is a second-hand report.  But the multiple women whom Shermer preyed upon do know. They do have knowledge, first hand.  Women in skeptic circles have been warning each other for years about what Shermer did to them or their friend.  You say you do not know; fine, that's true for you if you say so, but the knowledge is definitely available out there.  The only problem is that it wasn't available to everyone who needed to know in order to protect themselves from him.  He could always count on another naive victim down the road because the knowledge we had was not being disseminated widely enough.  

We do have knowledge, same as we have knowledge about Catholic rapist priests.  We excoriate the church who moved rapist priests from parish to parish without notifying the parishioners about the danger.  We're furious, even though the accusations are third- or fourth-hand to us.  Even though no charges are ever brought to court, even though the accused never has a chance to defend himself in court and officially clear his reputation, we accept the truth of what the victims say happened to them.

Why is that, I wonder.  Why is it that atheists and skeptics are so willing to accept the word of SNAP representatives when they forward the story of a raped boy?  And yet, refuse to accept the word of a woman's chosen representative when she tries to share her own story in order to warn other innocent women?

Why? Surely it can't be that we are prejudiced against priests; surely it can't be that we are prejudiced in favor of charismatic atheist leaders.  Surely that can't be the reason why a skeptic grants the truth of the boy's rape but claims no knowledge of whether the woman was raped.

As a person who values his reputation, I do not want to live under a legal system that would allow that reputation to be destroyed based on anonymous hearsay and unfounded accusations.
Well, you may not live under such a legal system, but Shermer certainly does.  That's our US First Amendment rights at work!  The alternative is far more horrifying to contemplate: that a public figure (like Shermer) could use the courts to trample on your free speech rights any time you said anything about him that he claimed would harm his "reputation"!  Thank god I live in a country where the Supreme Court has specifically ruled on this issue and is protecting my free speech rights.

We need a solution that achieves both goals.  
Great.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who is eager to hear any suggestions that will improve women's freedom and safety while not doing whatever it is that you think we shouldn't be doing to men like Shermer.

Date: 2013/08/30 13:48:21, Link
Author: hotshoe
[quote=Patrick,Aug. 30 2013,09:47][/quote]
Quote (hotshoe @ Aug. 30 2013,00:54)

Well, you may not live under such a legal system, but Shermer certainly does.  That's our US First Amendment rights at work!  The alternative is far more horrifying to contemplate: that a public figure (like Shermer) could use the courts to trample on your free speech rights any time you said anything about him that he claimed would harm his "reputation"!  Thank god I live in a country where the Supreme Court has specifically ruled on this issue and is protecting my free speech rights.

I said that I would not want to live under such a system.  Fortunately, I do not nor does anyone else in the United States.  There is legal recourse available to victims of defamation.

I am a free speech absolutist.  I would not support any attempt to limit PZ Myers' ability to publish anything he wishes.  

Good. Thank god for that.  It's so nice to see an absolutely clear statement that PZ Myers has the First-Amendment right to publish what he understands to be the truth about Shermer, without censorship.
I also recognize that such freedom means that people will sometimes cause significant harm to other people's reputations. If those damaging claims cannot be supported, the libeled or slandered person must have a means to clear their name.

Yes, and the legal recourse for the possibly-libeled person is to file suit against their alleged-libeler.  And although the libel suit is a civil action, not a criminal action, in that suit the alleged-libeler, being the defendant, has legal protection equivalent to "presumed innocent until proven guilty".  That is, Shermer - if he follows through on his threat to sue Myers - will have the affirmative burden of proof; and furthermore, since Shermer is a public figure, he will have the burden of proving not only that he was actually defamed (which may be possible to prove in Shermer's specific case) but also must meet the burden of proof that Myers acted with actual malice. (Note: that is "actual malice" as defined by law, not merely out of spite, or as a result of some prior spat between the two parties.)  This is settled constitutional law; it was settled in 1964 by the US Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court unanimously decided NYT v Sullivan on First Amendment grounds, with the effect of protecting YOUR and MY free speech rights from self-censorship due to prior fears of being bankrupted by a libel suit (or threats of such a suit) flung by some powerful public person.

You, as a "free speech absolutist" must naturally be on the side of the US Supreme Court, the NY Times, and our freedom to say rude things about public figures whom we suspect to be dangerous, wrong, or corrupt, even to say things about them which turn out on close inspection to be untrue, as long as we don't say them with actual malice.
Would you really prefer a system where your life and livelihood could be destroyed by anonymous rumor and gossip published by any blogger with a sufficiently large following?

