The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss

Post by charlou » Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:04 am

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

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:27 am

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.

User avatar
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

Post by Gallstones » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:28 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gallstones wrote:OMFG, let it fucking go already.
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. :bored:
I will post what I please if I please.
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 :ask:
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

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:46 pm

Gallstones wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gallstones wrote:OMFG, let it fucking go already.
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. :bored:
I will post what I please if I please.
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: 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.
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:
On topic: this entire faux issue is insipid. That is what I think about it---where to post that thought :ask:
Good. Your opinion is noted.
Gallstones wrote: Oh yeah, in the fucking thread on the topic. Fucking duh.

Don't like my opinion---get over it.
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..."

User avatar
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

Post by Gallstones » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:29 pm

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............
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

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss

Post by charlou » Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:12 am

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............
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?

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

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:56 pm

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.
So, does that mean you weren't talking about me?

Please be clear about that. Was I not the one you were telling to "let it go?"
Gallstones wrote:
I make no claims to extraordinary authority or powers.
Nor should you.
Gallstones wrote: I expressed exasperation over an incident that has been inflated and micro-scrutinized all out of proportion;
The Krauss incident? You think the Krauss incident has been micro-scrutinized all out of proportion?
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............
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.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: The Lesser Known Skepchick War: Watson v. Krauss

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:11 pm

Gallstones wrote:
My comment was on topic--the topic
Actually Gall it was not. It was advice given to others
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

User avatar
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

Post by apophenia » Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:26 am


OMFG, let it fucking go already.
Image

User avatar
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

Post by Tero » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:06 am

apophenia wrote:OMFG, let it fucking go already.
I was wondering what to do with this thread. It had too many words.
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...


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests