This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← [UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

[UPDATE-07-Jan: commentary by Russell Blackford] Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism - Comments

Corylus's Avatar Comment 301 by Corylus

Comment #447792 by root2squared:

You haven't actually done anything other than insult me.
Sums up your recent contributions on here.
Why would I care what you think?
I used to - I do not any longer.

Generally, I am distinctly unimpressed at how Ophelia has been treated.

No scrub that, I'm furious.

She is a smart person who has been patiently trying to puts point across - for which she is accused of providing 'one of the most irrational posts you have seen on RD.Net'. You have been here a while - seen spamming and trolling of huge proportions - and yet you decide she deserves that.

I'm frankly disgusted with your behaviour. I'm going to bed now, before, I really lose my cool. I suggest you do the same.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:20:00 UTC | #429109

blitz442's Avatar Comment 302 by blitz442

Who trolled me? My last post was sent to the sin bin.

I have never been trolled on this site.

I have trying to argue facts and logic on an issue I am passionate about to the best of my abilities.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:23:00 UTC | #429111

root2squared's Avatar Comment 303 by root2squared

277. Comment #447801 by Corylus

I don't care what you think about me. Again, you have not refuted any of my arguments. Please do not address me unless you have an argument.

Your comment marked as troll.

Edit: Spamming and trolling are completely different from irrationality. I did not mark hers as spam or troll.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:30:00 UTC | #429115

root2squared's Avatar Comment 304 by root2squared

262. Comment #447762 by Ophelia Benson

Wow. That is one of the most irrational posts I've seen on RD.net.

It's not 'rational' for a child to be attached to a particular battered blanket


We're not children.

Iif the child loses the blanket I will go to a lot of trouble to help find it.



This is a rational reaction because otherwise you're going to have a crying child on your hands,

You don't call people vicious names, because it's wrong. It's morally suspect.


This is your subjective opinion. The man whose website you're are using has happily quoted someone saying "fuck off" to those who don't find science interesting. He's also called some people idiots, which is not as objective a statement as calling a fat person fat. He's also just recently posted "What a truly despicable woman."

Is it OK to insult people using only words that are deemed appropriate by you?

It's a matter of taste, if you like.


So you want everyone to conform to your tastes! Arrogance much?


If RDF is one of those sites, then I'll have to take my wit and wisdom elsewhere.


Haven't seen any wit or wisdom from you in this thread. And judging by your performance I won't be expecting any either.

FYI, this website is for clear thinking and reason, which IMPLIES rationalism, not emotional feelings.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:45:00 UTC | #429123

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 305 by Steve Zara

I have been following this site, on and off, for years. Certain posters have built up a reputation for calm and rational contributions that have been an education to thousands who have visited the site Corylus has been such a poster.

I tried to highlight the way that this site has become dominated by certain posters with their egotistical agendas in Comment #447767

But when a thread, and a site becomes unwelcoming to one of its most gentle and yet intelligent posters (Corylus), and also to one of the most important atheist campaigners Ophelia Benson), the question has to be asked - how did things go so badly wrong?

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:47:00 UTC | #429124

blitz442's Avatar Comment 306 by blitz442

262. Comment #447762 by Ophelia Benson

Fucking reductio ad absurdum.

Where did you ever get the idea I was advocating insulting people? Or that I would offend the grieving or smash a favorite object even if it has no "rational" value? This is the same kind of "argument" that gets thrown at Dawkins by the religious for being so insistent on evidence, just so you know what intellectual company you are in.

Dawkins, you insist on rational scrutiny of religion. then??? So it follows that you would go tell a grieving family that their convictions that their loved ones in heaven is untrue? Is that what you damn rationalists do?

Can you get this through your thick head? I am not saying that cunt is not an insult.

If the word desk, or the word soup, feels sexist to you tomorrow and causes you great emotional harm, I will gladly refrain from using it.

But if you try to make unfounded feminist justifications for why these words and not similar words directed at men, then that needs to be challenged.

Even from here in the sin bin.


