Becky's other outfit
“These are people who desperately want to insult me, but have neither the wit nor the intelligence to do it properly.” — Our Becky
Ouch. I don’t know how I can ever recover my dignity.
It’s that time again, when Becky has been caught red-handed doing something stupid and/or gratuitously self-serving and/or criminal and knowing full well that there is no way to back-peddle, deny or squirm her way out of it, Becky falls back on her reliable triple-play of trivialisation, distraction and playing the victim card about being bullied by the misogynist conspiracy – with the usual quote mining, context abuse, disregard for reality and outright deception.
Becky takes exception to my calling her “dumber than dogshit” (and a shopping list of other crimes I’ll return to later) over her latest boot-in-mouth numbskullery in proclaiming to the world, with a very sincere face, that the church executed Galileo. Evidently it’s just a twee boo-boo that should just be overlooked, especially when its from such an eminent and universally admired intellectual as herself, and that it’s all being blown out of proportion by nasty and jealous assholes. Replay of a replay of a replay.
No Becky. This is not something you simply “retract” and “correct” like it never happened, as you seem to think is reasonable in your followup whine. This was not a drunken pub conversation. This was a premeditated performance piece cum1 sermon to what you assumed to be an audience of devoted and unquestioning acolytes which, unfortunately for you, got noticed by a few folks that still retain rudimentary critical faculties.
This was a rant born of the arrogance of infallibility. The result of enjoying privileged status protected from criticism and exempt from accountability, leading to a slothful inertia that just allows you to babble whatever stream of consciousness nonsense crosses your mind, devoid of any trivial considerations such as fact checking which, quite frankly, seems beneath your dignity to bother with. You preach to converts, they don’t care anyway. It is babble born of contempt and pudgy, pink laziness. And it blew up in your face and now you are squealing about how unfair 
people are.
Well, princess, and as distasteful as it is to a steadily growing number of people, you are not just an ordinary citizen blogger / Youtuber. You are one of the public faces of secularism. With the perks comes the responsibility – and the big one is having both intellectual integrity and coherence. Fail and fail.
If you can so royally cock up basic history about Galileo, history which any typical high school student (at least in Australia) should know, what does it say about the other torrents of gibberish you demand that people swallow unquestioningly?
I think this is what can politely be termed an expectation deficiency. You have no right to be such an ignorant buffoon in public and at the same time claim to be a worthy community representative and spokesperson. You are duty bound to not be stupid in public. Fail, fail, fail, fail. 15 seconds on the cesspit of lies is all it would have taken – but your manifest privilege, sense of entitlement and outright hubris places you above such triviality.
Whilst I agree that “dumber than dogshit” is hardly a quantitative scientific assessment, qualitatively it is neither ambiguous nor an exaggeration. So I see no need to retract something I got right. The first time around.
But this is all just one part of a much longer monotone whine Becky has posted on off our backs Skepchick, where arguably, the opening line is the only objective and factual one –
Warning: this is long and rambling and goes nowhere.
It’s all infinite cruelty Becky is suffering, name-dropping of chumps she still holds by the balls, and putting the boot into those that deviate from established orthodoxy, whilst distracting and diverting from personal responsibility. And it is long – I’m not the only one being sternly lectured to. After the obligatory patience-of-a-saint-suffering-martyrs-arrows preamble about hatemail, she commences her shopping list grievances starting with the Dr. Mengele of gender traitors, Abbie Smith –
Abbie Smith at ERV was, as far as I could tell, the first to actively encourage people to replace intelligent discussion and inquiry with blind hatred and bile. That’s where the name “Rebeccunt Twatson” apparently arose – see? Impressive! If you listen hard enough, you can hear the ghost of Ambrose Bierce chuckling and nodding his head in approval.
Becky has the same problem with Abbie as she does with any other critic – complete absence of rebuttal. Therefore, catastrophism, quote mining and misrepresentation are the only alternatives that remain.
First up Becky – I don’t see Abbie drawing up lists of prohibited books nor indulging in blacklists of known traitors. Nor launching denunciations against people purely on the basis of who they are. The fact that Abbie does not censor opinion expressed on her board to only allow that which is in monocultured agreement is what makes it not only entirely different to Skepchick, but also infinitely more enlightening. This fact in itself though is not a foundation on which to base a personal attack on her.
"I'm from Pharyngula. Taking me seriously is not optional."
