RRS get's on sanshou's nerves [Trollville]

Aerik
BloggerRational VIP!Superfan
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
RRS get's on sanshou's nerves [Trollville]

Sanshou is a guy I've known in the irc chatroom created and hosted by Janice Rael, aka Everlasting GodStopper, or for short, "Stopper." He's decided that The RRS Gets On His Nerves, and that they'd be more fitting as evangelicals. He won't explain why. I'm sure it's the usual "they're so immature" bullshit. But since I've known him in that irc room for around 2 years, I've seen him talk to theists plenty and I wonder what the fuck makes him think he's any better?! Also fucked up is that Stopper stopped in to declare "not my drama, not my problem" but also quote an article that wants the rrs removed from blogrolls, links, and discussion across the blogosphere. The article displays a complete misunderstanding if not twisting of an encounter with Braden of Unorthodox Atheism. Amazing how vacuous the arguments against RRS always seem to be.

 

{ Fixed URL tags - Edited by Mr. Atheist }

 

 [OFF TO TROLLVILLE]


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Wow aerik, they ganged up on

Wow aerik, they ganged up on you pretty quickly! Is that a freethought group?

Smiling

-Renee

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What a pointless thread


Wow. Shame on you for trying to put the blog post that was referenced by others into context, aerik. Don't you know when context is provided it often makes the issues clearer and people then look stupid for jumping on the rumor and insult wagon. That just takes all the fun out of being an immature judgmental whiner. Why must you ruin everyone's fun?

Seriously, is that what passes for valid criticism these days?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
They are obviously a bunch

They are obviously a bunch of dipshits, especially considering their moronic assertion that ED is a reliable and factual source, and it's taking every ounce of my will-power to not go there and just fucking expose every person there for the immature and idiotic reasons they have for starting the thread and then perpetuating it while making assumptions about who we are, what we do, and our internal motivations for our actions. Good job, assholes. It's hard enough to associate myself with this species without seeing so much of this bullshit from supposed "skeptics". Skeptical as long as it doesn't come from a completely random source about whom there is no substantive proof that he is not just making shit up and drawing inferences that don't exist. Who's riding on whom's coattails here? Somebody just wanted to pretend to expose us on his blog to get publicity, if you ask me.


Latinijral
TheistTheistardTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-02-20
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:They are

Wow, Kelly is so hot.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
God fucking damnit, just

God fucking damnit, just wrote a two hour piece exposing these fucking idiots, and I lost it.  Aerik, I love you man but these RRS hate issues are issues I just ignore due to stupidity, however when they pop up in my house I feel the need to respond.  I just spent two hours on it, and will now need to spend more time.  Time that could have been used on actual humans, not subhumans like the morons you're mingling with.

 

I'll swap the info with this post when I'm done.

If you do want me to respond to these, I will out of respect to you... a great thinker.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

Wow aerik, they ganged up on you pretty quickly! Is that a freethought group?

Smiling

-Renee

 

No it's a fascist nazi group.  Janice Rael/Godstopper is proud to moderate message boards like a gestapo.  She went to IIDB to become a mod, even though there were reason to dislike them, because she liked having the ability to censor people.  I'm not exaggerating I'm recounting real conversations with her.  Ask Jake about how when someone posed a thread about beastiality back in the day on the AN she was so restrictive about the speech she told Jake that if he didn't ban the user she would leave.  This was at a time when we all tried to embrace her even though she has a closet of problems that rivals Jeffrey Dahmer.  Thankfully Jake doesn't take well to ultimatums from Nazi cuntlicks who have low self esteem and stab the people in the back who try to protect her.

More on that cunt coming soon.
 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Aerik
BloggerRational VIP!Superfan
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Oy vey

Allegedly the "evil atheist conspiracy" section of the forum is supposed to be a freethought world.

RantsNRaves got the atheist section when Stopper led the rebellion against the quite fascist regime (as fascist as any online-only organization can get) that runs the forums at iidb.infidels.org. Stopper talked to several forums, and found that at RnR, the administration sympathized with us refugees from IIDB and agreed with us about their behavior. So Stopper was allowed to lead us there and I think that's when that section of the forum was created.

But it already had it's own population, so that makes it full of unintelligent conversation and I find 99% of the activity on the site is wonting.


Aerik
BloggerRational VIP!Superfan
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
I'd have ignored it too if

I'd have ignored it too if not for Stopper quoting the hit piece about Braden. That felt like a knife in my side, really it did. She quoted that shit as if that guy had a real point to make.


