Talk:PZ Myers/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 September 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

PZ Myers[edit]

Should this page be under "PZ Myers", the name he's pretty much universally known as? Using the full name "Paul Zachary Myers" is pretty much a CP affectation - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should, it's his name. The other versions are redirects to here, IIRC. I don't understand what CP has to do with this. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fire-breathing New Atheist, huh? (on profiling)[edit]

That militant, fire-breathing New Atheist really hates religious people, doesn't he? That's sarcasm.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


The politics of Myers is clearly relevant and he's stated his opposition to Mitt Romney several times. I've improved the wording. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

His politics are kinda relevant, I guess. I mean, as much as anybody's. If I'm looking for decent political analysis, there are a few hundred people I'd read before this guy. You've barely improved the wording. JubalHarshaw (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do you want some specific criticism of your writing style? Here you are:
  • It seems that you treat text as a list of unrelated sentences.
  • As a consequence, it also seems that you treat articles as lists of facts without any attempt at connecting them in some chain of logic or a narrative with some point. You don't provide any context or analysis other than the elementary. You also don't seem to grasp the concept of "relevance" and the relative weight of what different facts say about the subject of the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You need to first briefly describe his political stance and tell the reader why it matters. Then give some examples of positions he's taken and debates he's been involved in. Dude is a scientist, so you should probably focus on where his profession and his politics overlap--his takes on funding for scientific research or the place of science in public-school curricula are going to be interesting. His take on T-Paw is not interesting, because unless he got to interview Tim, or somehow had access to the inner workings of the campaign, he's probably just going off of what he read in the NYT. As a scientist with an interest in politics, he can bring some value added to questions about the politics of science. There is no reason to get into his views on taxation or the inner workings of the Romney campaign, 'cause he's really saying things that a lot of other people--people with better access to sources and a trained approach to how to deal with them--are saying better, and in much more high-profile settings. JubalHarshaw (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree the political views of Myers are less well informed than his science or his free thought campaigning but we're describing Myers as a person and that's all relevant. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool, I'll write up a section on his dislike of cats later. ТyBother me 17:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
EC No it's not. There are lots of things about the guy as a person that aren't relevant. Does he floss? Boxers or briefs? Left-handed? Right-handed? What's his favorite food? Who was his favorite Beatle? What does he think about Tim Pawlenty's decision to bail on Romney? In an article on a wiki that is largely about science and politics, those questions aren't really important. The stuff I mentioned above is. JubalHarshaw (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The above comments are a really good summary of how to understand what matters to a person's bio at RW (and probably other places). What is he active in? In this case, of course, biology, but also the atheist movement and his position within that movement on feminist issues. What is he saying that is a unique take on something? not politics, in this case, cause he's really just regurgatating what others have said, but perhaps he had some deep insight as a person who has met Obama or Romney, perhaps he taught a class with Obama. Then his insight is unique and worth mentioning. You can do a "toss on", especially if it is not apparent that he thinks this way. "Despite being a liberal feminist who is for Greener politics, he supports Romeny". then it's relevant, cause it's unexpected. If he has strong enough feelings about peace, or about torture that he publicly does not support Obama's rather centrist views, then that, too, might be note worthy.Green mowse.pngGodotrien ne marcherait 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Open Forum[edit]

"Pharyngula is quite an open forum and it takes much to get banned from there." The reference link is broken -I wonder what it could possibly have been anyway- which causes me to wonder why this is here. Is this true? At RW, much to my chagrin, we have banned two people for life- MC and Tisane; however In comparison to Pharyngula I think we look like 4chan. What do you guys reckon?Tielec01 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't spent enough time at either Pharyngula or 4chan to comment on the comparisons, but your facts about RW are wrong. MC got a 2 year ban, & Tisane got 1 year; both will expire this August. AFAIK we haven't ever permabanned a legit editor. There are some user accounts in the block log with infinite bans, but they're all either sockpuppets or spambots. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Justice for the fascists is coming! The RationalWiki revolution is near at hand! He shall return in glory!
In all seriousness, yes, RW is quite unlike any community forum-type site, not just for the number and proliferation of admins and ultra-liberal block policy. The 4chan comparison was strongest in the first few years of our existence but is still somewhat relevant today. Blue (is useful) 00:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, moderators on 4chan have little accountability and are happy to ban on a whim. Especially on boards with heavy populations of anons--"Shut up, Brx." 00:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, cheers for the correction Weaseloid Surely the two year ban for MC is coming up to expiry then? In any case I'm still left wondering how much of an open forum Pharyngula is. Obviously the problem is that the comment is non-specific, what I consider open is probably different to Blue and so on. Does anyone know if there are precise rules that PZ uses, or is it more of an ad hoc approach to banning? Tielec01 (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record: Pharyngula's comment policy (read the whole thing), and how that policy works out in practice. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Should this stay in the article?[edit]

Myers is strongly critical of misogyny, lack of respect for women and sexual harassment, he even criticises skeptical organisations over this. [1]

Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't see how the citation backs the claim. It's a bunch of e-mails from people who aren't Myers. Plus the sentence is really poorly constructed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
What with the previous sentence saying that Myers has taken a stand on the "feminist side" in the ongoing conflict over feminism, it seems rather redundant to point out that he's critical of misogyny, lack of respect for women and sexual harassment. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


I think Myers views are relevant.


“Religion of Peace,” my ass; Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate.
—<ref>[ "Mohammed’s dead hand still ruins lives from the grave"]</ref>