There is nothing at all preventing Watsonistas from participating at Abbie’s place. Only problem is that all of the ones who have have been much like you – hollow people with nothing but mud-slinging and personal insult to offer, and they just huff and puff and then slink away when nobody takes them seriously. Much like The Naked Emperor did – he raged and roared for a bit, but did not appreciate being laughed at for being little more than a shallow cartoon caricature, had a hissy meltdown and left…
Myers is not very comfortable in any environment where he does not have god-like control (ie. outside of the baboon board). I have noticed – he did the same respect ma authoritah routine here. Got very angry at not being taken seriously. Probably worked it off with a furious wank afterwards looking at Becky’s calendars.
Then there’s a dig at someone just “randomly” plucked from the ether –
there are the Tweets and the Facebook messages that make little to no sense, like this one from just last night:
.
What’s not to get you knucklehead? Some folks, even females, just don’t like Kool-aid. Seems perfectly clear to me. The door didn’t hit your ass on the way out and she is glad you no longer darken it.
Well, maybe the selection was not so “random”… I think it’s safe to say that Adrienne too has been branded a gender traitor for expressing independent opinion and walking upright, and this is just a ritual public shaming. To say it was an innocent “random” choice pushes credulity to the limits. It’s rather juvenile actually. And oh so typical.
As for this clown, neither I nor anyone I know knows who he is other than a blog spammer fishing for outrage from anyone who offers it – obviously he/she has come to the right place with Becky. That these two buffoons collided in the first place is funny enough, but nowhere near as funny as Becky just swallowing it hook, line and tackle box without thinking. But again, hardly surprising when outrage is the fuel in the tank that you need to keep topped up. I suspect this same person is also responsible for Becky’s Encyclopedia Dramatica entry – its full of link spam for the same blog. While it’s cheap, vulgar and offensive (like its subject matter), its the kind of crap that professional victims love to feed on as “evidence” and is ultimately counterproductive. It does however contain more substantially real information than you’ll ever get out of any Watsonista.
And so the straw clutching for sympathy burbles on. But, let’s just go back and do some of what’s Becky’s favourite hobby – let’s talk about me. Or rather her creative mangling of what I say. She’s devoted a fair slab of her blog to me, but if she thinks that’s gonna improve her chances of getting laid… well, I just resent being objectified in this manner. We’ve covered Galileo and dogshit. Next is her favourite post of mine –
My favorite of Hoggle’s posts is the one in which he says that I’m an honest-to-Jesus criminal who should be arrested
Creative license. Reminiscent of the typical ridicule via hyperbole sleight of hand trick she used to distract people from the reality of her randi.org ban using her “joke” Facebook Causes page. That I never said Watson should be arrested, no matter how much she may actually deserve it, is not relevant. What is relevant is to exaggerate the emotional dichotomy of poor innocent, fun loving Becky and evil, malignant, vindictive Franc and milk it for what it’s worth.
What I actually said is Becky committed a clearly criminal act, her motivation was malice and spite, and that there are plenty of precedents of people serving jail time for lesser offenses. I have no interest in rehashing – all of the details, including US state-by-state criminal statutes, are spelled out in the linked post. Subtle difference – pointing out criminality as opposed to demanding prosecution and vengeance – but not one you want to highlight when you are manipulating mindless hordes in a personality cult.
But the charge remains – Watson has proven that given the opportunity, she has no baseline moral or ethical boundaries preventing her from committing criminal acts. This is not someone I want representing me as a secularist.
Similarly Becky garbles my questions about her education – or readily evident lack of. Her Myspace page was not presented as any kind of “evidence” or whatever else she assumes I did it for. It was presented to show how little evidence there is about anything Becky has done – this rubbish is the only thing that seems to exist. How appalling for someone with this in-your-face presence to have zero information available. The question remains – is there really no real life achievement, or is it deliberately being hidden? If you are going to make a career out of being an opinionated blabbermouth who is supposed to be trusted as an intellectual representative, it is not outrageous for people to want to see some substance. Of all the celebrity skeptics, Becky stands out as being the only one with a deliberately obfuscated background.
Put another way Becky, you can name drop all you like. It doesn’t mean shit and doesn’t magically make you smart. I once fucked Mel Gibson’s brother’s ex-wife. That doesn’t make me a movie star.
.
The remaining charges are from the peanut gallery and are indicative of the wallowing slave / victim mentality that envelopes Watsonistas like gold foil wrapping a turd –
.