Aerik
BloggerRational VIP!Superfan
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Not only is providing

Not only is providing context for a post referenced by others scary, but apparently to Sinister, it's wholly irrelevant behavior.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Aerik wrote:Allegedly the

Aerik wrote:
Allegedly the "evil atheist conspiracy" section of the forum is supposed to be a freethought world. RantsNRaves got the atheist section when Stopper led the rebellion against the quite fascist regime (as fascist as any online-only organization can get) that runs the forums at iidb.infidels.org.

Her favorite part about IIDB was the fascism.  That's why she went there.  She wanted to be able to censor as much as possible.

 

I got tied up tonight Aerik.  I talked with the stickam room in a vague manner about this.  In order to vindicate myself, I'd end up putting a chink in the career of someone who I feel is more important to the cause than myself.  Maybe their desire to see me stay quiet on this, plus my lost post earlier is a sign from Jake.  I don't care what people think of me, I care about the cause.  I can take a few hits on the chin from people who lack necessary faculties, for the good of the cause.

Do you know the entire truth... because you came close but missed a little of it.  Do you want it at the expense of "you-know-who" being outed?  In case it's not clear, I don't care if you cheat on your wife, I care if the woman who you cheat with is a detriment to the cause due to hypocrisy involving sex though.  You can read between the lines, but I can't see how you'd fully get it if I didn't break it all down.  I think the closest I should get are vague references.  So... do I waste the time or not?


 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 I hope that I won't have

 I hope that I won't have to take sides between the RRS and RnR. Sad

Do you think that sanshou's criticisms make any sense? I will concede that the name "Brian Sapient" seems pretentious, but I don't quite understand the rest of his criticisms.

And I must say that I'm annoyed by seebs's criticisms. He seems to think that the RRS and the Church of Scientology are natural allies because Scientology also opposes Xianity.

Scientology looks like some mishmash of science fiction, psychoanalysis, Gnosticism, and Eastern religions, combined with an autocratic, moneygrubbing, and belligerent leadership. And Scientologists hate psychiatrists and psychiatry. So I can't imagine any of you RRS people taking it seriously.

For the lowdown on it, check out http://www.xenu.net and especially The Xenu Leaflet: Who is Xenu?

Xenu is Scientology's version of the Gnostic villain god Yaldabaoth, theta is spirit, thetans are souls, body thetans are demons, etc.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
lpetrich wrote: I hope that

lpetrich wrote:

 I hope that I won't have to take sides between the RRS and RnR. Sad

Do you think that sanshou's criticisms make any sense? I will concede that the name "Brian Sapient" seems pretentious, but I don't quite understand the rest of his criticisms.

And I must say that I'm annoyed by seebs's criticisms. He seems to think that the RRS and the Church of Scientology are natural allies because Scientology also opposes Xianity.

Scientology looks like some mishmash of science fiction, psychoanalysis, Gnosticism, and Eastern religions, combined with an autocratic, moneygrubbing, and belligerent leadership. And Scientologists hate psychiatrists and psychiatry. So I can't imagine any of you RRS people taking it seriously.

For the lowdown on it, check out http://www.xenu.net and especially The Xenu Leaflet: Who is Xenu?

Xenu is Scientology's version of the Gnostic villain god Yaldabaoth, theta is spirit, thetans are souls, body thetans are demons, etc.

As I understood it, the RRS's main problem (and mine alike) with Anonymous's dealings with Scientology was their illegal activities, not their protests.  The RRS's position was actually one of social responsibility and accountability and an opposition to vigilante acts. It had nothing to do with their supporting Scientology.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
lpetrich wrote: I hope that

lpetrich wrote:

 I hope that I won't have to take sides between the RRS and RnR. Sad

Do you think that sanshou's criticisms make any sense?

No I think he has very little thinking ability.

 

Quote:
I will concede that the name "Brian Sapient" seems pretentious,

All a good mind has to do is ask... the story has been told many times... the ex admin on the atheist network gave me the name after I had no clue what to call myself.  The conversation ocurred 10 minutes after I called the FBI due to the first real death threat I ever received, the threat was actually on my sons life.

 

 

Quote:
And I must say that I'm annoyed by seebs's criticisms. He seems to think that the RRS and the Church of Scientology are natural allies because Scientology also opposes Xianity.

Smash head in with brick, then see if he can figure out how to google scientology on our website to see what we think about them.

We've been fighting scientology since before the b/tards who run anon were born.

 

 

 

My letter to Janice was posted (violation of federal law by that fucking moron), I was hoping I would post it first, it was embedded in the comment that I lost yesterday.  Oh well, maybe I'll add context later....

 


To Janice Rael:

A letter from all of us at RRS...   Go fuck yourself.  We see you in public, and we'll let everyone in the room know about your baggage.  Bitch.   http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7740   You're fucking scum.  So glad none of the atheist groups want you back.  Idiot.      