Myers has also criticized Islam quite strongly. He used the title "Vile Islam" in a blog post regarding a Bangladeshi husband who cut the fingers off his wife's right hand when she went to college without his consent.<ref>[ "Vile Islam"]</ref> <ref>[ Bangladeshi woman's husband 'chopped off her fingers']</ref> More recently Myers criticised [[Bangladesh]]i law because four atheists face up to 14 years imprisonment after posting material critical of Islam and [[Muhammad]] online. <ref>[ Dangerous nerds]</ref> Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

yeah isn't this the guy who said that Michael Shermer raped somebody? I guess to appeal to the whacky sensibilities of the ultra feminist atheists, who also tried to smear Pat Condell for thinking the wrong way (not liberal enough), and claim that atheism is a misogynist front and that criticizing Islam is somehow un-atheist. What was the proof that Shermer raped someone? So rational. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
He published a few anonymous accounts of being saying that Shermer sleeps with extremely drunk women (which, if true, is rape, though part of me doubts Shermer would think so). He himself didn't actually take a stance on whether or not they were true (though you can definitely argue that that doesn't mean much functionally). As for Condell, he's hardly the first to point out that Condell's "criticism" veers rather quickly into outright racism ("Islam" isn't a race; though you'd never know from listening to Condell).ChrisB (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You might have a point, if Condell went on about smelly Arabs and how they have smaller brains than white people or something like that. Saying an idea is stupid has nothing to do with saying someone is superior or inferior racially. By that logic, a woman who says that Christianity is male centered is guilty of misandry.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 07:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Condell's views are full of prejudice, overgeneralisation and vile hate, backed up with intentionally cherry-picked examples. Whether you want to call that "racism" or not on a technicality ("because Islam isn't a race") is pretty trivial... but anyway, what's particularly noteworthy about PZ's views on Islam? Does he single it out for extra special treatment in some way? I've never really seen anything out of the ordinary from PZ on the subject. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, criticizing Islam is basically being racist. By saying an ideology is destructive and idiotic, you're pretty much saying that arabs are inferior people. Are you serious? By that logic, someone who hates Judaism is anti-Semitic. You're all idiots. Rationalwiki indeed.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 07:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Myers is guilty of using the word misogyny in the same way Joe McCarthy used the word communist.Shinola (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Shermer[edit]

Is it really not worth mentioning that he called Michael Shermer a serial rapist and recieved a cease and desist letter forcing him to retract his statements? Hobby (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See discussions here. I'm not aware of any retraction by PZM (link please?) & he hasn't taken down the accusatory blog posts from Pharyngula. If there are sources available confirming the outcome of that feud, it may be worth covering. Are there? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as we can tell it's fizzled out. Myers hasn't retracted and Shermer hasn't sued despite getting funds for legal action. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The one thing that is clear is Shermer and Myers are both fucked.Shinola (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If you say so. Also, that's a two years old discussion you're replying to. Typhoon (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the correspondents are dead by now.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Myers and divisions[edit]

PZ Myers is ready to be divisive and I’m sure a great deal of the time his divisiveness is over issues that justify divisions. Still I fear some of the divisions Myers gets into may harm the movement, Below is a recent example. What happened to This Week in Christian Nationalism?

Despite the fact that I’ve long appreciated her (Chris Rodda’s) work and think she was an asset to the network, this criticism was apparently the final straw for her, and she left. Maybe that’s for the best, given that she seems to think “atheist” is a legally actionable slander, and also that she thinks the praise of the HuffPo readership is actually worth something. (PZ Myers writing in the above link)

Five to ten minutes researching the web or an email to someone from the legal department of his university would have shown Myers a little reality. Calling someone an atheist falsely is defamation in American law providing there is negligence or bad intent and provided the person or entity is harmed. See Defamation from Cornell University and Actually, calling Mikey Weinstein an atheist IS Defamation!. (The second is a blog but I’ve found Patheos reliable. Paul Loebe who wrote the above blog post thinks PZ Myers may have harmed efforts to stop Christian fundamentalists treating the US military as a theocracy.) Prejudice against Atheists in the USA is such that falsely calling a person or organization atheist harms the reputation of the person/organization.

I think Myers needs monitoring to maximize the good he does to our movement and minimize the bad divisions. In the long run Myers and the Pharyngula blog will probably benefit if Myers is more careful what he writes. In PZ Myers I deal with what I feel is good and what I feel may need constructive criticism.

Anyway after about nine months monitoring Pharyngula I still think most of what Myers does is good. When he does something I feel is worth including In RationalWiki I write something. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No doubt about it: Myers is an idiot-savant.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Courtier's reply[edit]

Which is better? _____________________________________________________________________

Myers is famous for his "courtier's reply", which refutes the common claim that only clergy and those who have studied theology thoroughly are qualified to analyze matters of faith.<ref>PZ Myers, [ "The Courtier's Reply"], ''Pharyngula'', 24 December 2006.</ref> The claim is that only clergy and theologians understand the necessary technical jargon and other relevant material sufficiently well so they can understand religious work properly and make relevant comments. A good example of this claim is the way the atheist activism and writing of Myers' buddy Richard Dawkins are criticized. Many people are quick to suggest that Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist does not have the authority to criticize the faith of others.

The courtier's reply asserts that theologians must consider their own qualifications as well. Theology is such a vast field even experts cannot master the whole of it. Theologians cannot possibly read all the related material by other theologians, cannot become unparalleled authority on holy texts from ancient times, etc. Therefore their own qualifications are based on their own perspective and relative to begin with. The argument, 'You haven't read enough on it!' means very little when even the greatest authorities on the topic also cannot 'read enough on it' and cannot possibly become irrefutable gatekeepers of their subject.

Or _____________________________________________________________________

Myers is famous for his "courtier's reply" refuting the common claim that only clergy and theologians are qualified to analyze faith questions.<ref>PZ Myers, [ "The Courtier's Reply"], ''Pharyngula'', 24 December 2006.</ref> Critics claim only clergy and theologians understand the necessary technical jargon and other relevant material well enough so they can understand religious work and make relevant comments. A good example is the way critics treat what Myers' buddy Richard Dawkins says and writes in the course of his atheist activism. Many people suggest Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist does not have the authority to criticize faith. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The courtier's reply points out that theologians must consider their own qualifications as well. Theology is such a vast field even experts cannot master the whole of it. Theologians cannot possibly read all the related material by other theologians, cannot become unparalleled authority on holy texts from ancient times, etc. Therefore their own qualifications are based on their limited knowledge and are inevitably relative. The argument, 'You haven't read enough on it!' means very little when even the greatest authorities on the topic also cannot 'read enough on it' and cannot possibly become irrefutable gatekeepers of their subject.

Myers uses the popular Hans Christian Anderson story The Emperor's New Clothes. In his sequel people are told that the king is not actually naked, and anyone stating this is just ignorant of the many volumes written about royal fashion. Meanwhile the townsfolk can plainly see the King's genitals and can well make their own judgement based on what they observe. Scientists and New Atheists can test the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis without reading every imaginable book on the subject or considering every established theological angle. They are discussing evidence, qualified scientists and others who understand the scientific method can test whether there is evidence for God. Similarly the eyes of the townsfolk were enough to recognize that their King was naked.