Whatever its worth, your reputation as an intellectual has been tarnished by this behavior.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:51:00 UTC | #429125

Joshua Slocum's Avatar Comment 307 by Joshua Slocum

Amazing and disgusting the rationalizations coming out for why it's OK, not hostile, epistemologically neutral, and all that, to call women cunts. When one of them is right here saying "that's a disgusting word; please don't use it."

Again, replace it all with the word "faggot" and try it on me. And yeah, it's exactly the same thing.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:24:00 UTC | #429133

Raiko's Avatar Comment 308 by Raiko

I am female and if you call me a bitch, cunt or cow (cows are female, you see), I promise you I will feel just as insulted as if you called me an asshole, bastard, fucktard, or creationist. Which is very insulted. Wait... no, I'd feel less insulted than if you called me a creationist.

Words have meanings that change with history and context as we keep using them in different ways. Some keep their meaning for a long time, some get a bad meaning that used to not be there, some lose or gain power or popularity, and some lose strength or details of their meaning. I think the main words discussed here have become basic, strong, general insults. And yes, the words are reserved for females, while other words are reserved for males, old people or kids.

And if I may note, some of the words discussed here are used by females towards females. A lot. And unless people are discussing cheating on the Jerry Springer show (context!), the "bitches" and "cunts" uttered there (often by bitching screeching young ladies) are no more insulting than any strong gender-free term.

I find "whore" is much more derogatory towards females because that word still holds a good deal of "you have dirty sex with everyone like a prostitute" and women generally feel insulted when compared to that (actually rather respectable) job, especially if they're in a relationship or, like me, aren't big fans of promiscuity - or sex with men (because the word generally doesn't refer to lesbian prostitutes).

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:00:00 UTC | #429137

Raiko's Avatar Comment 309 by Raiko

281. Comment #447831 by Joshua Slocum on January 6, 2010 at 2:24 am

Again, replace it all with the word "faggot" and try it on me. And yeah, it's exactly the same thing.


I don't think it's the same thing. You'd also have to consider "queer" and insult against homosexuals, because that's what it was meant to be. Words change their meaning when they're actively in use. The word faggot changed its meaning from a bundle of sticks to an insult against gay people. The word queer morphed from an insult against us homosexuals to a word meaning our pride and confidence. "Dyke" has moved from an insult towards lesbians to a term describing a specific type of lesbian, unless specifically used in an insulting context. I could go on forever. Other terms like "bitch" moved from being specific, anti-feminine insults to just rude insults unless (like dyke) used in a specific context.

Language is much more delicate and dynamic than the discussion here makes it out to be.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:22:00 UTC | #429141

Joshua Slocum's Avatar Comment 310 by Joshua Slocum

Raiko - as you pointed out, it's context-dependent. I think you'd have to agree that "faggot" (or, name your favorite reclaimed slur) used in casual public conversation, by people who aren't in the queer community, as an insult, is provocative.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:31:00 UTC | #429145

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 311 by Cartomancer

Language is much more delicate and dynamic than the discussion here makes it out to be.
Indeed it is. There is a whole branch of sociolinguistics that studies insults. There is even a scholarly journal, Maledicta, dedicated to the subject. It is edited by a German. I find this slightly amusing.

I am no expert myself, but I dare say that the real experts would be shaking their heads in disbelief at some of the things being said by some people on this thread about the social implications of particular insults.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/bibliogs/insults.html

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:34:00 UTC | #429146

root2squared's Avatar Comment 312 by root2squared

Again, replace it all with the word "faggot" and try it on me.


Hopefully, soon faggot will only refer to these people

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/251889

And also Hummer owners

Edit: You may need to allow pop-ups from this site.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:36:00 UTC | #429147

Frankus1122's Avatar Comment 313 by Frankus1122

Words change their meaning when they're actively in use.


Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UA578yQ5g

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:58:00 UTC | #429151

Raiko's Avatar Comment 314 by Raiko

omment #447849 by Cartomancer on January 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

Indeed it is. There is a whole branch of sociolinguistics that studies insults. There is even a scholarly journal, Maledicta, dedicated to the subject. It is edited by a German. I find this slightly amusing.


I have to agree - that is quite amusing.

----

284. Comment #447848 by Joshua Slocum on January 6, 2010 at 3:31 am


Raiko - as you pointed out, it's context-dependent. I think you'd have to agree that "faggot" (or, name your favorite reclaimed slur) used in casual public conversation, by people who aren't in the queer community, as an insult, is provocative.