It really is the final mark of a loser when you begin squealing about intimidation and right of speech in defense of the most heavily censoring, dissent controlling, slanderous, mindlessly authoritarian fascist control freaks that have ever poisoned the secular diaspora. Doublethink implodes.
For the record Becky, I don’t want you to “shut up”. I just want you to stop masquerading as a skeptic and a freethinker. You are neither. You are a tunnel-visioned ideologue that treats reality as though it were Play-Doh to be molded at will to conform to your derangement. And that the public secular stage is something you have sole entitlement to and are free to spout whatever gibberish crosses your mind on without accountability and in magic armor to deflect all criticism. You are an uneducated, semi-literate, axe-grinding fraud and nothing I can ever write can make you look any more stupid than you do yourself with your own words. The Galileo gaffe is only your most visible atrocity against intellect – it is however the cherry on top of a mountainous dung heap.
Yes you are perfectly free to spout whatever divisive, demonising, inflammatory propaganda you please providing you don’t do it with the misrepresentation that you speak on behalf of the entire godless and skeptic communities – especially not the females who you are driving away in droves. You are the very antithesis of the spirit of both movements. You are the anti-Enlightenment. You are raw lollipop and lipstick fascism that displays no remorse or conscience in destroying those that disagree with you whenever the opportunity presents itself.
If you think I am obsessive in blogging about you, then that is because you are such a total package of everything that has gone wrong with secularism. But stick this thought in your trough and snort it – you are only a symptom of a much larger disease – a systemic corruption that is hell bent on destroying what precious little is left of our Enlightenment Freethought legacy and replacing it with a rigid, authoritarian neopuritanism every bit as vile and sub-humanist as anything that theists have ever come up with.
You have been a primary driver in instilling a culture of nepotic sycophancy into the godless and skeptic communities and now its tentacles reach all the way up into the boardroom of the CFI.
You are creating a secularism that wallows in gutters, who’s only creative impulse is self-pity and at every turn you look for scapegoats to blame for your own misery.
You are a pit of destructive nihilism and you want to suck everything down the drain with you.
That is why you are such a vile and detestable creature and why your precious little pussy, much to your chagrin, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
How precious your crash will be when it finally happens. There is no if, only when. You are already spiralling with this nonsense.
1 – :thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap::thwap: :thwap::THWAP::THWAP::THWAP::THWAP::THWAP::THWAP::SPUUUUUUUUUUUUURT: :AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaah:
grey lining 
October 1, 2011 at 3:10 am
This is wickedly amusing, “the crime of speaking your mind.” It isn’t an unpredictable response from a pompously self-entitled “freethinking Historian” such as Ethan here, who believes that freedom ought to come without responsibility. Sure, Ethan, no person should ever have to bear the burden of taking responsibility for what one says, and especially never pay any mind to trivial matters such as consequences. To have it any other way is of course no less than a crime!
October 1, 2011 at 6:55 am
Overlord, you’ve hit paydirt there. The freedom to express one’s self is just that. It also entails the requirement to be responsible for what one says. I note that a lot of the ‘freethinkers’ love the free part, but not the thinking part so much.
Yes, one can argue freely for one’s positions. In response, the rest of us are free to note a batshit crazy loon in our midst when they announce themselves.
As I wrote, contra-watson, I have to do absolutely nothing more to ‘trap’ her in a ‘gotcha’ moment than sit back and say nothing. She’s certainly been speaking less, but she’s making up for all her normal diffuse stupidity with a vengeance. It’s stupidly dense.
As far as the stalking and researching her background goes, we’ve gone as far as (as Abbie puts it) looking up her profile on Linkedin, myspace, google and facebook. Yes, our research is composed entirely of things she’s on public record saying or writing.
We’re real monsters by doing what her fanbase refuses to do: actually listening to what she’s being paid to say.
October 1, 2011 at 7:27 am
That’s what kills me! We spent all this time setting up this framework of principles, one of which being that nobody is free from criticism when they exercise free speech; that people must take responsibility for what they say and do regardless of what they believe, and stop hiding behind their religion or gods or whatever they’re using as an excuse for their bad behavior.
Apparently over time it was decided collectively that it’s okay to abandon those inconvenient principles now that we have numbers or something…
October 1, 2011 at 7:34 am
Okay to be more clear, we didn’t “set up” those principles ourselves but rather adopted them in theory from our wiser ancestors… still…
October 2, 2011 at 4:34 am
“We’re real monsters by doing what her fanbase refuses to do: actually listening to what she’s being paid to say.”