Mine. The second one is a confused jumble. The concept is clear and doesn't require a blow-by-blow of a fairy tale to illustrate it. If you really want to nod to the fairy tale, include a link to the original in the external links section. TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: the summary in the Courtier's Reply article ("like telling the child in the fable to study haute couture before he can properly discuss whether the Emperor is naked") does in 21 words what your block paragraph doesn't--summarizes the story in a clear, relevant and on-point manner. TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Atheist Ireland[edit]

Is our article complete if we exclude their dissociation from PZ? It seems this AI decision was made by their Executive Committee and regional chairs and such. I hold no opinion on the reasons for AI's decision per se, but wonder about excluding this action from the article?---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing that makes me feel more smug than another tempest in the New Atheist teapot. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty much with PZ in his differences with the NAs -- and don't care if he said mean things about Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- but he does go too far in my view on occasion. But really, my thinking is just that if a pretty major atheist organization has essentially excommunicated him our article isn't complete if we don't include that fact.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Atheists can excommunicate? "Excommunication is an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular reception of the sacraments." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I was being hyperbolic, snarky. But clearly they've formally denounced the guy.---Mona- (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This article reports on the matter (as usual) in a complete false way. Michael Nugent has documented it all. He started out as an ally and friend of PZ Myers, but when they began smearing Richard Dawkins in increasingly extreme and unjust ways, he dared to criticize PZ Myers, which is of course absolutley verboten. I spare you the details, but I know it well since I was present and am well connected to the Irish side. My suggestion is this: document the matter in a truthful way. Let's say that when I find that section in such a bad shape next year (Jan 4th), I'll report it. I won't edit anything here, since I know from experience that it will be reverted anyway. I have a very low opinion of those who smear genuinely great people who do important social justice activism, for education, for women and against discrimmination in Ireland and even elsewhere (since they reported to the UN and provide model cases). — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 14:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that your 'report' will go anywhere, since everyone knows that Slymepitters such as you are obsessed with attacking PZ whenever they can. And yes, you were indeed "present and well connected" to this drama, since PZ decrying Nugent's continuing associating with Slymepitters such as you played an important part in this. Typhoon (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Report means sharing links around, which I could do anytime without much ado. It's also not a big deal from your perspective. After all, when this is what you genuinely want to assert, then it's simply that and no problem at all, from your point of view. I naturally see it differently. It was only a courtesy to point out that this might not go down well just in case editors have a second thoughts on this. — Aneris Ѽ 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Would be nice if you could get some objectivity into this section on the main article. Right now it looks like a one-sided fanboy apologetic of PZ Myers with a style closer to Encyclopedia Dramatica than RW. Regardless of the truth of the matter, the section comes off as very defensive and butthurt. Might help if someone both neutral and well-informed were to pick up a shovel and salvage this thing. (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow this website really has a boner for PZ. Could Michael Nugents "vendetta" against PZ possibly stem from the fact that he called him "the Irish wanker"? (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The "haven for rapists" accusation was probably appreciated even less. But you know, PZ Myers is just an edgelord. All mild and good ol' fun. ~ Aneris 17:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
PZ can go too far in his hyperbole, but it seems he was on the side of the angels with the Shermer stuff. That this Shermer matter is a large reason Nugent is a Myer antagonist should be included.---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
✻ Strong stuff, Mona. You deem PZ Myers accusation acceptable, despite that it was made out of thin air, without evidence, and without any relevance? And not only that, you also believe it's acceptable to bring the word “rapist” next to a good activist — Michael Nugent — who has nothing to do with the situation? And PZ Myers, smearmeister without evidence is “on the side of the angels”? Strong stuff, Mona. Wouldn't I know better I would believe you were trolling. And hypocrites as usual, not even the RationalWiki has repeated the accusations. Why exactly do you want Michael Nugent, from the other end of the world, to lead the charge against Shermer then? As usual, the facts are against you. Again. And this time it's much less excusable. You write about real people, who do great work and as far as I can tell are always out on the street for their causes. They also do social justice activism, including for women, which is admirable. Like here, or here.
✻ Michael Nugent has detailed what happened, read it. If you feel lazy, you can also read a shorter version. Still in good terms with PZ Myers, he tried to argue with him in private, asking him to tone down his extreme rhetoric. Again, the RationalWiki isn't much of a help (it's ironically ERV's that is described as unhinged, unlike Myers' famously “rude” place], see here or here, or here, note: the rape shock insult made to a meme, it was that popular). Yes, these “rude” people later claimed to be the PC police. Hilarious, I know. Back to the thing: So when private reasoning didn't pan out...
In November 2013 Nugent was particularly aggrieved at the vitriol leveled at Richard Dawkins by social justice orientated commentators – including Myers. Nugent’s aggravation was increased in July and August 2014 when further attacks took place. Nugent wrote a series of posts defending Dawkins. In August 2014 Nugent wrote Myers a private letter, copying in Dawkins and fellow FtB blogger Ophelia Benson. The letter formally requested of PZ that he “promot(e) compassion and empathy and social justice if those ideas are important to you” and again rein in the vitriol. The letter was ignored.
Brive's summary version
✻ So, where's Shermer? You can go digging. He's not there, yet. He was not a topic. Michael Nugent dared to criticize PZ Myers, which is – as everyone knows – absolutely verboten. You just can't. And you don't. He's clergy and pretty much like all the SJ folks beyond criticism. That's holy dogma. To keep matters short, PZ Myers lives in a hermetically sealed echo-chamber when his (self-styled) “Horde” began to ask the following question: “Why is Nugent going after Lord O Peezus, Lord Savior, and not after Michael Shermer, the greater evil?” They're US centrists and cultural imperialist and only know their petty concerns and think their particular problems are everywhere the same. Dear Muslima: outrage, but everyone must care about their issues, or else!
✻You could then see the telephone games and interaction playing out in real time. PZ's Hordelets would come to Michael Nugent's blog and began with the whataboutery. Michael Nugent is an Irish Activist and they have anti-defamation laws that are quite harsh. He's also a chairperson of an organisation that actually tries to function. Therefore he didn't allow commenters to repeat libellous statements on his blog pertaining to rape accusations, whilst naming the name. You could still post openly and people actually did. I was there, too. When they saw that the name (only) with libel couldn't be mentioned, the Hordelets and PZ Myers made a standard SJW maneuvre called DARVO as used by these people all the time. This is how this whole thing emerged. At no point was it about Michael Shermer from Nugent's side. It's also known that people first become an “suppressive person” and then FTB bloggers and hordelets afterwards come up with the rationalisation. They were frustrated that they couldn't control the narrative over at Michael Nugents blog, and he didn't give in (unlike other people who had been bullied and pressured in the past), and that's when they resorted to this smearing. It's really nothing new, just unprecedented that the target had an impeccable record. Everyone could see with clarity then, except of course when you only exist in Bizarro Universe and actualy believe the RationalWiki or people at Freethought Blogs and their bizarre version of things.
✻ So let's ask again: why do you want Michael Nugent, an activist in Ireland, to deal with some American Skeptic who is pretty much an unknown in Europe and why should he care about an incident that was reported to have taken place nearly 8000 km away, at the other end of the world? Why exactly? Michael Nugent cares about Richard Dawkins and that actually make a lot of sense, which you would know as an European. ~ Aneris 02:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, my views on the Shermer issue are informed by articles like this. James Randi is quoted therein, and I have respect for Randi, who has strong credibility:

“Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that,” Randi told me. “I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference.

“His reply,” Randi continued, “is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn’t remember.

I don’t know — I’ve never been drunk in my life. It’s an unfortunate thing… I haven’t seen him doing that. But I get the word from people in the organization that he has to be under better control. If he had gotten violent, I’d have him out of there immediately. I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.”

The same site has this additional post that further supports the accusations about Shermer and some who support him, including Nugent.---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I'm an American.---Mona- (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please Mona, the charge in the room is: "defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists." and you got this:
There’s also Michael Nugent, chairperson of Atheist Ireland, who wrote several lengthy posts criticizing [Adam Lee's] Guardian article. Most of Nugent’s criticisms consist of endless hyperskeptical hair-splitting; but when I brought up the point about how Dawkins was clearly speculating about the Shermer case, this is what he said [...] In that context, Nugent’s assertion that “allegations of rape should be reported to the police, not to bloggers” can only reasonably be read as a claim that rape victims should keep quiet and not speak to the media. (bold mine)
Nope, and that's obvious too. And even addressed here. Even when you don't find it sufficient and you disagree, does it justify the extreme smear?
I believe victims of sex crimes should discuss their experience in as much detail as they wish with rape crisis professionals, doctors, lawyers, family, trusted friends, persons with responsibility for the circumstances involved, and whoever else can help them deal with the unique trauma they have experienced. I also believe we need better education and responsible media reporting to make the public aware of the nature of sex crimes and how to combat them, including how to improve the police service to make reporting less traumatic.
Keep in mind what you try to justify: "defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists." You can't be serious. And Adam Lee's piece was abysmal and for the record he's also of the same gang as PZ Myers' lot (some more outside FTB are too, e.g. Amanda Marcotte, Libby Anne, etc. while some within FTB are not, confusingly -- hence halway jokingly term "Social Justice League" was used for them). That's dismaying that such extreme smears are levelled at good social justice activists and parroted by you such carelessly. Now you're clutching straws instead of admitting that PZ Myers pulled it out of his backside. Admit you're wrong and help clean up the article appropriately. This should be changed and become critical of PZ Myers, not Michael Nugent. ~ Aneris 03:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The harassers and misogynists part can also apply to the Slymepit. Who are known to have a toxic presence on any blog comment section and have been rushing to defend Nugent and attack PZ.
It’s worth noting here that people from the Slymepit have been a major part of the commenters at Nugent’s blog for a couple years now, and a huge part of the anti-PZ voice there.
You're one of those Slymepitters, Aneris. I think you might be a little biased in your reasons for defending Nugent. Typhoon (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It could mean anything, because PZ Myers has never clarified what he truly means and presented no evidence. He left it vague and others have picked it up from there to salavage his smear. It's extraordinary what is happening here, because PZ Myers' is treated like a prophet whose every word is believed first, no matter how nonsensical, and then people try hard to rationalize and salvage it. Then you see exegesis of his words, instead of dismissing them as utter nonsense. Here's a rundown:
  • PZ Myers makes an extremely damaging accusation, doesn't explain properly what he means, doesn't provide evicence.
  • Standard rationally operating people would look at the nature of the accusation, the evidence, the damage it does and consider something like proportions. They'll note where the burden of proof lies (with PZ Myers).
  • If he can't state clearly what he means, and the statements are extraordinary enough, you can simply dismiss them without a second thought and make a note that PZ Myers is prone to throw out strong accusations and that it should perhaps be considered against PZ Myers. What he wrote here is extraordinary, and should be dismissed as easily. It's also not mere “hyperbole”, and ought to be taken into account, too.
  • PZ Myers fans for sure aren't rationally operating individuals, or to be nice here, are chroncially misinformed. The burden of proof is pushed on other people and the ordeal is prolongued based on nothing and flimsiest of claims scratched together. Instead of saying: “PZ Myers is a complete idiot and wrote something that has no basis in reality, we don't entertain this for more than 3 seconds” its carried around and around and around and spread around and smeared around and around by Mona and other people. That's just morally corrupt and extraordinarily vile.
  • To make matters even more bizarre, PZ Myers actually did provide a haven for a (self-admitted!) child rapist of three. This individual was allegedly forced to abuse someone in an earlier incident (story 1), and in a second situation, when he was twelve years old, he raped (his words) three girls much younger or even toddlers while on a babysitter job (story 2). He himself wrote:
I didn't stop before raping three young girls
—Freethought Blogs regular, on the babysitter incident (story 2)
You’re still a good, and a nice, persson. Nothing you’ve done or said here has ccahnged that.
—other Freethought Blogs regular, to the above, around comment 180s
You never stopped being a person we love.
—yet another Freethought Blogs regular (and so on)
Elyse, who got this threat started, writes when seeing this:
[...] I cannot read through it. Now that there are stories of abusers asking victims to tell them it’s okay. Now that the thread has comments telling child abusers that they would let them watch their own kids. Now that this is a safe place for abusers to describe the abuse they’ve inflicted, I cannot do it. I’ve unsubscribed from this thread because this is, right now, the only place where I am being triggered. This was a situation I never ever imagined would happen and so it’s not something I emotionally prepared for. [...]
—Elyse, former SkepChick writer
  • So when this individual came out with that story 2, whether true or not (we only have his words) the comment section on Freethought Blogs reacted like a cult, where you have to confess things and are forgiven. They cheered him on, even said they would have him babysit their own kids. Not trolls mind you. Well established regulars! And not just them. You can see this in all glory here or here. Here's more circling the wagons much later around this indivual and when it came up in context of the dispute with Nugent.
  • Grimly ironically, PZ Myers stood up for this individual and provided some apologia too (what he writes is false, just check the material) and Ophelia Benson, who at the time compared Nugent to the Catholic Church for allegedly covering up something (which he didn't) herself removed clarification about this self-admitted child rapist. I know this since I posted plain links to her blog where she could inform herself, and she deleted that. The thing gets several levels more bizarre when you keep in mind how this episode came up: A pharyngula regular named Janine/Janphar felt “Bored now” after an argument lost against me, and then asked me whether I think this FTB-regular was a rapist — thinking there was a “gotcha!” there (the gotcha works by confusing story 1 with story 2, or because the cult has convinced itself the two stories are one or something).
  • Where does that leave us now? Who's providing a haven for a child rapist? Somewhere in Alternate Universe, there would be pages filled to the brim with the dubious exploits of PZ Myers and his gang, and people like Michael Nugent had the pristine and nice page they deserve. ~ Aneris 17:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