1. Since I am more likely to die in a tsunami than to accidentally come to the attention of any "blogger with a sufficiently large following" who will decide to randomly attempt to destroy my "life and livelihood", I guess I'll take my chances with such a system.
2. Since neither I, nor you (presumably) are public figures, I, and you, can take such a blogger to court - if we can afford a good lawyer! - and win without having to prove actual malice, I'm happy that a legal recourse exists.  But I can't imagine being stupid enough to want to sue, no matter how badly I felt about my reputation, given that as you say, the "gossip" would already be out there, and would not disappear if I won.  But that's just me.  
3. As I said before, we do live in a system where - sometimes - an innocent person's reputation may be ruined by a defamer who cannot be successfully sued due to our FA rights protecting our ability to speak/publish freely (even if what we say/publish is only "rumor" and "gossip" and even when it's demonstrably not true).
And yes, I absolutely do prefer the system we have, thanks to the Supreme Court, than the horrible alternative of suppression of free speech.
As the great Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".
In context (civil, rather than criminal courts) I mean that it is better that ten actual libelers escape than that one person has their free speech rights trampled upon.  Our commitment to free speech necessarily entails that free speech excesses up to and including outright falsehoods cannot be prevented in advance (no prior censorship) and cannot be punished after the fact in cases regarding a public person (actual malice standard).

You might be interested in the words of a lawyer on the relative value of free speech rights compared to the desire to challenge a libel against oneself:  
As the NYT [Supreme] Court explains, the public-figure and “actual malice” standards are an extraordinarily important means of protecting the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Without those standards (or some other rule that performs similar work), the powerful could all too easily silence any critical commentary on anything they do. There’s an underlying cost-benefit analysis involved: upholding those First Amendment rights has long since been deemed more fundamental and important than private parties’ desire to root out any and every published challenge (including, inevitably, some that are based on falsehoods) to their reputations.

Again, one notable factual parallel between the facts of NYT and Shermer’s allegations in his hypothetical lawsuit against PZ is that some of the statements the Times printed were in fact false. As a result, Sullivan’s complaints about the Times‘ publication was, in that respect, correct: the publication had stated false notions about him and his police force. The reason NYT would be particularly helpful for PZ in the hypothetical lawsuit, besides setting out the “actual malice” standard in the first place, is that it shows that the mere falsity of Jane Doe’s account still wouldn’t prove that PZ defamed Shermer.

4. I'm not sure if the phrase "any blogger with a sufficiently large following" is meant to imply that it is somehow more objectionable, or somehow more effective, to allegedly libel a public figure via one's blog compared to other methods of spreading "rumor" and "gossip" but in either case, it's nonsense.
PZ Myers (that is, the "any blogger" in this case) has not done anything via his blog that he could not have done in 1791 with handbills printed in Ben Franklin's shop.
Here's word from the lawyer again:
There is nothing whatsoever about the PZ/Shermer controversy that could not have taken place with the technology available in NYT‘s 1960—or for that matter the Bill of Rights’ 1789. Accusing a public figure of a serious crime ... has been entirely practicable for many centuries.

Moreover, NYT v. Sullivan has coexisted with overwhelmingly widespread Internet use for decades, now, and there has been no indication that any court, least of all the U.S. Supreme Court, believes that the justification for “actual malice” standard is any less pressing in the Internet age than it was in 1960. ...[T]his matter is not the first time that public figures have been accused of serious crimes on the Internet by people whose identities the accused was not aware of. Decades’ worth of Internet-age defamation law have done nothing to cast NYT into doubt[.]
[emendations by me to remove personal  interjections, which don't affect the sense of the paragraph]

P.S. The "l" key is not registering correctly on my keyboard and several times I typed "pubic" for "public".  I believe i have corrected them all but if any mistakes remain they are not meant as an ironic commentary on Shermer's alleged sexual assaults.  Sorry.

Date: 2013/08/30 14:07:17, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 30 2013,12:57)
My family was in public health, and from diapers onward I was taught that prevention is more effective than cure. When a crime has been committed you have to focus on the criminal, but that isn't very productive in reducing crime

Which is why I'm so happy to hear the positive results from Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign.

