Comments on: Dragon*Con 2012

By: Hugo

Hugo — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:07:58 +0000

Four quick points.

1) The link to the commenting rule is broken

2) I respect you considerably, you are a man of integrity, but I would direct you to my comments @85 in the previous thread (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/08/20/the-silencing-of-hate/).

3) Loyalty is a very fine thing; I can appreciate sticking by your friends sink or swim. I just think that it might be slightly misdirected in this case (again, see previous comments).

4) You are, of course, quite right that I should keep my anger under control on your blog. I am sorry about that.

By: Phil Plait

Phil Plait — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:11:44 +0000

TO EVERYONE

Please read my commenting rule.

Specifically, RAF (6) and Hugo (9 & 13). Think this through: I am going on Rebecca’s panel. Why? Because it will be fun, I want to, and Rebecca is my friend. I don’t care what you think about her, but when you spew hate this way ON MY BLOG, which is against the rules no matter what, it also insults me when it’s directed toward someone it’s clear I like.

If you have issues with her, fine. If you want to talk about it, FINE. But do it as decent human adults.

Take your hate elsewhere.

By: Muzz

Muzz — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:23:40 +0000

Nope. Guess that name is banned. Well, whatever it was it wasn’t me using it at the time. (couldn’t the ban list check these things against the email address? That’d sort out who’s who. Sorry to spam things up with testing like this.)

By: Muzz

Muzz — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:12:03 +0000

Ok, I’m trying a slightly different ident to see if I still get moderated. (there is no reason why I would be, unless it’s blanket now. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.)

By: Muz

Muz — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:58:45 +0000

Is that Sarah or Michael Palin? I’d be interested in this mean petty bullying you’re talking about.
The last sentence is a mouthful; when was the first count? How many is more? One, two? What’s this ‘lumping in’ that’s going on in the first place?

By: Hugo

Hugo — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:20:21 +0000

Yes, anyone who dislikes Watson and her sub-Palin vulgarity is anti-woman. Anyone who objects to the mean and petty bullying she and her twit-club go in for is anti-woman. Never mind the fact that, by last count, more skeptic women are fed up with being lumped in with her.

By: VinceRN

VinceRN — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:27:23 +0000

I love how Rebecca Watson highlights the hate so entrenched in organized skepticism. Not so much the misogyny since I think you find the same percentage of guys that are jerks to women anywhere, what I mean is the hate brought to bear on anyone who doesn’t toe the line, on anyone who says anything negative about anything in the movement. If I could I’d go just to see all the apopleptic skeptics.

It’s unfair to characterize the whole movement that way of course, since there are also many reasonable and non-hateful folks like our host and most of the folks he seems to run with. Still, it is significant enough in the movement that I’ve never had much use for organized skepticism despite being very much a skeptic.

By: Robert Hale

Robert Hale — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:52:09 +0000

Off topic:
http://news.sky.com/story/978299/irish-astronomer-spots-second-supernova

By: Muz

Muz — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:46:43 +0000

This is going to be quite the thread by the looks. RW: lighting rod for internet whiners.
(Incidentally, why does my no-links comment get moderated while Hugo’s impotent rage goes straight through?)

By: Hugo

Hugo — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:34:18 +0000

“Rebecca Watson’s science-themed quiz show!”

Oh be still my beating heart. I can just imagine the prizes “First Prise: A lifetime supply of hot air and lukewarm drizzle. Second prize: A ‘build-your-own-self-pity’ kit”