And, as you correctly noted, I never said anything that would contradict that. Actually, it is news to me that "faggot" within the queer community is not an insult. I don't mean they'd be insulting each other, but I never heard it being discussed/handled as anything but an insult. However, I'm not in contact with as many other gay people as I might wish.


----

287. Comment #447855 by Frankus1122 on January 6, 2010 at 3:58 am

I've seen this before, it's great. I have never hear the word "Frichen" before, though. But what the f**k do I know?

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:58:00 UTC | #429153

Joshua Slocum's Avatar Comment 315 by Joshua Slocum

@Raiko:


And, as you correctly noted, I never said anything that would contradict that. Actually, it is news to me that "faggot" within the queer community is not an insult. I don't mean they'd be insulting each other, but I never heard it being discussed/handled as anything but an insult. However, I'm not in contact with as many other gay people as I might wish.


Thanks for saying that - I find it interesting. In my circle of gay and gay-friendly people (yeah, it's just my own anecdote, so your mileage may vary:) we can call each other "faggot" with impunity. It's parallel to the reclaiming of the word "nigger" by some black people.

The difference, obviously, is that not just anybody can do that. There's a huge difference between what gets said in close circles of mutually supportive friends (especially those who've been on the receiving end of discrimination) and the casual license "outsiders" take with such words. It's just not OK for anyone on the street to lob the words "faggot" or "nigger" and expect the targets of those words to find that OK.

The fact that some commenters here don't get that, and that they think they ought to have that sort of license, really bugs me.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:06:00 UTC | #429154

Raiko's Avatar Comment 316 by Raiko

289. Comment #447858 by Joshua Slocum on January 6, 2010 at 4:06 am

Ah, another context-dependent meaning that I wasn't even aware of.

I am not quite sure whom you're referring to with "some commenters", but I also have to admit I haven't carefully read all the comments. I think it should be self-evident to anyone consciously living within the social context of our world and capable of understanding English that calling a black person a nigger without being a black person yourself happens to be an insult, etc. Of course it always depends on the word, context and people involved what you can and cannot say, but the when, whys and hows are something every one of us has to pick up from the society we live in.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:20:00 UTC | #429157

Joshua Slocum's Avatar Comment 317 by Joshua Slocum

Hi Raiko,

I certainly wasn't referring to you when I wrote "some commenters." Yes, it should be self-evident, as you say, that "outsiders" (no, I don't like the connotations of that word, but I'm having a hard time coming up with another) shouldn't assume they have the right to use those words. Sadly, it's not self-evident to many of them. Hence, the depressing back-and-forth here with people who seem to think they have the right to call women cunts and bitches and not be upbraided for it.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:25:00 UTC | #429161

Sciros's Avatar Comment 318 by Sciros

The fact that some commenters here don't get that, and that they think they ought to have that sort of license, really bugs me.
The issue is more a failure to recognize how certain words are actually being used, as opposed to how they used to be used. Much gender slang is used, and meant, in a way not meant to communicate sexist sentiments. That is demonstrable. Merely read this thread and peoples' responses to the article, if you want to spend the absolute minimal amount of time verifying this. While Ophelia may find gender slang offensive in a sexist sense, that does not suddenly trump the reality that those words are not exclusively used in that sense these days. (When I say "sense," I mean "definition" (think WordNet) so don't treat it as something that can be mixed; a word can only have one sense at a time.) The sexist sense of the word has not yet disappeared, but many people don't use that sense anymore. So one now has to pay attention to context to infer the sense being used. You do this all the time with thousands of words, so it is not an insurmountable challenge.

Ophelia needs to recognize not only that "words change" in general, but that these particular words -- slang terms like bitch -- have changed and acquired a non-sexist sense. Just like they at some point acquired a sexist sense in addition to the older, third sense of "female dog." (If we want to get technical, the word "bitch" has at least five senses, and probably more than seven.)

No-one is saying that gender slang is appropriate in all situations, or that it is never intended as sexist. It is the outright refusal to understand that it isn't always intended as sexist, not even close to always in fact, that is frustrating to many people here.