It puts the focus of preventive efforts where it belongs - on the likely perpetrators rather than on the future victims.  And apparently it's working.

Date: 2013/08/30 16:02:39, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 30 2013,14:42)
If Myers were making a defamatory statement about his target's professional conduct, it might be covered.  The actual claims made are not.

I suggest that you look into the legal term "defamation per se."  What PZ Myers claimed qualifies.

I'm not sure what you're referencing with the phrase "what PZ Myers claimed".  But no matter, "defamation per se" isn't going to help Shermer in this case; "per se" only relieves the supposedly-libeled person of the burden of proving that they were actually injured by the alleged libel. However, the defendant in a "per se" case still has all their legal defenses against the "libel" part of the "libel per se" suit, if sued.  That is, truth is still an absolute defence against accusations of libel, and the alleged libel of a public figure (like Shermer) still must be proved to be with actual malice .

We know this to be a fact. The landmark NYT v Sullivan was a "libel per se" case.  And Sullivan lost despite "per se"! Look at the actual court decision if you don't believe me.

Your (uncited) lawyer quotations fail to note that the public figure requirement to prove actual malice isn't going to help Myers.  First, reckless disregard of the truth shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate,

Nope, "reckless disregard" is going to be impossible for Shermer to demonstrate, since Myers specifically writes about his reasons to accept the truth of what the accuser said, knowing the accuser personally and evaluating that she has a specific reason to be telling the truth, and that her word was also vouched for by another person known to him before he publicized her word.
... especially given that he has subsequently allowed additional very serious allegations to be made in the comments.
Others' comments are irrelevant to any libel suit against Myers.  And are protected by US national law which prevents media hosts from being legally liable for comments on their forums.  
Second, the requirement applies to actions related to the public figure's official conduct (in his capacity as a public official, in the case you cite).  
Well, the landmark NYT v Sullivan case was indeed abut a public official and his official conduct, but the principle has been expanded and affirmed many times in the subsequent decades to apply to essentially all public figures (business leaders, entertainers, public speakers at skeptic conventions ...) Did you not know that?  I'm surprised!
If Myers were making a defamatory statement about his target's professional conduct, it might be covered.  The actual claims made are not.
So, yeah, nope.  You're misinformed.

Shermer has an almost-impossible suit - if he does decide to sue after all - to prove that Myers committed libel with actual malice against him.  And that's a good thing.  That's a vigorous free press in action, not being squashed by those like Shermer with money, power, or friends in high places who would use suits (or threats of suits) to force us to censor ourselves lest we face bankruptcy for speaking out.

Date: 2013/08/30 16:53:48, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 30 2013,14:56)
[quote=Patrick,Aug. 30 2013,15:47]

I'm referring to it as rumor and gossip because it is an unsubstantiated accusation claimed to be from an anonymous source.  Hardly what could be considered valid evidence.
(emphasis mine)
I point out that this is something that too many peope get wrong. The first woman whom PZ quotes is NOT anonymous - her name is being withheld from random denizens of the internet including you, but that is completely different from being anonymous.  "Anonymous" is the tipster on the phone who refuses to leave a name or call-back number; "anonymous" is the person who writes a message with cut-out letters from the newspaper and mails it with no return address.  This woman has a name, she is known personally by PZ Myers, and in his (usually sensible) judgment he needs to conceal her name for her safety.  The only reason to doubt that is if, with some prejudice, you choose to believe that PZ is making the whole thing up.  Which would be ridiculous, but go for it if you want.

I note again that we, as skeptics/atheists, have no trouble believing the un-named victims of Catholic rapist priests, yet bizarrely too many claim this un-named woman may not even exist, may be part of an elaborate lie on PZ's part, and even if she does exist certainly cannot be believed unless she satisfies the demand to reveal her name.  I am shocked to witness this hideous double standard between victims of church leaders and victim(s) of skeptic leaders.

I also note that not a single skeptic calling for "evidence" in this case has yet been able to describe what evidence satisfying them would look like.  What would count as evidence?

The testimony of male witnesses? Will one do, or do we need four?

Date: 2013/08/30 16:58:49, Link
Author: hotshoe
[quote=Driver,Aug. 30 2013,15:47][/quote]
Take your pick. None of it is good.

Yep :(

Date: 2013/08/30 17:15:40, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 30 2013,12:41)
Still, it's nice to see Barry recognize the fact that gravity isn't a done deal in science

I was once banned from UD for saying that.