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I'll think about it for the

I'll think about it for the next 5 hours, but we might have our show topic for tonight.

Why certain people at RnR who think they are freethinkers, are in actuality gigantic fucking morons.  We may also start telling stories about how insecure, insane, sick, and back stabbing, the cunt Janice Rael is.  I think I'll spend at least 5 minutes recounting the desire of Janice Rael to run a board like a Nazi.  We'll have Jake on for a minute (if he cares enough to show up) so he can return fire for all the times she has lied and misrepresented the story of her childish, immature, and very non-freethinker activity on the atheist network, that out of respect he has stayed silent (like me) for apparently way too long.  

I'll think about it, maybe we'll just touch it for a few minutes. 

 

And Lpetrich, your comments over there have me thinking much less of you.  Way to step down on the totem pole.  You like those retards? 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote: I will concede

Quote:
Quote:
I will concede that the name "Brian Sapient" seems pretentious,

All a good mind has to do is ask... the story has been told many times... the ex admin on the atheist network gave me the name after I had no clue what to call myself.  The conversation ocurred 10 minutes after I called the FBI due to the first real death threat I ever received, the threat was actually on my sons life.

I have just remembered that my name was actually chosen by both Jake and Aaron on a 3 way conversation.  It was the first name suggested and they both concurred.  I have always been proud and honored that I didn't choose the name myself.  But the moron Sanshou wouldn't know that because he lacks the critical inquiry ability to fucking ask.

 

Aerik, you partially hold the public fate of a very important man in your hands.  What shall I do?  Want me to pick everything apart, even the post from the dogmatic "godbegone?"

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Latinijral
TheistTheistardTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Quote:Quote: I

RRS really kicks ass!


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
this post looks like at

this thread  contains at least one, maybe two threats


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Aerik, and company... for

Aerik, and company... for now you should know this post was written about the situation that Godpooper referenced (she must really hate RD, be a moron, or be butthurt about our letter to her 3 days ago when she begged us to remove Latnijral and we said no) at the time.

This post is about the issue at hand, but nobody knew that until now because we've done everything we could to protect "you-know-who."

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Latinijral wrote:Ishmael

Latinijral wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

this thread  contains at least one, maybe two threats

And a lot of cries from the RR atheist fundies !!!!!

LOL

Come back to us Latinijral.  We miss you so much, I am glad you found a home here at RRS.

 

 


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Aerik, and

Sapient wrote:

Aerik, and company... for now you should know this post was written about the situation that Godpooper referenced (she must really hate RD, be a moron, or be butthurt about our letter to her 3 days ago when she begged us to remove Latnijral and we said no) at the time.

This post is about the issue at hand, but nobody knew that until now because we've done everything we could to protect "you-know-who."

Wtf are you talking about with "protecting you-know-who"?  Is that supposed to imply that your recent asshatery has some kind of benevolent purpose?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Aerik wrote:Sanshou is a guy

Aerik wrote:

Sanshou is a guy I've known in the irc chatroom created and hosted by Janice Rael, aka Everlasting GodStopper, or for short, "Stopper." He's decided that The RRS Gets On His Nerves

Who the fuck cares?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
slightly off topic but i'm

slightly off topic but i'm curious.  it's a violation of federal law to post e-mail communications? 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ishmael wrote:Is that

Ishmael wrote:

Is that supposed to imply that your recent asshatery has some kind of benevolent purpose?

Yes.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote:slightly

shelleymtjoy wrote:

slightly off topic but i'm curious.  it's a violation of federal law to post e-mail communications? 

It depends on the circumstances.  For example if you send a message to our contact section, it says the following...

Quote:
All communications with The Rational Response Squad can be used in any way we see fit. In other words, if you choose to debate us, it might become public record. Here is a look into our mailbag.

If you notice there have been several times when I have posted my letter to someone but not their letter to me.  Here is an example from months ago.  And believe me, the letter was hilarious, I really wanted to post it.  Notice the disclaimer I added in order to be able to reproduce future emails. 

In case she decides to pull it, here is her criminal activity...

Janice Rael is a law breaker by posting private communications without permission

Janice Rael breaks federal copyright and communications laws

Now you might ask.... how can I post the above?  The answer is because fair use law allows you to post public communications for the purposes of parody, criticism, or commentary.  So far I have commentated on the event, a judge would likely see me as being self defensive as well.  Furthermore I can add a tinge of parody to the article by noting that the sexy picture of Janice is a poor representation of her.  She's more like a 380 pound whale, not that I have anything against people being overweight, I just find the deceit to be funny. 