Trying to draw an analogy between gender slang that has acquired this sense and slang that has not, is completely inappropriate, as I have repeatedly explained. Make a case for the idea that if a given racial slur has not acquired a new sense in an interracial context, that therefore some other given word has not acquired a new sense, either. It is in fact a complete non-sequitur, but that is what needs to hold true if your argument is to be at all relevant and logical.

Finally, if the reader's stubbornness simply knows no bounds, they are invited to google "define:bitch" or any other word they so please. In addition I have provided a link very relevant to the discussion before, and it has evidently been completely ignored as well. Please find it again on the preceding pages at your convenience.

P.S. who is more likely to purchase this drink? (female dogs is not one of the choices)

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:37:00 UTC | #429164

Raiko's Avatar Comment 319 by Raiko

Well, to be honest, I quite agree with the sentiment "Nancy Graham Holm is a bitch/cunt/whatever", whether it was written by a guy or a girl. Mainly because she really is a bitch/cunt/whatever - in the conventional, modern, insulting sense.

And she happens to be female. If her name was "John William Holm", I'd be quite confused by anyone calling him a bitch (no matter who), but I'd certainly agree with calling him a prick which is also a conventional insult.

The main difference between these words when used in this context here is that they're each specific for only one of two different genders.

Of course the meaning would be very different in another context - say someone screams: "Your girlfriend is such a bitch, she's been sleeping with all your male friends!" However, I'd still not give a damn whether the speaker is male, female, transgendered or an eunuch. Really. As long as he/she/it has a point. Else, I'd have something against any of them saying that!


Edit: Sciros - excellent comment!

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:39:00 UTC | #429165

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 321 by SaintStephen

293. Comment #447869 by Raiko on January 6, 2010 at 4:39 am

Well, to be honest, I quite agree with the sentiment "Nancy Graham Holm is a bitch/cunt/whatever", whether it was written by a guy or a girl. Mainly because she really is a bitch/cunt/whatever - in the conventional, modern, insulting sense.
Actually, your comment was pretty excellent, too!

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:30:00 UTC | #429176

Titania's Avatar Comment 320 by Titania

262. Comment #447762 by Ophelia Benson

The minimal argument is similar. I really don't give a fuck that people desperate for an excuse can come up with verbiage about how cunt is the equivalent of prick. Epithets are very loaded, and adults don't mess with them when people object. Epithets addressed to historically marginalized or subordinated or scorned groups are particularly loaded, and adults are extra reluctant to mess with them when people object.

I don't know - I thought most people learned this at about age 6. You don't call people vicious names, because it's wrong. It's morally suspect. You don't call people fat, or ugly, or smelly; you don't call them racial epithets; you don't call them faggots or dykes; you don't call them untouchables; you don't call them bitches or cunts.


Thank you, Ophelia, for expressing my sentiments on this issue so clearly. It's also about common courtesy which you should receive when you are discussing your ideas. I, for one, do not want to engage with people who bandy such terms without regard for the sensibilities of others or the thrust behind the words, which, even if not intended to be pejorative in the historical sense, despite protestations to the contrary, definitely belittle and insult. True colors have been exposed on this thread with words. No need for html.

Ophelia, please stick around. Your posts definitely are one of the highlights of the site.

Looks like I will be lurking for a good bit longer.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:30:00 UTC | #429175

Fuller's Avatar Comment 322 by Fuller

And there's another thing - you take people's word for it. You don't argue when you're not the one epitheted. White people don't get to argue about how insulting 'nigger' is. By the same token, men don't get to argue about how insulting 'cunt' is. It's not up to them.


I never knew 'cunt' was a gender specific term until reading this thread. I've always used it indiscriminantly - men, women, faulty laptop, corner of the coffee table upon sharp contact with my knee...personally I find the idea that it is a sexist word very surprising, for what it's worth.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:19:00 UTC | #429182

root2squared's Avatar Comment 323 by root2squared

The word that started this thing was actually bitch, not the C-word. I think most of us can agree that the former is far less offensive. And it was aimed at the author for whom Richard had this to say "This article is the most disgusting, deplorable piece I have read in a long time. I am happy to say that even the Guardian readers, on the source site, are kicking her all around the room. What a truly despicable woman."