Wait a minute, does she make a living this way?
October 2, 2011 at 4:44 am
SBC: yes, she makes a living doing this.
Like I’ve detailed, painstakingly, at my blog: when the whole Dawkins thing hit, her immediate response was to write the best way to get a bazillion new followers (which translates directly to cash for her) is to get Dawkins to say something stupid to you. SCORE.
My primary issue, which is described by others as a ‘silencing’ tactic, is to get her to not be a paid, invited speaker at our conferences. A portion of the money attendees pay goes straight into her pocketbook. And what does she do in return?
Get up still drunk and joke about being drunk. Brag that she’s been invited (and paid) to speak on topic x, but has decided not to speak on that and will just talk about what she wants.
Which invariably includes a reading of her e-mail, tweets, facebook and youtube posts/comments/whatnot.
And she makes a quite comfortable living, including all of the free travel and hotels.
October 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
And here is the Tweet Justicar captured –
October 1, 2011 at 7:43 am
I actually had someone take me to task my using ‘we’ in that way. I was like, uh, ok, but you don’t talk about ‘our’ laws, ‘our’ government, ‘our’ culture since we’ve inherited those things from generations long passed.
It’s ‘we’ and ‘ours’ in the sense that given the option we let certain things persist.
October 1, 2011 at 6:41 am
bwahahaha. Love it. Here is my take on today’s and yesterday’s debacle (as you’ve already seen) so that your readers might choose to read either.
http://integralmath.blogspot.com/2011/09/caine-fluer-du-mal-is-lying-she-hag-and.html
http://integralmath.blogspot.com/2011/09/get-your-banana-out-of-my-twatson-man.html
One minor complaint, “such as fact checking which, quite frankly, seems beneath your dignity to bother with”
Fact-checking? If by this term you mean “attended third, fourth or fifth grade in a public school you know this already” then we’re in agreement. =P
October 1, 2011 at 6:50 am
If a retraction doesn’t suffice, then what would you suggest she do instead? For instance, what do you do when you make a mistake?
October 1, 2011 at 6:57 am
Well, justify her paycheck for one thing.
How about a correction? The video in question as of last night remains publicly available sans correction. It’s nearly a month old now.
October 2, 2011 at 7:46 am
Sorry, made the mistake of including my response to you in franc hoggle’s comment. Here it is again:
“‘Well, justify her paycheck for one thing.’
Unless you are funding her paycheck, I’m not sure you have the right to demand justification. I’m not sure how that relates to correcting mistakes, anyway.
I admit I don’t know how she’s employed. I’m guessing Skepchick isn’t big enough to pay anything past web server expenses, let alone a living wage. (I could be wrong, though, it’s a hard thing to judge.) Does anyone know how’s she’s employed?”
Regarding the correction: I thought she did correct the video. When I looked at it yesterday I saw it as a annotation (see 3:17). Maybe you have annotations turned off?
October 2, 2011 at 7:54 am
You’ll have to do a little better than this. She is, as is not at all a secret, paid to speak at events. That money comes out of fees to attend conferences, paid to various organizations and what not.
As a person who contributes money to certain causes, I have a mild interest in knowing how poorly my hard-earned money is being spent to see if my continued patronage is worth my while. Several charities are no longer on my donation list because they give money to that bigoted moron. Or give her air time to spew her nonsense.
That’s fine. If they want to keep hiring a retard, have at it. I’ll just send my money where it will do some good.
It might now have a correction on it, but it did not at the time I wrote my article, either of them. Nearly a month later I suppose it is about time she made a correction on the video itself. It’s sad that such an act deserves a mention. “Hey look. She corrected an error. Everyone, take notice that she made a mistake and corrected it.”
That’s not how one does things in any adult fashion. When I screw the pooch and discover that I have, I make it known to the world. I don’t want to see if people notice, and I don’t go bury it elsewhere. If I fuck up in a video, that video is where is I make the correction.
If it’s on someone’s blog, that’s where I make the correction. Because that’s where the error is.
Yes, most of the world who knows who she is knows how she’s employed. It’s a little something called public knowledge: she does this for a living.
October 1, 2011 at 10:42 am
@Glau: Read what I said – this was not a spontaneous boo-boo. It was a premeditated video sermon. Being a public figure comes with perks – and responsibilities. Watson does not have the right to simply dismiss such elementary ignorance as a mistake – it displays her intellectual vacuity. She is not fit for the public stage.