Hee hee. Shocked, I tell ya, I'm shocked.

Date: 2013/08/31 09:37:05, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 31 2013,02:52)
If anyone thinks they have evidence of a felony, they are obligated by law to report this to the police.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Oh, that settles it, then.  I'm so glad to have that all cleared up.

Now, the first woman must be arrested.  Either she knows a felony was committed (her rape) and she failed to report it to the proper authorities - arrest her!
OR she knows a felony was not committed and she's making a false allegation. Is that a crime? I don't know, but if it isn't, it should be.  Arrest her!

I'm so glad we could find a way to make the victim into a criminal here.  It would be such a shame if any woman got away with the crime of being raped. I'll definitely sleep safer at night knowing she's in jail where she belongs.

Date: 2013/08/31 10:07:49, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 31 2013,08:10)
People who think the law is the paragon of truth finding and justice should speak to a few seasoned lawyers.

Yeah, or just ask midwifetoad:

I investigated at least a dozen instances of sexual abuse by adults. I'm rather sensitive to the issues.

None of my cases and none known to me were resolved in what I would consider to be a satisfactory way for the victim. The criminal system and the protective services system just don't have the magic wand to fix everything. In many cases they don't even protect against repeat offences.
(emphasis mine)

Why do we even hope that victims might not have their own lives ruined by the so-called justice system? It's hopeless.  Once the system gets its claws on the victim, there's never going to be a decent outcome.  Not for the victim, anyways.

Men brush the dust off their hands and walk away, satisfied that the system has done its duty, has always done its duty, and no better can be expected.

Date: 2013/09/03 13:41:13, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 02 2013,09:44)
Did Denyse now censure herself because she let the cat out of the bag?

A minute ago I read her latest post; it was applaus for a high school physics teacher who sneaks creationism into the classroom by developping his idea about the fine tuning of the universe.

I then went back to UD's main site - her post was gone!

Is this my browser or for real?

Dunno, is it this one?
UD "news"
Nothing interesting ...
not even interesting to the UDers.

Date: 2013/09/03 14:06:28, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 02 2013,10:01)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.

He is never rude. He (almost) always provides reasons for whatever case he is making. He is extremely well read and does his research. That puts him head and shoulders above anyone else I can think of on UD. The closest to him is Gpuccio but he is not as tolerant as Vincent.

Huh. I think Torley is every bit as scummy as any of the rest of them at UD.  

Look at one of Torley's recent posts, the viciously stupid one about Clarence Darrow and rape, which of course Torley spins into an illogical conclusion that none of us can be moral humans under Darwinism.

And YOU replied to it, so you know which pile of garbage I'm talking about.

In my world, Torley choosing to post that earns em a permanent place on the shitwit list, if xe wasn't there already.

But, suit yourself ...

Date: 2013/09/05 13:13:00, Link
Author: hotshoe
You're right, Dr. Jennifer Raff is awesome.

I bookmarked the post for my own edification and will strongly suggest our teenage read it - they spend so much time reading textbooks (necessary, I suppose) but no one ever gets around to showing them what a primary source look like or how to read one.


Date: 2013/09/21 22:47:40, Link
Author: hotshoe
Is TSZ down again? I'm getting "server not responding" error message ...

Date: 2013/09/22 01:03:43, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 21 2013,23:42)
300 Reviews in 3 Months for Darwin's Doubt on Amazon on September 19. September 20: Charles R. Marshall reviews DD in Science: When prior belief trumps scholarship.

I couldn't get the tinyurl to open for me but google knows all, tells all. Linked me directly to the sciencemag article.

It's a well-written review, and since Marshall is actually cited by Meyer - in the infamous 15-page ellipsis - I enjoyed hearing that Marshall was not biased against Meyer by Meyer's bad manners:

I like to read the arguments of those who hold fundamentally different views from my own in the hope of discovering weaknesses in my thinking. And so even after reading the flawed first part of his book, I dared hope that Meyer might point the way to fundamental problems in the way we paleontologists think about the Cambrian explosion.