Here is the real Janice Rael...

Janice Rael is a bitch Godstopper

That was about 5 months ago.

This was about 19 months ago...

Godstopper Janice Rael is a backstabbing dishonest cuntface

Now before you go getting all upset that it's rude to point these pictures out, keep in mind that first of all Janice is peddling libel about me which she has to be an idiot to believe considering the very long history I have with her.  I have always done everything I could to be nice to her.  Remember the special forum I mad for "Godstopper Activism" for her when she got kicked off of IIDB for stabbing them in the back?  Even though I disagreed with both her and IIDB, I tried to support the cause and support her.  She resigned from all activism (she was board member of several groups, and simply abandoned them due to how butthurt she was that nobody would pay her way (the right move on their part).  None of those groups jumped to get her back, something all activist groups do when they lose someone valuable, however they seemed to know she was a piece of high maintenance baggage.

Oh back to her being a 400 pound whale and pretending like she's a hot sexy chick.  This isn't some lazy condition she's had from birth.  Here is Janice and I from about 6 years ago:

 

Oh right back to her criminal activity....

From the USDOJ

More importantly from this page...

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

This makes it very clear that the writer of an email controls the right of reproduction (publishing) which is mentioned in section 106 subsection (1).

Jake will be in the stickam room tonight to explain the censorship aims and the lack of freethought in the mind of Janice Rael, I too will be talking smack about the backstabbing deceitful criminal activities of Janice Rael, Godstopper, Everlasting Godstopper.  Show begins 8pm est, rants and raves children are welcome to come.  We'll be glad to be an open book.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Aerik

todangst wrote:

Aerik wrote:

Sanshou is a guy I've known in the irc chatroom created and hosted by Janice Rael, aka Everlasting GodStopper, or for short, "Stopper." He's decided that The RRS Gets On His Nerves

Who the fuck cares?

Apparently some athinkers that are fanboys of Janice.  I wouldn't have cared, but Aerik posted in my living room. (no offense to him, I like him a lot)

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:shelleymtjoy

Sapient wrote:

shelleymtjoy wrote:

slightly off topic but i'm curious.  it's a violation of federal law to post e-mail communications? 

It depends on the circumstances.  For example if you send a message to our contact section, it says the following...

Quote:
All communications with The Rational Response Squad can be used in any way we see fit. In other words, if you choose to debate us, it might become public record. Here is a look into our mailbag.

If you notice there have been several times when I have posted my letter to someone but not their letter to me.  Here is an example from months ago.  And believe me, the letter was hilarious, I really wanted to post it.  Notice the disclaimer I added in order to be able to reproduce future emails. 

In case she decides to pull it, here is her criminal activity...

Janice Rael is a law breaker by posting private communications without permission

Janice Rael breaks federal copyright and communications laws

Now you might ask.... how can I post the above?  The answer is because fair use law allows you to post public communications for the purposes of parody, criticism, or commentary.  So far I have commentated on the event, a judge would likely see me as being self defensive as well.  Furthermore I can add a tinge of parody to the article by noting that the sexy picture of Janice is a poor representation of her.  She's more like a 380 pound whale, not that I have anything against people being overweight, I just find the deceit to be funny. 

Here is the real Janice Rael...

Janice Rael is a bitch Godstopper

That was about 5 months ago.

This was about 19 months ago...

Godstopper Janice Rael is a backstabbing dishonest cuntface

Now before you go getting all upset that it's rude to point these pictures out, keep in mind that first of all Janice is peddling libel about me which she has to be an idiot to believe considering the very long history I have with her.  I have always done everything I could to be nice to her.  Remember the special forum I mad for "Godstopper Activism" for her when she got kicked off of IIDB for stabbing them in the back?  Even though I disagreed with both her and IIDB, I tried to support the cause and support her.  She resigned from all activism (she was board member of several groups, and simply abandoned them due to how butthurt she was that nobody would pay her way (the right move on their part).  None of those groups jumped to get her back, something all activist groups do when they lose someone valuable, however they seemed to know she was a piece of high maintenance baggage.

Oh back to her being a 400 pound whale and pretending like she's a hot sexy chick.  This isn't some lazy condition she's had from birth.  Here is Janice and I from about 6 years ago:

 

Oh right back to her criminal activity....

From the USDOJ

More importantly from this page...

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

This makes it very clear that the writer of an email controls the right of reproduction (publishing) which is mentioned in section 106 subsection (1).

