PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[tattuchu]

Maybe PZ realizes he's gotten in too deep with the Girlyban crowd, cannot extricate or extirpate himself, and he tossed out this grenade not for the sake of justice or the right thing to do, but because he'd intended to throw himself down on it all along
Maybe the only way he can escape is through "death"

[Sean Hayden]

dun . dun . dun

Nice angle Tatt!

boom

[tattuchu]

By the way, what in hell is "the Streisand effect"? I'm not gay, so I'm not so familiar with Streisand. Anybody?

[Sean Hayden]

I took that to be PZ pretending it was Shermer creating the drama -I know, the nerve of PZ is something to behold.

boom

[Sean Hayden]

Also, it comes across as a kind of weak threat: Shermer doesn't know what he's getting himself into fighting this...

boom

[pErvinalia]

[Sean Hayden]

[DaveD]

[Xamonas Chegwé]

By the way, what in hell is "the Streisand effect"? I'm not gay, so I'm not so familiar with Streisand. Anybody?

Whazzamadda? Your google broke?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[Cormac]

dun . dun . dun

Nice angle Tatt!

boom

Come on Sean - at least capitalise that.


BOOOM!

[Cormac]

By the way, what in hell is "the Streisand effect"? I'm not gay, so I'm not so familiar with Streisand. Anybody?

[Calilasseia]

The Streisand Effect arises when someone tries to stop material being released on the Internet by recourse to legal process, only for the publicity arising from said legal action to result in even more widespread dissemination of the material in question, than would have occurred if the lawyers hadn't been called in. Named after Barbra Streisand, whose attempts to prevent photographs of her beach home circulating on the Internet via cease and desist letters resulted in the material becoming far more "in demand" than would have happened if she'd simply ridden out the issue silently.

Of course, she probably had the usual security issues in mind with respect to those photographs, but forgot that her status as a public figure meant that [1] those photographs would be news-worthy in Celebrity Tabloid LandTM, [2] that making a fuss about this would result in charges of hypocrisy, however tenuous or specious, due to her having made a lot of money as a public figure, and [3] the response of a large number of Internet users to any actions interpreted as censorship, would be to spread the material far and wide so as to render attempts at censorship impossible. The irony in the Streisand case is that the photos weren't even taken by a tabloid paparazzo - they were actually taken by someone conducting a coastline survey in order to track erosion as part of a government environmental project. The photographer probably didn't know that the beach house in question was Streisand's, given that the photograph collection contained around 12,000 images, and prior to Streisand's ridiculously expensive lawsuit, the image had been accessed a grand total of just six times - two of these occasions being by Streisand's lawyers. After she launched her lawsuit, and this became public knowledge, the images was viewed 420,000 times.

[hackenslash]

Since I've now commented elsewhere:

I've steered clear thus far, as pretty much all the commentary has been of the 'hang him' or 'hang her' variety. It's a troublesome case, to be sure, especially when you're talking about people you've actually interacted with (in my case, exchanging messages with Shermer and being called a cupcake by Myers), but it ultimately boils down to this:

My evidential standards far exceed that of anything thus far presented. The data support no conclusions as yet. That's why I'm not commenting. I await objective evidence. Until that arrives, I'm not really willing to comment, other than to say that some people whose evidential standards I thought reflected mine have shown a singular willingness to nail colours to the mast one way or the other. And I'm not talking about Myers, who's degenerated into idiocy about as rapidly as anyone I've ever come across (which gives me pause in and of itself).

For me, it boils down to this. Whether or not Shermer is guilty as charged, it was incredibly irresponsible of Myers to blog openly about it. Perhaps if he'd presented it as a moral dilemma, omitting names to protect the innocent (and the guilty), whoever that might be, his position would be defensible. As it is, regardless of whether the allegations have any substance, he's acted like a total twat and, objectively, should reap the consequences of that twattishness. His sycophants are even worse. At least Myers could only be accused of some tabloidesque, irresponsible journalism, but his followers are a bunch of cunts, to be charitable to them.

Frankly, Myers has outlived his usefulness as a public skeptic because, on this issue, skeptic he ain't.

I have a lot of respect for Shermer, and I hope this turns out to be unfounded but, if not, I hope his crime is punished.

Let the cards fall where they may, and let the guilty party (whichever it is, and Myers is definitely one of them, and I sincerely hope it comes back to bite him in the ass, the arrogant, self-righteous prick) experience justice.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Since I've now commented elsewhere:

I've steered clear thus far, as pretty much all the commentary has been of the 'hang him' or 'hang her' variety. It's a troublesome case, to be sure, especially when you're talking about people you've actually interacted with (in my case, exchanging messages with Shermer and being called a cupcake by Myers), but it ultimately boils down to this:

My evidential standards far exceed that of anything thus far presented. The data support no conclusions as yet. That's why I'm not commenting. I await objective evidence. Until that arrives, I'm not really willing to comment, other than to say that some people whose evidential standards I thought reflected mine have shown a singular willingness to nail colours to the mast one way or the other. And I'm not talking about Myers, who's degenerated into idiocy about as rapidly as anyone I've ever come across (which gives me pause in and of itself).

For me, it boils down to this. Whether or not Shermer is guilty as charged, it was incredibly irresponsible of Myers to blog openly about it. Perhaps if he'd presented it as a moral dilemma, omitting names to protect the innocent (and the guilty), whoever that might be, his position would be defensible. As it is, regardless of whether the allegations have any substance, he's acted like a total twat and, objectively, should reap the consequences of that twattishness. His sycophants are even worse. At least Myers could only be accused of some tabloidesque, irresponsible journalism, but his followers are a bunch of cunts, to be charitable to them.

Frankly, Myers has outlived his usefulness as a public skeptic because, on this issue, skeptic he ain't.

I have a lot of respect for Shermer, and I hope this turns out to be unfounded but, if not, I hope his crime is punished.

Let the cards fall where they may, and let the guilty party (whichever it is, and Myers is definitely one of them, and I sincerely hope it comes back to bite him in the ass, the arrogant, self-righteous prick) experience justice.

Your first paragraph confuses me, Hack, because pretty much everyone that has commented in this thread (with a few exceptions) has echoed the sentiments you express in the later ones.

Whatever the facts of the case, PZ (Prurient Zither) Myers has acted indefensibly throughout and made things worse for everyone involved.

[hackenslash]

I was talking about generally, not here. This is one of the few places in which one bandwagon or another hasn't been jumped on. I originally posted this on FB, then on Ratskep, then here.

Apologies. I should have made that clearer.