October 2, 2011 at 7:39 am
franc hoggle:
I agree that when you have a sizable following you should be careful. But from what I can tell, she generally is that careful. It’s hard to point to just one mistake as evidence of carelessness.
The organizations with the most elaborate systems of preventing error fail. Take a major publisher of technical books, O’Reilly Media Inc. They are taken seriously and even they screw up. They publish the evidence online, even — every book at their website allows users to submit errors (errata) and some of their books’ errata pages are pages long.
To me, it seems a bit extreme to take a vlogger to task for an error that was noted and corrected quickly when much larger and more professional establishments — newspapers, television news and book publishers — make the same kind of mistakes and correct them in a similar fashion.
The correction’s tone may have been too flippant, but I don’t think that’s your complaint.
Finally, for curiosity’s sake as much as anything else, what do you do to prevent or correct errors in your blogging?
Justicar:
“Well, justify her paycheck for one thing.”
Unless you are funding her paycheck, I’m not sure you have the right to demand justification. I’m not sure how that relates to correcting mistakes, anyway.
I admit I don’t know how she’s employed. I’m guessing Skepchick isn’t big enough to pay anything past web server expenses, let alone a living wage. (I could be wrong, though, it’s a hard thing to judge.) Does anyone know how’s she’s employed?
October 2, 2011 at 10:46 am
My dear Glau, it is not just “one mistake”. Her entire life is a catalogue of narcissistic idiocy. Arrogance born of infallibility born of entitlement and special protected status she is given by those she has insinuated herself upon. This has become a culture of wholesale nepotic corruption – there is nothing “equal” here at all. Secularism has become an exclusive little Politboro style club.
Finally, for curiosity’s sake as much as anything else, what do you do to prevent or correct errors in your blogging?
Quite simple – I fact check beforehand. With the rare genuine errata, I am of the Hitchens school – leave the error intact, post corrected information, theorise on possible sources/causes of your error, and if necessary, apologise. More simply, the opposite of what Becky does – expect people to pretend it never happened and call those who won’t assholes.
October 3, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“Her entire life is a catalogue of narcissistic idiocy.”
As someone who’s watched some of her videos and found them generally interesting and thought-provoking. I read some of your other posts and didn’t find many specifics. Rather, they tended to generalize, which is probably expedient for people who are regulars, but leave someone like me who’s stumbled upon your blog wondering what specifically bothers you.
“With the rare genuine errata, I am of the Hitchens school – leave the error intact, post corrected information, theorise on possible sources/causes of your error, and if necessary, apologise.”
Thanks for your answer. As it happens, I agree; that method seems to be the most honest and straight-forward.
According to Watson, that’s exactly what she did. And if you watch the video, you can see her correction in the form of an annotation at 3:17.
October 3, 2011 at 6:09 pm
@Glau, watch this, I won’t embed it because I feel ill watching it –
It just oozes unpleasantness and spite in a very failed attempt to be amusing.
October 3, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Glau, this has been said several times, to include at least once here. By me. Explicitly.
The correction on the video of which you speak, despite Watson’s attestations, was not on the video. She claimed it was and it was simply not. If you go to my blog and watch the video I did on her video, you can plainly see it is not there. Nor was it in the video’s information bar. Nor was it written by her in the comments section. It simply did not exist.
It does now, and this is a good thing in that the error is recognized, properly flagged and corrected.
It only took like nearly a month for her to correct it in any meaningful way. After being repeatedly told that she had not corrected it, she still wrote an article claiming to have done within 10 minutes. This is patently untrue. I wrote my article about it on the 25th and it was still then not corrected, 20 days after she supposedly corrected it.
Also, you come here talking about how you’re not certain what she does for a living, but you guess it’s not from this.
You are horribly ill-informed on her. I suggest a little research is in order instead of just constantly pulling a “yeah but” out of your ass. The data are all publicly available and tediously, painstakingly documented. There is simply not a way to be ignorant of any of this unless one is choosing to do no homework.
Again, you can shout until you’re blue in the face that Watson claimed to have made the correction. We are aware of the claim. We are telling you it is a claim that is false, and this is publicly documented and verifiable.
As late as September 25th, there is video evidence that it remained uncorrected. I can personally vouch that such was the case for days after that, too. However, that’s only my word and no one should take me at it. The fact that as of 25 September it was uncorrected is, however, incontrovertibly true, as it documented on my blog. On video.