Jake will be in the stickam room tonight to explain the censorship aims and the lack of freethought in the mind of Janice Rael, I too will be talking smack about the backstabbing deceitful criminal activities of Janice Rael, Godstopper, Everlasting Godstopper.  Show begins 8pm est, rants and raves children are welcome to come.  We'll be glad to be an open book.

 

What's amazing to me is that the same person who created this obnoxious adhom post managed to get a respected author like Michael Shermer to even glance your way, much less respond to your sophomoric understanding of his work.  

How do you figure you manage that?

Was it the youtubes, "Sapient"?

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ishmael wrote:What's amazing

Ishmael wrote:

What's amazing to me is that the same person who created this obnoxious adhom

Hey dogmatic Janice follower, that wasn't an ad hom, learn philosophy before you try to use it. 

 

Quote:
post managed to get a respected author like Michael Shermer to even glance your way, much less respond to your sophomoric understanding of his work.  

How do you figure you manage that?

Even more amazing is that he admitted to me he was wrong for his open letter to Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett, and that he gave me approval to send that message to everyone who knew of the situation, yet I didn't because I didn't want to make a big deal about it.  I thought the apology was enough, and that I didn't need to use it as a chance to send hundreds of thousands of people the message that Shermer apologized to me, and that I essentially "won the convo."  You know why?  Because I didn't think it would look great for his image, and he earned my respect by apologizing to me in private.  What was that you were asking again about my benevolent intentions about "you-know-who"?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Ishmael

Sapient wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

What's amazing to me is that the same person who created this obnoxious adhom

Hey dogmatic Janice follower, that wasn't an ad hom, learn philosophy before you try to use it. 

 

Quote:
post managed to get a respected author like Michael Shermer to even glance your way, much less respond to your sophomoric understanding of his work.  

How do you figure you manage that?

Even more amazing is that he admitted to me he was wrong for his open letter to Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett, and that he gave me approval to send that message to everyone who knew of the situation, yet I didn't because I didn't want to make a big deal about it.  I thought the apology was enough, and that I didn't need to use it as a chance to send hundreds of thousands of people the message that Shermer apologized to me, and that I essentially "won the convo."  You know why?  Because I didn't think it would look great for his image, and he earned my respect by apologizing to me in private.  What was that you were asking again about my benevolent intentions about "you-know-who"?

 

Nice flail there asshole.  The "in private" apology (if your no outright lying about it) I'm sure was from a bigger, smarter, and respected person trying to calm down an uneducated upstart with celeb power-- unearned and fading fast because of his vile contempt for the rest of the world-- 

 

As for this not being an adhom? <scoff>  Fucking pretentious loser, go put more dollar bills in titz thong.   You are the living proof of the potential of the internet to help people rise way above their intellectual abilities.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Awwwww isn't that cute,

Awwwww isn't that cute, you're a hypocrite.  <squeezes cheeks>  You know what you just did?  It's called an ad hom!

Quote:
Nice flail there asshole.  The "in private" apology (if your no outright lying about it)

Only because I have his permission and I would like for the morons to feel their foot in their mouth...

with permission

 

So this is abundantly clear... he deserves a ton of respect for this.  I applaud him.  In fact, allow me to up the ante... I apologize to you Dr. Shermer for using such harsh wording in my original email, you deserve and have garnered my respect.

 It was 3 months that I kept this relatively small issue quiet because my primary goal is the betterment of society and grandstanding with this in a very public way would have only served to make me look like I want to be self aggrandizing.  It'll be longer that I keep quiet about the skeletons in the closet of "you-know-who" unless of course I reach my limit.  Would you morons please shut the fuck up now so you don't make this situation worse for all atheists, by forcing me to vindicate myself?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


RnRMatt
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Hi guys, I'm Matt from RnR

Hi guys,

I'm Matt from RnR as you've probably figured out from my screen name.


Could somebody please fill me in as to what the fark is happening?

Basically, I see some sort of pissing contest between Janice and Brian.


If that's the case, could you two get a farking room and stop shitting all over our respective forums?

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
RnRMatt wrote:Hi guys,I'm

RnRMatt wrote:

Hi guys,

I'm Matt from RnR as you've probably figured out from my screen name.


Could somebody please fill me in as to what the fark is happening?

At this point I am reluctant to speak any further due to a request from the police.

 

Quote:
If that's the case, could you two get a farking room and stop shitting all over our respective forums?

That would certainly lead to a bad situation for her.  She is not to contact me or be anywhere near me after what she did last night, the police aren't allowing her to communicate with me or be anywhere near me.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


sanshou
Troll
sanshou's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Hai Guyz

 I just popped by to say thanks and sorry, all in one super efficient post.

The thanks is for the lulz. The apology is for having 'em at your expense.

Just remember kids: Teh Internets are serious business!