And I was attacked and insulted with no arguments whatsoever even the only thing I did was defend the use of the word bitch on another thread and address the irrationality of a post, where the OP herself admitted to not being rational!!!.

So this was a bit surprising coming from the same poster -

73. Comment #389678 by Corylus on June 20, 2009 at 1:59 pm

With regard to swearing itself, I do think it has a place. You find that with people who have proper tempers (rather than manufactured ones) it is used on a sliding scale of emotional release.

Used properly it can prevent bloodshed. However, used without provocation it can be a form of assault. This is because of the ingrained emotional linkages we make in relation to certain words. Swearing at someone on a message board is basically a verbal poke in the adrenal grands - similar to someone prodding you with their finger in real life. Basic consideration requires that this only happens after provocation. Even with provocation, such things rarely end well.

According,I very rarely use the 'c' word - however, I do reserve it for special occasions. So, unlike Ophelia I don't think it needs to be retired - but I agree we need to be aware of why it is used in the fashion that it is. I use it when it is the choice between using the term or throwing someone into a wall.


Apparently, it is OK for a female poster to even use the C word, but not for a male poster to even use bitch.

Some more hypocrisy

21. Who was the most influential female atheist of 2009?
Comment #446738 by Ophelia Benson on January 3, 2010 at 5:48 pm

No, it's not patronizing, because in this particular poll the point is that we keep being ignored. Men draw up lists and polls and they somehow just forget that there are any female atheists at all, so apparently the only way to include women is to specify women. Maybe after this the general lists won't still be all penis all the time.


Recently, on RD.net

Comment #447524 by Ophelia Benson on January 5, 2010 at 5:46 pm

Yes males are sometimes called genital epithets, but 1) I don't do that


Uh Oh...

Lesson number 2: It's OK for women to call men penises, because that's what they are.

The level of hypocrisy is astounding.

And finally to those who trolled one of my comments: If you are not a coward and have any sense of intellectual integrity and honesty, please send me a PM explaining what about my post constituted trolling.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:09:00 UTC | #429185

root2squared's Avatar Comment 324 by root2squared

I think this is what is known as having the last laugh!


Re: Dr. Dawkins at Indiana University
by Richard Dawkins » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:01 am


The girl next to me bitched for roughly the entire half an hour before Richard came out about how she "had to be there and had things to do. " and my personal favorite, "I have no idea who this guy is anyway."


Is anyone able to interpret this for me? What can it possibly mean that she 'had to' be there? I am told that, in addition to the 3200 seated in the theatre, there were another 700 outside who couldn't get in because it was full. One man told me, as I signed his book, that he had driven eight hours to be there and then he couldn't get in. Why didn't the bitch who didn't want to be there get the hell out and give up her seat to the man who drove eight hours to be there? Or any of the other 700 people who couldn't get in?

But I come back to the question, What does it mean to say she 'had to' be there? What on earth could it POSSIBLY mean?

Richard


Will we now see Richard being called misogynistic?

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:59:00 UTC | #429189

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 325 by Adrian Bartholomew

Replying to 298. Comment #447900 by root2squared on January 6, 2010 at 7:59 am
The language is so ingrained that we all screw up occasionally. I remember having this exact same conversation when I was a kid regarding using the word Jew as a synonym for cheap and the “N” word for anything stupid. Thank goodness those words changed (although Gay as a synonym for anything bad made a resurgence a while back). It’s going to take a long time for sexist language to ease its way out of the language too.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:12:00 UTC | #429190

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 326 by Richard Dawkins

Ophelia wrote

Just for a start, I don't think everything boils down to what is rational. It's not 'rational' for a child to be attached to a particular battered blanket, but I really don't care; if the child loses the blanket I will go to a lot of trouble to help find it. It's not 'rational' for people to visit someone's grave, but I really don't care; I take walks in cemeteries but I'm careful not to go skipping cheerily around people who are visiting graves. It's not 'rational' for people to cherish a particular object because a loved person gave it to them, but I really don't care; I wouldn't smash such an object and replace it with one identical in appearance.