If you want specifics, as you seem to, then do the research. There are quite a lot of specifics out there to include what’s on my blog, where I go through a bit of her history comparing her stories against the publicly verifiable information that’s freely available to everyone to examine for themselves. She is, quite simply, a liar.
All that remains for you is to read what’s been written.
October 3, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Oh and Glau, while we’re on the subject, here’s a little extra credit bonus for you to do. Watch the video Franc just embedded here. Note that Watson says she’s answering the ‘one big question’ that she keeps ‘seeing over and over’: I’m a man, and I don’t see the problem in cornering a woman after she’s told me no, how can I get laid?
This is quite clearly a lie; that question or a rough approximation of it has appeared on no blog that I have been able to track down. So, perhaps you’ll do us all a favor by finding its appearance even one time. One would think this is a trivial matter since it’s the ‘one big’ question she’s seen all over the place.
Yet no one else in the universe can find it.
Happy snipe hunting.
October 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm
And I wanted to add since it started nagging at me as I went to read, and I figured completeness requires this be made mention: I do not for a moment accept that Franc is being vague or overly general in his writing. Yes, he does speak about general precepts of the Enlightenment which are being trespassed; however, how direct quotes and pointed responses to them, identifying what it is they breach can be considered general isn’t immediately clear.
For instance, in this article alone, he writes, “You are an uneducated,” followed in the next sentence with, “The Galileo gaffe is only your most visible atrocity against intellect”. General claim with a particularized example.
He writes, “For the record Becky, I don’t want you to “shut up”. I just want you to stop masquerading as a skeptic and a freethinker”. Pointed response to a quote by Watson, followed up by what he would rather see instead. “Creative license. Reminiscent of the typical ridicule via hyperbole sleight of hand trick she used to distract people from the reality of her randi.org ban using her “joke” Facebook Causes page. “. Two particular claims, each of which wit ha citation to the exact issue, in response to a precise quotation by Watson leading onto it . . . just a quick survey there at that.
October 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Dammit. WordPress now auto-embeds. Sorry, get your own eye bleach.
October 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Glau – what Justicar is talking about is “reality engineering”. It is not limited to Watson. Myers does it a lot as well. Both are in the habit of making claims without too much consideration, because both are so used to having obedient audiences that do not question. This is the “sloth” and “inertia” I mention. They have no respect for conventional reality where you need to be able to support claims – this is natural to us, but not to them. This is why it is so ridiculously easy to make both of them look like nitwits – they hate scrutiny. They are more used to preaching than discussing; more used to a faithful congregation than peers that speak back and question. They don’t like it at all – but it’s here to stay, and fuck their feelings.
October 4, 2011 at 5:06 pm
“It just oozes unpleasantness and spite in a very failed attempt to be amusing”
Say, isn’t that your deal franc hoggle?
October 4, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Hey aaron, are you the same “aaron” that engages in endless vegan guilt wars on those lover’s spat sites ThinkAtheistNexus? (and whatever other polyp sites that have fallen off)?
This item is for cherry-picking quote miners like PZ Myers
You sound like him, and you’re from Florida, and you keep coming back. If you are, that bandanna and wannabe goatee look makes you look like a fag* cruising Miami looking for sugar daddies with a Johnny Depp pirate fixation. Just FYI.
(* – not that I think you’re a fag, obviously. Fags tend to be smart, funny, educated and excellent company)
October 5, 2011 at 7:09 am
^Citation needed. Not sure what you’re on about, as I am not this person on these vegan lovers things. Links? Is this how you spend your time? Looking up your guests’ IPs and constructing wonderfully elaborate webs and stories about them? That’s some serious mental malfunctioning you are having, but hey, who am I talking to? It’s franc hoggle! The king of mental disorders! The man who defines cyberstalking and internet harassment, and mentally deranged obsessions! 😀 Good times buddy, don’t ever quit!
Nice touch with the “Hi! I’m a toilet slave!” nick, really demonstrates the level you operate on 😉
October 1, 2011 at 7:49 am
Ok, after reading this I came up with a more appropriate name for the blog:
“It Puts the Lotion on Its Skin: frightening ramblings from the twisted mind of Jard Laughner’s slightly more functional older brother.”
Obsession isn’t a good thing, bruh.
October 1, 2011 at 10:44 am
w00t. Some variation. A change is as good as a holiday. Thankyou. Now go back to picking fleas off Myers ass.