P.S. Matt: don't you dare rob us of our fun filled, exploding dramabombs.


sanshou
Troll
sanshou's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
One more thing...

 You guys should talk to our site admin, Matt. He could probably help you clean up this place a little. A text box for replies that's available without clicking 'Reply' would be nice, for example.

 

Cheers and good luck with 'the cause'. Seacrest out!


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
sanshou wrote:A text box for

sanshou wrote:

A text box for replies that's available without clicking 'Reply' would be nice, for example.

This is totally off-topic but I had to put in my $0.02 on this comment.  Allowing people to reply in that fashion encourages people to just shout without thinking.  Nothing personal, but we already have enough of that.


sanshou
Troll
sanshou's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote:sanshou

shelleymtjoy wrote:

sanshou wrote:

A text box for replies that's available without clicking 'Reply' would be nice, for example.

This is totally off-topic but I had to put in my $0.02 on this comment.  Allowing people to reply in that fashion encourages people to just shout without thinking.  Nothing personal, but we already have enough of that.

Good point. 'Allowing people to reply' is bad for 'free thought'.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
sanshou wrote:shelleymtjoy

sanshou wrote:

shelleymtjoy wrote:

sanshou wrote:

A text box for replies that's available without clicking 'Reply' would be nice, for example.

This is totally off-topic but I had to put in my $0.02 on this comment.  Allowing people to reply in that fashion encourages people to just shout without thinking.  Nothing personal, but we already have enough of that.

Good point. 'Allowing people to reply' is bad for 'free thought'.

See, idiotic replies like this would be a lot more common if there was a text box. Most people take the time to think through their comment when hitting the reply button and it can often lead to one realizing that what they are about to say is either irrelevant or a non sequitur ,and deciding not to expose their own reading comprehension problems by posting it (above example excluded).

It is obvious to any intelligent person that Shelley did not say "Allowing people to reply is bad for 'free thought'". People are allowed to reply here. Even those who make vacuous posts like the one above.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Oh, dear...forgive the

Oh, dear...forgive the egregious oversight of not asking you exactly how our site should be designed. What were we thinking? Maybe we were thinking that it speeds up page loads by about three seconds, and since most people read a thread and don't necessarily reply, we thought it would be better to save them that time. But, hey--what do we know? We only run the number one atheist website in the world. Doh!

 

ETA: Since the thread has been moved to a private forum at RnR, are you going to bring all your little friends over to continue the LULZ here? Gee, that would be fantastic. 3p1c f41l for being full of AIDS. LULZ!!!1!!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
sanshou wrote: You guys

sanshou wrote:

 You guys should talk to our site admin, Matt.

We did, thanks.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:Oh,

kellym78 wrote:

Oh, dear...forgive the egregious oversight of not asking you exactly how our site should be designed. What were we thinking? Maybe we were thinking that it speeds up page loads by about three seconds, and since most people read a thread and don't necessarily reply, we thought it would be better to save them that time. But, hey--what do we know? We only run the number one atheist website in the world. Doh!

 

ETA: Since the thread has been moved to a private forum at RnR, are you going to bring all your little friends over to continue the LULZ here? Gee, that would be fantastic. 3p1c f41l for being full of AIDS. LULZ!!!1!!

 ETA: FAIL.

Alexa traffic details link [mod edit: fixed link to restore margins]

"We're #1"

LOLOLOLoooo!!!!111

Don't you mean you give the best lap dance in the county?

 


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:RnRMatt

Sapient wrote:

RnRMatt wrote:

Hi guys,

I'm Matt from RnR as you've probably figured out from my screen name.


Could somebody please fill me in as to what the fark is happening?

At this point I am reluctant to speak any further due to a request from the police.

 

Quote:
If that's the case, could you two get a farking room and stop shitting all over our respective forums?

That would certainly lead to a bad situation for her.  She is not to contact me or be anywhere near me after what she did last night, the police aren't allowing her to communicate with me or be anywhere near me.

 


tru that^^ i wuz thar, she posted mad emails! retaliation of fat pic waz "rational" awesomeness


sanshou
Troll
sanshou's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:sanshou

Vessel wrote:

sanshou wrote:

shelleymtjoy wrote:

sanshou wrote:

A text box for replies that's available without clicking 'Reply' would be nice, for example.

This is totally off-topic but I had to put in my $0.02 on this comment.  Allowing people to reply in that fashion encourages people to just shout without thinking.  Nothing personal, but we already have enough of that.

Good point. 'Allowing people to reply' is bad for 'free thought'.