I completely agree, Ophelia, and it is hard to imagine that anybody here wouldn't.

You don't call people vicious names, because it's wrong. It's morally suspect. You don't call people fat, or ugly, or smelly; you don't call them racial epithets; you don't call them faggots or dykes; you don't call them untouchables; you don't call them bitches or cunts.

In some circles it's apparently hip to flout all that. I dislike those circles. If RDF is one of those sites, then I'll have to take my wit and wisdom elsewhere. It's a matter of taste, if you like.
I haven't followed the full history of the derailing of this thread from the Danish cartoons. But I can see enough to realise that something has gone sadly wrong, and it is typical of what happens all over the Web.

No, RD.net is not 'one of those sites'. Or if it is, I wish it were otherwise. I'm afraid the symptoms are all too common, all over the web. Speaking personally, I would like to make this site stand out as a shining beacon to others, in NOT being 'one of those sites'.

What can we do? With a newspaper, it is easy. There is an Editor, with a staff of helpers, who decide what goes into the paper and what doesn't. When a Letter to the Editor is submitted, the default assumption is that it will not be published unless there is a good POSITIVE reason to do so. On the Web it is typically the other way around. A Comment is published unless there is a good reason NOT to -- and when that happens it sounds like censorship, with all the 'freedom of speech' issues that inevitably arise.

This is not a newspaper, and we have no full time Editor. Maybe we should have? But I don't have time to be an Editor, and I don't think the money we raised in our recent brilliant drive should be spent on employing one. We have bigger fish to fry.

Yet clearly we need to do something here and now to stop interesting threads like this one degenerating into irrelevant flame wars (as here), or inconsequential chatroom gossip (as in some others). We are going to do something about the problem, but this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss the Danish cartoon affair and Nancy Graham Holm's cowardly response to it. In an attempt to restore this thread to its rails, may I recommend Ophelia Benson's thoughtful piece on 'Fear and Censorship', which appeared in the Guardian blog one day after Nancy Graham Holt's infamous one.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/04/religion-islam

And, while I am about it, may I more generally recommend Ophelia's excellent 'Butteflies and Wheels' website, and welcome her as a distinguished guest on this one.

Richard

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:23:00 UTC | #429192

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 327 by SaintStephen

298. Comment #447900 by root2squared on January 6, 2010 at 7:59 am

Research ranked as Excellent.

(Please be careful, though. This place is getting a little too locker-roomy, roomie.)

;-P

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:26:00 UTC | #429193

epeeist's Avatar Comment 328 by epeeist

Comment #447908 by Richard Dawkins:

And, while I am about it, may I more generally recommend Ophelia's excellent 'Butteflies and Wheels' website, and welcome her as a distinguished guest on this one.
We have lost some excellent female posters in the past due, in part, to both unthinking and deliberate sexism by other subscribers.

It would be a shame to lose a campaigner for reasoned feminism (see her analysis of one of your bête noire Sandra Harding for example) because of "irrelevant flame wars". I would extend your sentiments to other posters such Corylus and Raiko.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:41:00 UTC | #429196

decius's Avatar Comment 329 by decius

Richard,

Mike is doing a great job, but perhaps you need one or two people more to help him out. Acting swiftly is crucial to successful site management.

I'm not specifically referring to the flaming in this thread, but in this very moment the front page is practically at the mercy of two spammers (dontcry and equalizerguy), a troll's sockpuppet (clearmind, an incarnation of wooter's), and another troll I won't mention directly, lest I cause another disproportioned reaction.

The longer their posts are left to fester, the higher the chances that some sucker replies or that people get distracted and/or frustrated.
Also, if I may, comments that are relegated to the alt.thread, and sockpuppets/trolls's posts that have been auto-trolled or banned, should not be appearing in the 'The 100 Latest Visitor Comments' page.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:48:00 UTC | #429199

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 330 by SaintStephen

302. Comment #447914 by epeeist on January 6, 2010 at 8:41 am

With all due respect, my kingdom for your thoughts on this post, unless a cat somehow has gotten hold of your logical tongue.

???

EDIT: Nice attempt at censorship, Decius. Your thoughts are also requested in the above matter.

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:50:00 UTC | #429200