However, my hope soon dissipated into disappointment. His case against current scientific explanations of the relatively rapid appearance of the animal phyla rests on the claim that the origin of new animal body plans requires vast amounts of novel genetic information coupled with the unsubstantiated assertion that this new genetic information must include many new protein folds  

Looks like Meyer has failed yet again to win over a neutral scientific observer, athough hundreds of his BFFs on Amazon swear he's changed their whole lives with his wonderful book :p

Date: 2013/09/23 14:54:46, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Sep. 23 2013,10:16)
Vast human capital gets infested in such theories. Only obituaries help in such cases, unfortunately. Suddenly, the relicts and dependents provided for, it becomes safer to say that it is all rot.

ETA: ID’s problem in a nutshell

Sort of how IDiocy became relegated to cesspools like UD.

But Gary Gaulin, the Alfred E. Newman of information theory, and John Davison all go to eternal forgottenness predicting the opposite.

I guess if it gets you through a useless life...

Glen Davidson

I wonder where they got the supposed quotes from Laszlo Bencze (who? some photographer?) that google recognizes only from those quotes' existence in the UD post (and its copy in their podcast transcript).  Not important, just curious really.  Probably Laszlo wrote in an email to UD or a facebook comment or some such that google isn't caching.  

What I really wonder is why Denyse opened with this:
Laszlo Bencze offs [sic - meant to say offers?] a thought on how to survive in a culture that thinks that design in nature is unreasonable but an infinity of flopped universes is reasonable:

Laszlo did absolutely no such thing.  He offers absolutely no "thought on how to survive".  

Why does Denyse claim he does?  

I mean, besides her typical incompetence at thinking, reading, and writing ... why does she think she has anything to gain by lying about what she herself quotes him saying?

Date: 2013/09/28 13:04:17, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Febble @ Sep. 28 2013,05:52)
In fact he compounds it by saying that you have to get the right God.  Then he says you know you have the right God because the right God is all-loving.

So how were the Israelite supposed to know they'd got the right God?

WLC doesn't say.

Obviously, the Israelites should have known they had NOT gotten the right God, because they had not got the "all-loving" kind of god.  Their god may have been loving enough towards its chosen people, but clearly the opposite of loving towards those people's enemies.  

The Israelites should have known better than to think - even in the heat of war - that a good, and "all-loving", god would ever incite them to murder all their enemy's soldiers then go on to order genocide of all the women and baby boys.  That's not good. Not "all-loving".  And William Lane Craig should know better than to defend it.

WC is a traitor to humanity, and he's an ever-present danger to any innocent person who happens to be in his way when he suddenly gets an order from his "all-loving" god to start cleansing the world of its enemies.

People like the genocide-approving William Lane Craig should be confined to insane asylums until they can prove they've been cured of their religious delusion that god has a right to order them to commit murder at any time.

Date: 2013/09/29 10:34:47, Link
Author: hotshoe
I was interested to find about Louis Agassiz, Meyer's hero at the beginning of Darwin's Doubt.  Agassiz was a great scientist in many ways, but he was a fithy racist who so hated the idea of sharing Homo sapiens designation with black people that he claimed god had specifically, separately, created the different races (with unequal abilities, of course).

Well, why not? If you can imagine god creating humans one time with no link with evolutionary ancestors, why not more than once?  It can separately create as many races as it wants. There's no limit!

But that does beg the question: why did god limit itself to copying the basic ape body pan when it created different humans? Why not also create some humans based on bears? Think how suitable they would be for living in the far north.  Coyote people?  Raven people? Why not?

I can see why it ruled out squirrel people and rat people. Humans have got enough of those characters already.

Date: 2013/10/02 17:26:27, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 02 2013,14:09)
Well, this is interesting: News has posted a link, which when followed back to the source, references an article entitled "Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information."

Sewell take note.

But News doesn't report the title or the content of the paper. Instead, she quotes the title of an article from a religious site.

"Refereed scientific article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity"


Heh.  They really are an incestuous bunch of idiots at UD, aren't they.  Have they always been so poor, though, that they won't/can't even report on the actual paper and are reduced to pitifully echoing some other christian site which did at least read the paper?

Not only won't/can't read the science nor comprehend it, she can't even be bothered to invent anything to say about it.  Dumb and lazy, both! Can't even make up an original title for her damp squib.

This is the title of the article Denyse links:
Refereed article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity.

This is her plagiarism:
Refereed science journal article argues for irreducible complexity

Well, to be charitable, she does link to them (the christians she stole from, not the scientists, of course) directly, and I suppose that covers her sin.  Still earns a failing grade, though, for boring pointlessness.