/* The Eternal Thread and its descendants[edit]

I removed this. Was I right to? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Atheist Ireland section[edit]

That is a huge block quote, and looks really lazy. Does anybody who actually knows about the situation want to re-write it as an actual RW analysis of the event, instead of just repeating several hundred words of someone else's work? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I do, but the real situation in the real universe is somewhat different from Bizarro Universe in which the RationalWiki exists. And why ruin a hilarious article when a check on the facts make you easily see how the RW lies, yet again?. In reality, you would want to incorporate the facts I pointed out in the block just above. ~ Aneris 22:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Or, you could add them? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
As tempting as it is, I would prefer it, if the RationalWiki would report the facts, considers where people are coming from (including having empathy) and doesn't try to outdo the Encyclopedia Dramatica, and foremost being honest and critical with itself and the subject matter. This is an undertaking that is bigger than this article. You have to ask yourself if this wants to be a useful, humanistic, emphatic project that helps people (by providing the facts) or whether you want to score gotcha points and only trample on people (in the current design: perceived opponents). In this situation it should reflect to PZ Myers and his fans where they flew off the handrail, but also showing why they argue the way they do (there's a context, too, even if they are mistaken). Ideally, both sides understand where each is coming from, and that can be done without False Balance. ~ Aneris 00:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Both or all sides where reasonable people disagree should be at least cited. But there is no reason we cannot find one positions(s) more reasonable and compelling than another(s).---Mona- (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer it, if the RationalWiki would report the facts Well, you know, since you're a registered user on RW, and therefore a part of RW, maybe you could add you edits into the article? <_< Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Aneris could do that. Just because some (possibly a majority) might not accept all that he sets forth doesn't mean he shouldn't give it a go. Inane dismissals about how we other editors all live in "Bizarro Universe" is just lazy. Make your edits, Aneris -- then defend them, if you can.---Mona- (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll give it a go in the next days. But my view is neither inane nor lazy, but simply a matter of fact *sigh* how often does it needs demonstration? Everything even in the periphery of a certain tribalistic situation was reverted, regardless of facts. Here you have yet another example. Revdeleted. It's well sourced. The words in quotation marks are taken from notable people, Coyne and Pinker. The format of the episode fits into the other disputes already detailled on the page. Still gone. See the reason (tribalism). Stuff like this is blatantly obvious by now, not just in the process of having things reverted, but also by looking at the articles. When it helps one perceived side, you find minute detail and over-contextualization. But when it comes to the perceived own side and it might be “giving ammo to the wrong people” it's the exact other direction. The pages tend to be scrubbed clean, especially given the sheer drama some people were involved in every other week. If you know this, the absence of evidence is evidence (of censors). And it's here right under your nose, too. This article does it too.
It didn't took long for people to find out that this all happened because Michael Nugent, founder/chair of Atheist Ireland, has a personal vendetta against Myers [huge quotation]
Who are those “people” who “found out”? It doesn't say. It's actually Ashley Miller who blogs at Freethought Blogs. And who owns and co-founded Freethought Blogs? That would be PZ Myers! She was even briefly involved in the dispute with Michael Nugent. She is far from being a neutral third as the article wants us to believe, who “found out”. If you click on the footnote, you'll find that the shared network was also omitted. What a surprise! Incidentially, I know that such information was also removed/reverted at other places, and it's also part of a common pattern. It's also part of what the GamerGaters complain about, by pure happenstance. It's was a common trick in the secular movement, too. One aspect is the Fox News “some people say” technique we see here, another one is collusion of people who know each other but where their connections are obscured. So again, all of this is plain obvious to me, and a known trick. I also know megatons of silent evidence, i.e. information that should be on the page, but that is conspiciously missing. So mona you can always keep pretending that this was all by pure coincidence, until next time and this dialogue repeats itself, yet again. So, not only is this an ugly quotation block. Not only is it completely false. It's written by blogging colleague of PZ Myers, a fact that was carefully obscured, and passed off as some neutral source who seemingly “found out” independently. ~ Aneris 06:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
She is far from being a neutral third as the article wants us to believe <- that applies double to you, since you're a member of the Slymepit who have been raging about PZ and Freethought Blogs FOR YEARS now. Slymepitters are also playing a huge part in this mess, as they crawl all over Nugent's blog. Typhoon (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you trying to underscore the points made by Aneris RE: Tribalsim, Typhoon? Who gives a shit what forum they are in, is what Aneris saying true? If so, the article is being misleading. Tielec01 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The article isn't misleading. Aneris is just being a disingenuous concern troll. Ashley Miller's summary of this slapfight is the most neutral and complete one can find. This of course angers slymepitters such as Aneris who have been launching character assassination attempts at PZ and Miller every day for many years now. Slymepitters have played an important part in this argument, they have a strong presence on Nugents blog comments and have been trying to blow this out of proportion as part of their crusade agains PZ and anyone at Freethought blogs. Years before Aneris created an account on this wiki, he's been complaining about our article on Thunderf00t and even unsuccessfully tried to doxx David Gerard. Typhoon (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Well Aneris, I agree that the huge block of quotation is both ugly and, while I am a heavy user of quotations, they should not generally substitute for our own analysis. (Didn't AgingHippie already make this point?) But frankly, I don't give a shit if the people saying X, Y and Z all are somehow networked. This is common and does not undermine anyone's logic or fact claims if these stand up under scrutiny. Moreover, I don't care about "neutrality." At all. It's not possible in political disputes. No one has an actual View From Nowhere. But if you think any particular source holds affiliations that require disclosure, that's fine. But such affiliations do not per se undermine their claims. After all, the affiliations may exist because people who see things most accurately affiliate for that reason.---Mona- (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I've went and condensed it, even thought I still think the previous version was more complete (can people not read anything longer than a pamphlet?). Typhoon (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon, it isn't a matter of whether anyone can "read something longer than a pamphlet." The issue is whether a quote longer than a pamphlet is suitable for a wiki article. It's not. Now, I just read reference note 24, the Athiest Ireland statement on PZ in which links to his statements are actually embedded -- as they are not in AI's original. What AI did to PZ is just shocking in it's fundamental, quote-mining dishonesty. I'm appalled. And I don't even agree with all that PZ actually said, and in what context (I respect Karen Armstrong, for one thing). ---Mona- (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