October 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Wow. In addition to being blindly obsessed with Watson, you’re a shitty comment troll on your own blog. The source of the “inadequate male” rage is becoming clear.
And though this is quite far down on the list of “shit you need to learn,” there’s a difference between offering a witty comeback and giving into the pathetic impulse to just get in the last word on the internet. You’re clearly one of those dullards that thinks posting last means you’ve accomplished something. I preemptively submit your response to this post as evidence of that phenomenon.
October 1, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Another one that thinks it’s different to the other ones. Listen baboon boy or girl – you want a serious response, you first have to say something other than “you are an inadequate male”. Discourse does not work like that – you can’t throw dung and demand civility in return. This is the baboon board’s entire problem. You’re just such an entitled pack of mindless little dweebs. What would you do if you didn’t have your Emperor to mimic?
October 2, 2011 at 12:52 pm
That was a pretty impressive failure on a number of levels.
First, I’m not demanding or even requesting a civil response from you. I know that even if you were capable of forming such thoughts, your meager writing skills would forestall any expression of such in these comments. If you had managed something even marginally witty, that would have been something.
But great work. POOP FUNNY, HAHAHA. Good stuff. Somewhere a sixth grader is taking notes, well played, sir. Oh, and “baboon boy,” what a stroke of genius. Clearly nothing will stop your meteor from rising.
Again, you’re just a pissy, angry idiot that spends a disturbing amount of time harassing a woman via the internet.
October 2, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Ad himinems* – 11 (possibly more, not re-counting)
On topic relevancies – 0
Thank you.
* – as opposed to ad hominems. Would be too much of a weenie to talk this way to a girl
October 2, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Holy shit you got the big red text! It’s only missing the Comic Sans.
October 1, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Solid. So solid. As always, I am impressed.
October 1, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Yes I agree, she was not supposed to bite…I am surprised too.
October 1, 2011 at 1:37 pm
That’s what you get for overestimating her intelligence – free Skepchick advertising. Its all good.
October 1, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Not fair….She out-clowned me.
Her Dramatica was so absurd I never thought she would fall for it.
BTW she never mentioned Dawkins’s Dramatica. Convenient.
1k new visitors so far…
October 1, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Out-clowned you?
October 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Grr. Fucking auto-fill messing up my link!
October 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm
It accepts old school html here. Use notepad and hand code. Thought you were a geek?
October 1, 2011 at 2:10 pm
No, for my name, not anything I’ve written. It’s been using a dead link for who knows how long.
October 2, 2011 at 1:03 am
[…] criticism I’ve hammered out thus far, as blogger Franc Hoggle notes in this excerpt from the grey lining’s recent write-up: Then there’s a dig at someone just “randomly” plucked from the ether […]
October 2, 2011 at 5:28 am
YAY! More rational women discussing and pointing out with wonderful clarity Watson’s hypocrisy and fundamental dishonesty.
The only negative is that they, understandabley, feel that Watson is so inconsequential as to not warrant further action such as posting comments on other blogs. Aah well; can’t have everything.
October 5, 2011 at 7:52 am
Aww, is that Adrienne Myers chiming in on the hoggle’s internet diarrhea? How tremendously fitting 😀 What a bunch of derps. LMFAO!
October 2, 2011 at 6:01 am
Lookie! Watson is butthurt!: writing about the bullies ( http://bit.ly/mWGhTB has enraged the bullies: http://twitpic.com/6tk7te
October 3, 2011 at 2:00 am
“Effective use of language to communicate a point. And “ridicule” is what I said it was – a rhetorical tool. A tool does whatever the hand that wields it tells it to do. There is some outright stupid ridicule, such as the Encyclopedia Dramatica Watson entry.”
See? even outright stupid ridicule was effective. She brought it up because it worked. That implication can’t have flown under your radar.
If rhetoric is a tool I will let you use the silver spanners while I use the excremental trebuchet.
October 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I think you nailed it when you speak about perks and responsibilities.
Becky seems to want (is entitled to) all the perks of the position, with none of the responsibilities.
October 5, 2011 at 1:12 am
Well this morning I finally found out I was not alone in this battle against cuntzilla, man these people have more than all of my photomanips and poop flinging: http://twitter.com/#!/Lizpuller
October 5, 2011 at 1:28 am
More info please. What did they do to poor Becky? Sounds like there is a story there.