Date: 2013/10/02 17:39:57, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (hotshoe @ Oct. 02 2013,17:26)
This is the title of the article Denyse links:
Refereed article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity.

This is her plagiarism:
Refereed science journal article argues for irreducible complexity

should be:
Refereed scientific article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity.

as midwifetoad already showed.  

Looks even worse for Denyse, doesn't it?

Date: 2013/10/21 01:34:01, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 19 2013,00:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2013,21:41)
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Oct. 18 2013,20:31)
Here we go . . .

the anti-intellectual arguments and perverse philosophy of the “Enlightenment” have compromised our ability to think clearly

And since the Constitution is an Enlightenment document, the next question to ask is, "why do you hate America?"

ID is after all the 'endarkenment'.

Or the entardenment.

A. Enlightenment B. Endarkenment (Hint: There Is No C)

sez Ray Wylie Hubbard

Date: 2013/11/04 14:20:44, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 03 2013,08:47)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2013,16:38)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2013,13:19)
1. Go to an art gallery.
2. Make random ink dots on an existing painting.
3. The painting will only be damaged, not improved.
4. Therefore all mutations are bad.

Two words: Thomas Kincade.

It's been done:

I like the bottom print the best, with the AT-AT walkers looming in the foggy background.  What a great juxtaposition.

I was tickled to google "Empire walker" and see that the first result is the wikipedia on Star Wars; surely there must be many other "empire walker" ideas/entities/organizations in the real world, but google knows what's important :p

Date: 2013/12/11 23:08:29, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,21:53)
Case in point: Luskin:

Tragically, we live at a time when schools and colleges, far from being calm sanctuaries of learning and discussion, seem beset by violent, disgruntled, disturbed individuals. (I write this as the report by Connecticut's state attorney on last year's Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has just been released.) While one certainly wishes that AC administrators had refused to capitulate to the forces of censorship -- Farren and his allies with the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education -- taking such a stand in today's atmosphere is easier said than done.

The murder of little children, and allegations re: blocking of a ID textbook in a community college in the same breath? Sick.

I'd be happy if that unspeakable creep Luskin never spoke another word in his life.

The fact that he's still dripping his poison is proof that if god exists, it is not a just god. A just god would have struck Luskin dumb decades ago.

Date: 2013/12/17 21:43:22, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 17 2013,20:26)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 17 2013,18:53)
Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,23:32)
Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:

I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter.....

That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism.

What a slimeball.

Apparently he had the Latin phrase "Alea iacta est" written on his arm. That bastard Darwin got to the Romans too..

A fitting conjunction between the coin-toss and the Pierson threads.  Now what I want to know is which of the UDers think Pierson became a murderer by chance and which think by design eg god's will aka god's mysterious plan (its plan both for the dead victims and for the surviving onlookers)  

What I really want to know is how they reconcile thinking it was all part of god's plan with reviling Pierson -- if it were actually god's plan, then Pierson was its chosen agent  They should thank Pierson for lending his body as a tool to carry out god's plan.  Hell, without Pierson, god might have had to pick one of the UDers at random to suddenly travel to Colorado and start murdering.  Else how was god going to arrange for one person to be killed, one critically injured, multiple witnesses traumatized ... that kind of thing doesn't just happen by chance, you know!

But no, of course, it was neither chance nor god behind Pierson's actions.  It was "Darwinism".  Yep, religion poisons everything.  It even poisons their reasonable sadness about this recurring nightmare of teenage shooters in the US.  

Thanks, Barry, for being your usual poisonous self!

Date: 2013/12/29 11:25:59, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 29 2013,11:01)

lly-know-about-biology/]Yes indeed, how much DOES Jerry Coyne know about biology?[/URL]

Their crazy long URLs break the links sometimes, right?  I think that's what happened ...
Wandered over there and had a read of the Jerry Coyne/abortion farrago.  Torley is a forced-birther female-enslaving fetus-worshipper; who could have guessed?

Along the way Torley the corporate-asslicker also manages to find fault with Bishop Sanchez's strongly-worded statement that predatory capitalism (viz America) allows the "wealthy [to] arrange to get all kinds of subsidies, while the working class and the poor struggle to survive"

Who could argue with that?  Torley, that's who  Fuck him.