See, idiotic replies like this would be a lot more common if there was a text box. Most people take the time to think through their comment when hitting the reply button and it can often lead to one realizing that what they are about to say is either irrelevant or a non sequitur ,and deciding not to expose their own reading comprehension problems by posting it (above example excluded).

It is obvious to any intelligent person that Shelley did not say "Allowing people to reply is bad for 'free thought'". People are allowed to reply here. Even those who make vacuous posts like the one above.

Funny, it didn't stop me (or you). Be that as it may, let's face it: whether you like having to click 'Reply' and load a new page, or you'd save a mouse click and just type your (vacuous) reply, it's not in the spirit of 'free thought' to be approaching certain posts with the attitude that they're 'not allowed'.

It's no fun when you pwn yourself.


sanshou
Troll
sanshou's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Moar Suggestions

These are all intended in the spirit of friendship. I say this with total seriousness: these ideas will change  your life.

1) Put the text box at the bottom of the page. Save a click. Trust me, this forum can't get any dumber.

2) Put some links to navigate thread pages at the top, so people can jump to whatever page they want without scrolling.

3) I didn't see a place for themes. If you don't have 'em, get 'em. Being stuck in this white on black theme is kind of a bummer.

4) Implement a reputation system. That way, the true bad ass posters will be known by their reputation. There will be no further confusion about who the toughest guy on the Internet is.

I'll post more thoughts and suggestions as they occur to me. Guys, I really think if we work together we can make something of this place!

 


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
sanshou wrote:Funny, it

sanshou wrote:

Funny, it didn't stop me (or you). Be that as it may, let's face it: whether you like having to click 'Reply' and load a new page, or you'd save a mouse click and just type your (vacuous) reply, it's not in the spirit of 'free thought' to be approaching certain posts with the attitude that they're 'not allowed'.

It's no fun when you pwn yourself.

I don't know why I'm legitimizing this with a response but my argument was that if people intentionally go to a page where they have a text editor available they are more likely to *think* about what the post and how they compose that post... perhaps even read it over beforehand.

On the other hand, I doubt you would have had such ease at using the quote function to duplicate practically the entire page if you used a simple little text box at the bottom of the page.  Interesting though... with all those quotes it looks like you still didn't even read the argument much less think about your response.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Official Test Thread

Official Test Thread Here!

Since apparently you couldn't navigate yourself to the first link in capital letters on the homepage yourself.


sanshou
Troll
sanshou's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote:sanshou

shelleymtjoy wrote:

sanshou wrote:

Funny, it didn't stop me (or you). Be that as it may, let's face it: whether you like having to click 'Reply' and load a new page, or you'd save a mouse click and just type your (vacuous) reply, it's not in the spirit of 'free thought' to be approaching certain posts with the attitude that they're 'not allowed'.

It's no fun when you pwn yourself.

I don't know why I'm legitimizing this with a response but my argument was that if people intentionally go to a page where they have a text editor available they are more likely to *think* about what the post and how they compose that post... perhaps even read it over beforehand.

On the other hand, I doubt you would have had such ease at using the quote function to duplicate practically the entire page if you used a simple little text box at the bottom of the page.  Interesting though... with all those quotes it looks like you still didn't even read the argument much less think about your response.

I get your point perfectly. It's not exactly complex.

My point is that if it didn't stop you from thinking before you posted, what makes you think it's going to stop anyone else? Why, when you really think about it, are you even bothering to argue against a suggested change that would only make your life one mouse click easier?

Something about cutting off the nose comes to mind...


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
sanshou wrote:Vessel

sanshou wrote:

Vessel wrote:

sanshou wrote:

shelleymtjoy wrote:

sanshou wrote:

A text box for replies that's available without clicking 'Reply' would be nice, for example.

This is totally off-topic but I had to put in my $0.02 on this comment.  Allowing people to reply in that fashion encourages people to just shout without thinking.  Nothing personal, but we already have enough of that.

Good point. 'Allowing people to reply' is bad for 'free thought'.

See, idiotic replies like this would be a lot more common if there was a text box. Most people take the time to think through their comment when hitting the reply button and it can often lead to one realizing that what they are about to say is either irrelevant or a non sequitur ,and deciding not to expose their own reading comprehension problems by posting it (above example excluded).

It is obvious to any intelligent person that Shelley did not say "Allowing people to reply is bad for 'free thought'". People are allowed to reply here. Even those who make vacuous posts like the one above.

Funny, it didn't stop me (or you). Be that as it may, let's face it: whether you like having to click 'Reply' and load a new page, or you'd save a mouse click and just type your (vacuous) reply, it's not in the spirit of 'free thought' to be approaching certain posts with the attitude that they're 'not allowed'.