{1} You can be biased, inane or a chronical liar. It doesn't matter. It matters whether what is stated is true and if other people, who read it (and go check things) would find the claims made in the article plausible or reasonable.
{2} The problem was not that Ashley Miller is biased, but that her quote-block is passed off as neutral writing of some independent third writer. The problem here is omitting her relationship with PZ Myers, and that she was herself involved. The situation is not mirrored, since I don't hide anything and don't claim to be a neutral observer. If I write things, I care wheter my statements can be corroborated independently and are found reasonable. That's the yard-stick. Otherwise point 1 holds.
{3} The other claims made and repeated by Typhoon are also false, again. Look at this article who edited it. Was there edit warring? Did a lot of angry people try to change it? It don't see it. Once again, opinions, liars and biased people aside: there is a reality out there.
{4} The “doxing” is even more bizarre, and Typhoon claimed this already several times. This is a serious allegations, I'm grateful that apparently nobody takes Typhoon seriously. Which is adequate, since it's nonsense. In reality? In Atheist-Skeptics Sitcom s03e235 Richard Carrier accused Thunderf00t of being a “sociopath”. In that kerfuffle, someone brought attention to the RationalWiki and the claim was made that it was “overrun by baboons” (the mock term for the self styled “horde”, then official name of the Freethought Blogs commentariat). What was this alleged doxing? Well, I went checking the claim instead of believing it. It hints you at a difference in how the Slymepit works. People check things. They want sources and stuff. So I found that an “interesting edit” apparently made “by an Admin User named David Gerard, who posts under that name at FreeThoughtBlogs, ~374 google hits”. That's this nefarious doxing business. Let's be extremely clear: if he was named UncleBob23, I would have posted “user UncleBob23 exists on FTB, and is an admin on the RW”. So, at no point was there any doxing involved, not even by any streching of the definition. Furthermore, doxing is one of the few things strictly verboten on the Slymepit. I also passionately argued against doxing here and I strongly hold an anti-dox conviction. But that even stuff like this is repeatedly thrown in my direction, with many other things, just underscores the situation and the thrustworthiness of some people.
{5} The Slymepit is notorious as critics of the Freethought Blogs gang. That's part of the origins story (you got a heavily fudged one, naturally). That's true and no secret. The key difference is that it's skeptical at its core. Unlike on the Safer Spacer side, there is always the corrective that you can't bullshit or just make up baseless claims. Some people genuinely believe the facts should lead the way (and lead us there), but it's also a practical matter. If you are the underdog and self-deprecating supervillain team, you cannot convince people with yarn. And who would produce it? The whole thing is bottom-up. There is no Very Important Blogger who could draft up a storyline. Furthermore, there are no social dynamics that would enforce this. You can't even write “EvilYouTuber didn't endorse Trump, but actually said XYZ” among safe spacers. This is seen as betrayal among them, and furthermore you're then known as part of THEM(TM) – the evil other, and you'll end up banned sooner or later. They operate on solidarity and confirmation, not people who are “hyperskeptical” as they call it. They are also top down, wit influental bloggers who can very well establish an alternate version of events, which they did extensively – and propagate this through their connections in the movement and by combined blog-network citogenesis. That's demonstrable, too. That's why you have this whole mess in the first place.
The situation is very unwieldy, obviously, with a lot of backstory and made worse thanks to dealing not just with a Gish Gallop, but an entire Alternate Gish Universe of claims. ~ Aneris 15:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona wrote: What AI did to PZ is just shocking in it's fundamental, quote-mining dishonesty. I'm appalled. And I don't even agree with all that PZ actually said, and in what context (I respect Karen Armstrong, for one thing)

Care to give examples? And how do you explain that this type of criticism is fairly unique? I followed this quite closeley when it happened, but the charge of quote-mining is new to me. It's of course goal-post moving or a separate point. Even if you are right, it doesn't magically make PZ Myers extraordinary accusations true. ~ Aneris 15:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you read the whole thing, but I'll go look again and pick one. As for the "uniqueness" of my explanation, I wouldn't know whether that is the case or not. As for goal-post moving, WTF? I haven's set any posts I could move. ---Mona- (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The writing in this section reminds me of our GG page. Like that page the biggest sin it commits is not the poor writing or poor argumentation, it's that it is profoundly unconvincing. When I read through it I am tempted to sympathise with AI because of the way it is written; by the choir for the choir. To start with:

  • Who is Alison Smith? She leads the paragraph but has no context.
  • The whole section should lead with PZ Myer's excommunication, and then explain the sequence of events.
  • The Randi quote is represented as a quote from Mark Oppenheimer (read the sentence directly before it), and is far too long, and doesn't belong on a page about PZ Myers.
  • The sentence after the quote, barely makes sense, and as a neutral observer it reeks of bullshit & weasel words (basically). It should be reworded to be more neutral and then debunked if necessary.
  • Get rid of the Slymepit reference and insert a rebuttal of Nugent's point, the sentence is so pathetic it makes me cringe.
  • The last sentence needs a reference, although I'm not sure what is sadder, writing 80000 words on someone, or counting the amount of words someone writes about someone else. Tielec01 (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I'll add it.
  • I think it's fine like this.
  • I've moved it to our article on Shermer.
  • Nugent is acting irrationally. I'll try to reword it. You could try to skim trough these three links. Especially the last one, which contains proof of the obsessive ranting by Nugent, and the reason why Myers now ignores him.
  • Sorry, but PZ multiple times mentioned the Slymepit's presence on Nugent's blog. They play an important role in this feud. Just look at Aneris' posts in here to see how much bile and conspiracy theories they spew at PZ. They've been doing this obsessively for years.
  • I hope you do realize that Word and similar programs automatically count the number of words?
Typhoon (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It's unconvincing because it bears no resemblence with what happened, like in virtually all similar articles that approach this corner. The typical thought terminating clichés among the “social justice tribe” doesn't work on people with their criticial faculties intact, and a browser where they could check the facts — a reality Mona and Typhoon regret to this day. For example, Typhoon straight copies the “argument” that Michael Nugent was “obsessive” (it's also a classic among SJWs). But when numerous writers on Freethougt Blogs produce post after post on him, it's nothing to worry about. In fact, everyone knows that the secular movement was covering critically what selected few individuals were doing: Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and so forth. Nobody ever thought of this as “obsessive” or “problematic”. It's only problematic when it concerns the clergy of PZ myers et al, who are famous for their rabid fandom (self-styled as “horde”). And a reason why their articles tend to be scrubbed clean (similar as with Anita Sarkeesian or Sarah “Butts” Nyberg, the [deleting libel -- ed Mona] former edgelord). Even more comical, Freethougt Blogs are famous for their attack pieces against selected few indivuals. They are critical of (say) Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins all the time. Ophelia Benson, who was very fond of declaring Michael Nugent “obsessive” herself set the record: She once produced 15(!) blog posts on Jaclyn Glenn in a single week. I think one time she had 5 on a single day. Psychological projection comes to mind (also when you take a look at the many GamerGate articles, with all the minute detail; not “obsessive” of course). But as the Slymepit scoffs: It's Okay When They Do It™, admittedly which has been a great source of entertainment, too (just as this article, can't wait to share it around once it's finished) ~ Aneris 01:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Atheist Ireland's attack on PZ[edit]

Let's look at this paragraph:

Among the many people he publicly ‘hates’, ‘despises’ or ‘detests’ are philosophers Alain de Botton and Harriet Baber, interfaith activist Chris Stedman, comparative religion author Karen Armstrong, pastor Lee Strobel, columnist Richard Cohen, attorney Debbie Schlussel, creationists Ken Ham and Fred Phelps, broadcasters Bob Beckel and Rush Limbaugh, and authors Ben Stein, Bryan Appleyard and Dinesh D’Souza. Just last month he said that his ‘contempt’ for US President Ronald Reagan has vastly increased.

For most of those my response is: And? Richard Cohen, Ken Ham, Fred Phelps, Ben Stein, Bob Beckel, Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D'Souza, Ronald Reagan and especially Debbie fucking Schlussel, are detest-worthy. What? Are Mr. Nugent's delicate eyes affronted by someone rhetorically using words like "hate" or "detest" about these rancid individuals? (Maybe Atheist Ireland needs some safe space.) My what a damning indictment we have there!

PZ Myers on Robin William's suicide[edit]

Now I'll go fetch more.---Mona- (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC) This from that AI indictment is disgusting: "He described Robin Williams’ suicide as ‘the death of a wealthy white man dragging us away from news about brown people’" Myers did no such thing. Myers made the very good point that our grotesque media -- with its infotainment methods and priorities -- went into overdrive about a death that, while tragic for Williams' family, blotted out all coverage of young black men shot down by police. I could continue, but I need Lysol shower.---Mona- (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona, you comically stepped into another sandtrap by picking out the example with Robin William's death. For one, the alleged quote-mine is a direct citation from PZ Myers himself that is completely within the spirit of his article. Please read what a quote-mine is. You might have different opinions, but this thing made the news at the time, and others understood it exactly as Atheist Ireland did. We can keep this, if you insist, but if you don't want to come across as out of sync with reality again, you'd need to point out that Myers writing on this received near-universal criticism in the Atheist/Skeptics Movement. OnHemant Mehta's blog for example. Other notable blogger JT Eberhardt had a similar impression. I don't know what's going on here, but you are clearly exaggerating one situation (alleged quote-mine), while you downplay the serious accusations made by PZ Myers. As if you truly want to protect his smearing. Further, as often with dealing with PZ Myers, there are additional dimensions of comedy and hypocrisy. In the "Robin Williams serves as distraction" case there's more to it, too. PZ Myers himself complained in his usual ways about The Amazing Atheist:
PZ Myers writes: I’m sure you’ve all heard the tragic story of Amanda Todd, the teenage girl who killed herself after prolonged bullying. Normal human beings will read about her and be near tears; she was broken by callous sexual predators, her life made miserable, and she finally gave up on it. The Amazing Atheist is not a normal human being. Instead, The Amazing Atheist raged at the fact that this young woman was getting attention when other people have died, too.
I commented on this at JT's at the time (Disquis is terrible, find it here, maybe. So to put this together. In Robin Williams suicide, he complains about how this will serve as distraction, and before he wrote on the Amazing Atheist that he was "not a normal human being" for saying something similar (suicide of Amanda Todd a distraction). What a nice fellow. If you really want to document the Fantastic Exploits of PZ Myers, and how he's wronged, I'm afraid pretty much any story will eventually end up portraying him as a tragic-comical character. ~ Aneris 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
"In Robin Williams suicide, he complains about how this will serve as distraction, and before he wrote on the Amazing Atheist that he was "not a normal human being" for saying something similar" Umm, I think you're intentionally forgetting to mention that Kirk went faaar beyond just complaining about her death being a distraction. He went and, in a stomach-turning way, mocked the format of Amanda’s video, by doing a parody of it. Contrast this with PZ, who started his post with expressing regret at hearing about Robin's suicide. PZ criticized only the media, who buried reports of shooting of black people (whereas Kirk raged at Amanda as he complained about a vague "hundreds of thousand" people who died for reasons unspecified by him). PZ didn't make fun of Robin, and he was right to call Kirk "not a normal human being". Typhoon (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
AmazingAthiest, bullshit. I stepped on no "sandtrap." And I know what quote-mining is, having warred against creationists all through the'80s and '90s. Including the early years of online fighting. That selective quoting of PZ on the Williams' suicide, with the grossly misleading (mis)characterization of what he was saying, is disgusting for all the reasons I've already stated. There is no reasonable defense of it. And anyone you cite who says otherwise is unreasonable.---Mona- (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Aneris has mastered the Nugent way of quote-mining PZ. Typhoon (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
You're moving the goalpost, yet again. How is it relevant what TAA otherwise did? This is directly comparable. I also know this type of double-standard argumentation technique. Nothing new. And didn't I write above that context is provided when it helps to sell a particular take, but removed relentlessly when it goes against it? Here you have it. My second bet is that Mona will still not get it. She didn't get it the last several times and this will still not make a dent on her thinking process. But here we have Bizarro Universe. Everyone who remembers knows that Myers' Robin Williams post did not go down well. I provided two notable blogs who show this, and which also shows that AI's take was not an isolated and eccentric response, but was well in tune. But here in Bizarro Universe, they're quote-miners seemingly alone in their views. They are so mean with the Good PZ Myers, the poor victim! The third bet is that whatever materializes on the page, it will be a hit piece on PZ Myers' opponents. Despite that the original trouble was Myers extreme allegations against Michael Nugent, we've moved through the usual DARVO maneuvre again. That falls to the wayside and we saw spectactular goal post moving. Somehow the Shermer thing is off the table, because you suddenly (comically) remember that this site also found the situation too contentious at the time. Classic! So you now clutch on other straws, e.g. PZ Myers on Williams without realizing that this is another dead end. What now? Another distraction? More mental gymnastics? I'm curious. What's safe to say, to sell this whole package, the page is now again practically counterfactual, sourced were removed and of course any random steaming horsehit of Ryulong-level-intellectual Typhoon is good enough to keep. In other words, exactly as expected. Heh, I can't help but laugh. PZ Myers' Robin Williams Epic Fail was an unexpected route. Thanks for that! ~ Aneris 00:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And Aneris: It's very simple: PZ was engaging in media criticism. He totally conceded this was a tragedy for the family, but our banal and corrupt media went insane on the thing, barely covering, if at all, serious murders by the state against black people. PZ never said the media should not have covered the suicide; he righteously noted this was, well, overkill and avoiding the actual job journalists of the news are supposed to perform. (Or do you think it was a shining moment for Andrea Mitchell when she interrupted a congresswoman explaining government surveillance of citizens to report on Justin Bieber's latest kerfuffle in court?) If you think PZ's excellent point bears any relationship to a blogger dissing a teen who commits suicide, there is no reasoning with you.---Mona- (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That might be because reasonable people see what you did there: you compared the media response in one situation with the suicide in the other, and you perhaps think that others won't notice this. If you want to compare, you have to compare media respose with media response, or suicide with suicide. Unimpressive. ~ Aneris 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Now The AmzginAtheist is the media -- like CNN -- that so many criticize? I see. (rolling eyes) I guess those of us who got totally fed up with all the Missing White Girl mania think it's fine when white suburban teen girls are kidnapped and murdered. Gedouddahere---Mona- (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
And Aneris, about this: "random steaming horsehit of Ryulong-level-intellectual Typhoon is good enough to keep" Perhaps you are unaware that Typhoon can't stand me? That we have severely clashed several times? But when s/he's right, that's just the way it is. (The huge blockquote s/he inserted was editorially unsound and I said so.) Your posts here have largely are long screeds of nothing but whining about conspiracies supposedly taking place within your very narrow, absurdly binary version of reality.---Mona- (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it, I also find it dubious why the public can't be sad about Robin Williams, or why it has to be cynical that the media reports about it. PZ Myers, curmurdgeon and misanthrope, is entitled to think that, but I believe there is a genuine interest. His own words, that TTA was heartless legitiately applies to himself in this Robin Williams instance (though I find PZM's dehumanizing choice of words disagreeable).
So, your smokescreen of media attention or CNN or what it was doesn't make your case. In one situation it's social media, in the other case other media. That's tangential to the comparison. What's more TAA's point is quite different than as PZ Myers portrays it. Shocking, I know! In other words, it's the umpteen instance where PZ Myers grossly misrepresents what people say, which is excused wholly.
But somehow Atheist Ireland are the bad guys who "quote-mine" poor PZ Myers, despite that their take was well in tune with what the majority of the a/s blogosphere reported at the time. I brought two additional sources (now also revdeleted) from major bloggers, JT and Hemant's blogs. Hundreds of comments were generated over this, and people know this well that it was far from Mona's cocksure "PZ Myers can do no wrong! Leave PZ Myers alone!!" stance. This simply doesn't gel with reality. Once again.
Last but not least, PZ Myers severe smearing and accusations against Michael Nugent are swept under the rug again, and remain unaddressed. Also the self-described child rapist of PZ Myers comment section, who received so much love and support and babysitter job-offers from the Freethought Blogs community fell to the wayside. Why not report that PZ Myers effectively did provide a haven for a rapist, the very thing he (baselessly) accused of Michael Nugent of? I have no illusions. More comically, and hard to keep track of it all: we learned that Michael Nugent's "crime" was a practice here on the RationalWiki, too! We learned that the MS case was also not reported here because it was too contentious. So the RationalWiki was providing a haven for harassers, misogynists and rapists then!? Important difference, Michael Nugent didn't keep an article clean. He didn't cover anything up. He a different subject: smearing of Richard Dawkins. That's another bloke! The MS situation was forced on him through whataboutery (see above). It's sad that totally unevidenced allegations made by PZ Myers against good activists are believed and we see enormous energies spent to defend him yet again. It's seemingly a waste of time, but of course all this mental gymnastics and downright religous PZ Myers apologia against all reason and evidence leaves traces. Meanwhile, Michael Nugent and his peers from Ireland do basic Human Rights work in Geneva to defend the rights of children, and inform the UN about unfair treatment. Their cases might serve again as a model for other nations who have similar problems. But go on, defend PZ Myers, propagate the smears an present AI in addition as dishonest quote-miners (but hide similar interpretations from all over the community). Very well, RationalWiki business as usual then. Told you so (above). ~ Aneris 03:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Please, Aneris, do not agree with me, ever. Or, if you must, keep your "reasoning" to yourself.---Mona- (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)