Date: 2014/01/02 23:44:43, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 01 2014,23:16)
New "Scientific" Volume passes censorship. Nothing NEW

The IDists are at it again. But this time, with the wonderful story of the "scientific" volume that passes through "censorship" (i.e. peer-review, where every bit of your crap is reviewed for any sight of errors, and there's a LOT, if not, ALL errors in ID creationism).

This is the bit that first caught my eye (my bold):
You see, originally Biological Information: New Perspectives was set to be published by Springer, but Springer illegally violated the book's publication contract by cancelling it ...

I had no idea it was illegal to cancel a business contract.   Gosh, what do you suppose the criminal penalty for canceling a contract could be? Just life in prison or is it a capital case?

That, plus the minor stupidity that the book is not the possessor of the contract -- the authors/corporation are/is the possessor(s) of the contract -- and I had to quit reading before I broke something.

Goddamned Casey Luskin. What a stooge.

Date: 2014/01/28 14:07:32, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,07:52)

phoodooJanuary 28, 2014 at 7:44 am
In fact Joe, I would like to start a campaign to make the University of Chicago explain why they allow a con-man to represent their university publicly.

I mean if he is allowed to go around giving talks, as a member of their faculty, and not only insult other academics, and call into question their integrity, on top of that he operates a blog which is essentially one big lie. In the youtube video I watched recently, he says he gives the finger to all creationists, and then presents about ten completely fabricated facts about evolution.

At what point does the University of Chicago have an obligation to see that their professors are displaying a level of truth and integrity in public. I am quite sure the University of Chicago receives plenty of government funds.

I would like to start a topic on this site to discuss this, but I don’t know how to start new topics.

Emphasis mine.

I guess Phoofoo is gagging about Jerry Coyne, right?  

Phoofoo isn't even worthy to lick Jerry's boots.

And I say that as a person who is not a fan of Jerry's boots ...

Date: 2014/02/11 05:06:28, Link
Author: hotshoe
Another winning complaint against Jerry Coyne - this one from phoodoo:
I think someone should add to his page on wikipedia, something like:

“Coyne is openly critical of any viewpoints which are contrary to his own, and of academics, including his own colleagues and other scholars who disagree with his scientific interpretations, and his stated publicly on his website that he will delete any posts from his site which are by creationists or which he feels are critical of his scientific positions”

Phoodoo is a lazy sack.  If xe thinks "someone" should do it, what is xe waiting for?  Go do it yerself, phoodoo!

Or, don't.

Date: 2014/02/14 19:17:01, Link
Author: hotshoe
That's a creepy picture of a seal.  Elephant seal at Ańo Nuevo?

Date: 2014/02/16 13:07:15, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (dhogaza @ Feb. 15 2014,21:33)
Piedras Blancas, which became an active rookery about 20 years ago (possibly individuals which found Ańo Nuevo too crowded as the species recovered after receiving protection).  The Piedras Blancas population is much larger, and there's a boardwalk that takes you within 20 feet or so of the beach, and often there are elephant seals close enough to shoot with a 200mm or 300mm lens, including moms with pups.

Sounds like it's worth a special trip.  The interesting activity is mostly Jan and Feb, and I can't get there this month, so I'll have to remember to put it on my calendar for next year.

Date: 2014/06/18 22:23:35, Link
Author: hotshoe
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 16 2014,08:08)
Quote (Woodbine @ June 16 2014,06:25)
Quote (timothya @ June 16 2014,09:01)
KF enlarges on his particular form of dualism:
PS: For those pondering the malevolent supernatural, all I will say is that I have personally and in company of dozens, seen that in action in violation of known physics; and I mean basic reliable laws. Things I used to laugh at when as a kid I saw on cartoon Saturdays, I no longer find so funny . . . I begin to wonder about just what lies behind some of those cartoons. I cannot deny what I have indisputably seen under circumstances that make convergent mass hallucination from multiple perspectives by people of diverse backgrounds etc essentially a non-starter, and have had to deal with and process those facts. I think we had better begin to think about a world of oracles that can interface with MIMO cybernetic entities, sometimes in very strange ways. Whether or no this sits comfortably with a nice mid-C20 smugly “scientific” mindset.

I wonder what it could have been?

A transvestite.

Perhaps it was Roy:

"I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe... [contemptuous laugh] Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like [small cough] tears... in... rain. Time... to die..."

Did you know that this soliloquy gets a whole page article on wikipedia?  

I would never have guessed.