It's no fun when you pwn yourself.

Again, spelled out a little more clearly for the hard of comprehending, there was nothing in the post you referenced about any type of post being 'not allowed'. There was something about not allowing a certain means of posting. This is in no way a restriction of free thought.  I also don't think you know what free thought references. Free thought is not synonymous with freedom of speech, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Maybe you should think for at least a couple of seconds before you post. This is not your normal board where people are encouraged to just spout off any non-sense that pops into their head. You are allowed to, but you surely won't be respected for it.

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
sanshou wrote:shelleymtjoy

sanshou wrote:

shelleymtjoy wrote:

 Interesting though...

with all those quotes it looks like you still didn't even read the argument much less think about your response.

 

I get your point perfectly. It's not exactly complex.

My point is that if it didn't stop you from thinking before you posted, what makes you think it's going to stop anyone else? Why, when you really think about it, are you even bothering to argue against a suggested change that would only make your life one mouse click easier?

I thought.  You did not.  I'm getting the impression that having to go through 100 clicks to post probably wouldn't get you to think - or read.


Ishmael
Troll
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:sanshou

Vessel wrote:

sanshou wrote:

Vessel wrote:

sanshou wrote:

shelleymtjoy wrote:

sanshou wrote:

A text box for replies that's available without clicking 'Reply' would be nice, for example.

This is totally off-topic but I had to put in my $0.02 on this comment.  Allowing people to reply in that fashion encourages people to just shout without thinking.  Nothing personal, but we already have enough of that.

Good point. 'Allowing people to reply' is bad for 'free thought'.

See, idiotic replies like this would be a lot more common if there was a text box. Most people take the time to think through their comment when hitting the reply button and it can often lead to one realizing that what they are about to say is either irrelevant or a non sequitur ,and deciding not to expose their own reading comprehension problems by posting it (above example excluded).

It is obvious to any intelligent person that Shelley did not say "Allowing people to reply is bad for 'free thought'". People are allowed to reply here. Even those who make vacuous posts like the one above.

Funny, it didn't stop me (or you). Be that as it may, let's face it: whether you like having to click 'Reply' and load a new page, or you'd save a mouse click and just type your (vacuous) reply, it's not in the spirit of 'free thought' to be approaching certain posts with the attitude that they're 'not allowed'.

It's no fun when you pwn yourself.

Again, spelled out a little more clearly for the hard of comprehending, there was nothing in the post you referenced about any type of post being 'not allowed'. There was something about not allowing a certain means of posting. This is in no way a restriction of free thought.  I also don't think you know what free thought references. Free thought is not synonymous with freedom of speech, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Maybe you should think for at least a couple of seconds before you post. This is not your normal board where people are encouraged to just spout off any non-sense that pops into their head. You are allowed to, but you surely won't be respected for it.

 

 

 

But wait!  If what you say is true, how do you explain Brian Sapient's recent nasty personal attack against Janice Rael concerning her wait.  It happened in this very thread.  Do you think that the time "thinking" about it lead him to make this choice, despite his how making comments like that are going to hurt his image even further, no matter what Janice does?


sanshou
Troll
sanshou's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote:I

shelleymtjoy wrote:

I thought.  You did not.  I'm getting the impression that having to go through 100 clicks to post probably wouldn't get you to think - or read.

The problem is becoming clearer. You guys seem to be laboring under the delusion that you're thinking before you post (but I am not). I suggest you all take a moment to consider the all-too-real possibility that you're not as smart as you think you are.

Let's recap: you're defending a site design (one that's probably the result of nothing more than the obvious laziness that pervades the design elsewhere here) on the grounds that making it marginally harder to post discourages morons. Let's accept, for the sake of argument, your claim that I'm a moron. I still post. You still fail. You achieve no gain. Moreover, you obviously didn't think that through, so I guess you're a moron, too. And you still post. You still fail.

Thus, your argument is self defeating. This is irony. I note that fundie Christians can rarely appreciate it. Can you?

I lied. It is a little fun when you pwn yourself.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ishmael wrote: But wait! 

Ishmael wrote:

 

But wait!  If what you say is true, how do you explain Brian Sapient's recent nasty personal attack against Janice Rael concerning her wait.  It happened in this very thread.  Do you think that the time "thinking" about it lead him to make this choice, despite his how making comments like that are going to hurt his image even further, no matter what Janice does?

I'm not Brian Sapient, but it seems to me he thought about his post and decided he wanted to post it anyway. It is not just a few short sentences of no real substance such as you often see when  one is encouraged to post whatever pops into their head but a ready and waiting text box. As far as his image goes, that doesn't effect me in the least so is none of my concern.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins