The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
No worries ... I can understand how reading my initial comment in this thread in isolation might give the impression you got ... It wasn't the most thoughtful or explanatory way I could have expressed my overall view of Rebecca Watson's behaviour.
no fences
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
There is nothing "wrong" with preferring that someone not exercise their right to free speech. I don't like Nazis, and I would prefer it if they STFU and GTFO. However, I also acknowledge their right to free speech. On the issue of Watson, I kind of hope she keeps yapping, because the Dawkins and Krauss wars are fascinating and quite enjoyable. I agree with charlou that Watson is a self-important gob who surrounds herself with yappy sycophants. I also think Watson is a conceited, know-nothing who passes herself off as an authority on scientific issues when she really has very little background or qualifications that would qualify her very well for that position. She comes across as arrogant and very often snarky and snotty.
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
I will post what I please if I please.Coito ergo sum wrote:Take your own advice. I discuss topics I am interested in. There are hundreds of topics on rationalia that may interest you, many of them won't. Feel free to drop snide, insipid little troll comments on all the threads that don't interest you, though.Gallstones wrote:OMFG, let it fucking go already.
My comment was on topic--the topic.
Yours was predictably personal and completely unimpressive---ooooh, oooh you can say mean things about people.
Try addressing the topic if you please-----hint, it ain't me.
On topic: this entire faux issue is insipid. That is what I think about it---where to post that thought
Oh yeah, in the fucking thread on the topic. Fucking duh.
Don't like my opinion---get over it.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
As will I. You're the one who told me not to. You want to post what you please if you please, but obviously you don't extend to me that same courtesy.Gallstones wrote:I will post what I please if I please.Coito ergo sum wrote:Take your own advice. I discuss topics I am interested in. There are hundreds of topics on rationalia that may interest you, many of them won't. Feel free to drop snide, insipid little troll comments on all the threads that don't interest you, though.Gallstones wrote:OMFG, let it fucking go already.
The topic was not me, Gallstones. You told me to "let it go", remember? That's another way of telling me to shut up. You now say I'm off topic for responding to your post? Give me a break.Gallstones wrote: My comment was on topic--the topic.
Yours was predictably personal and completely unimpressive---ooooh, oooh you can say mean things about people.
Try addressing the topic if you please-----hint, it ain't me.
Good. Your opinion is noted.Gallstones wrote:
On topic: this entire faux issue is insipid. That is what I think about it---where to post that thought
I would love to talk about your opinions on the topic. When you show up here with a drive-by post basically telling me to stop talking about the topic, then I'll feel free to respond. I don't give a flying fuck that your opinion is that I should "let it go." Oh, wait - "let it FUCKING go..."Gallstones wrote: Oh yeah, in the fucking thread on the topic. Fucking duh.
Don't like my opinion---get over it.
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
I haven't told you anything. No one's name appears in my post and I quoted no one.
You chose to assume it had to be about you.
I make no claims to extraordinary authority or powers.
I expressed exasperation over an incident that has been inflated and micro-scrutinized all out of proportion; given import and an airing it would never have had if the authors critics hadn't snatched up that baton of outrage and run with it. And run and run and run and run and run............
You chose to assume it had to be about you.
I make no claims to extraordinary authority or powers.
I expressed exasperation over an incident that has been inflated and micro-scrutinized all out of proportion; given import and an airing it would never have had if the authors critics hadn't snatched up that baton of outrage and run with it. And run and run and run and run and run............
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
So who were you asking to "let it fucking go already" ... in this thread, started by coito and posted in by coito, surreptitious57 and I?Gallstones wrote:I haven't told you anything. No one's name appears in my post and I quoted no one.
You chose to assume it had to be about you.
I make no claims to extraordinary authority or powers.
I expressed exasperation over an incident that has been inflated and micro-scrutinized all out of proportion; given import and an airing it would never have had if the authors critics hadn't snatched up that baton of outrage and run with it. And run and run and run and run and run............
I'm just curious about that, being otherwise happy with my "you're free to" response to your suggestion.
All that said, the thing seems to have petered out for the time being. Fuck, it was an intriguing debate while it lasted though.
no fences
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
So, does that mean you weren't talking about me?Gallstones wrote:I haven't told you anything. No one's name appears in my post and I quoted no one.
You chose to assume it had to be about you.
Please be clear about that. Was I not the one you were telling to "let it go?"
Nor should you.Gallstones wrote:
I make no claims to extraordinary authority or powers.
The Krauss incident? You think the Krauss incident has been micro-scrutinized all out of proportion?Gallstones wrote: I expressed exasperation over an incident that has been inflated and micro-scrutinized all out of proportion;
It might have something to do with the person who started it all off in the first place, and how that person handled it, and the allegations that person made.Gallstones wrote: given import and an airing it would never have had if the authors critics hadn't snatched up that baton of outrage and run with it. And run and run and run and run and run............
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
Actually Gall it was not. It was advice given to othersGallstones wrote:
My comment was on topic--the topic
not to post any more on the topic. You did not actually address
it yourself specifically. It does seem odd that here on a rational site
where opinions are freely expressed on a myriad of issues that you object
to a particular issue being discussed. I defend your right to hold that view and
express yourself as you so wish. Nevertheless it is rather a strange stance to take. But
to reiterate : you did not post a comment on the topic itself but wanted others to stop doing so
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
- apophenia
- IN DAMNATIO MEMORIAE
- Posts: 3373
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:41 am
- About me: A bird without a feather, a gull without a sea, a flock without a shore.
- Location: Farther. Always farther.
- Contact:
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
OMFG, let it fucking go already.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 47340
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss
I was wondering what to do with this thread. It had too many words.apophenia wrote:OMFG, let it fucking go already.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late
Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late
Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests