Fundamentalists - Islamic and Christian - they all fear vaginas

I just got this email from someone, and it cracked me up.  And fundamentally it's pretty true and accurate too.  I think that one of the sad parts about this is that most of the American fundies won't recognize themselves in it.

Fundamentalists - Islamic and Christian - they all fear vaginas

April 20th, 2010 by VinceWade1 

The war against Al Qaeda, the war against the Taliban, the war against an
alphabet soup of Islamic terrorists who view Christians as Infidels.why is
there this Big Struggle between the fundamentalists of Islam and
Christianity? They are a lot alike. Both fear vaginas.

In case you haven't noticed, religious fundamentalists of all stripes tend
to be more alike than different. Their bedrock belief that their religion is
the only true faith is a trait they have in common. The notion that a
Supreme Being might accept homage from a infinite number of earthly
religions is an alien concept to them. By the reasoning of some Christian
fundamentalists Mohandas Ghandi (Mohandas was his given name, Mahatma was a
title of respect), one of the most morally principled and spiritual men of
modern history, is doomed to hell because he wasn't "saved" by being "born
again." But as someone noted, what should we expect from people who
vehemently dismiss the idea that we evolved from a lower life form yet
accept without question the biblical assertion that we came from dirt?

Something else religious fundamentalists have in common is fear of the
mysterious power of vaginas to threaten male dominance and control.
Virtually every major religion in the world is ruled by men. Mythology and
folk tales through history and throughout the world feature magical or
virgin births. It's a way to deny that the belief systems' principal
character was conceived through the carnal penetration of a penis into a
vagina.

It's no secret that men crave the delight and powerfully intense
satisfaction of those warm, moist, tantalizing crevices. Just ask Tiger
Woods. Or Bill Clinton. Or Jimmy Swaggart. But that's precisely the issue.
Men both famous and not-so-famous have lost control when succumbing to
womanly charms. Earthly organized religion - not to be confused with real
spiritual belief - is largely about control through unquestioned obedience.
Since countless males throughout human history have been known to succumb to
the temptations of the tender trap, it makes a certain kind of sense that
behavior control freaks such as religious fundamentalists would want to
degrade and marginalize something that has such powerful control over the
population with external plumbing. The business of religion is controlling
the souls and wallets of men. Sex is competition for that control, and for
the contents of the wallet, so a man's pubic pursuits must be purified
through the prism of the pulpit.

The sex abuse scandals rocking the Roman Catholic Church are partly the
result of the hierarchy's stubborn insistence on priestly celibacy and
perpetual secondary roles for women in the organization's decision-making
machinery. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus demand priestly celibacy - or
male rule. His disciple Peter was a married man. Think Da Vinci Code.
Priestly celibacy didn't become mandatory until centuries after Jesus'
death. A case can be made that the ordained clergy of the Roman Catholic
Church is the world's most powerful and enduring males-only club that will
fight to the bitter end to keep it that way.

It's not just a Catholic thing. In a series of  investigative TV news
stories I did some years ago called "Preying from the Pulpit" I reported the
late Baptist fundamentalist preacher Jack Hyles of Indiana was obsessed with
the evils of sex in his Sunday sermons, even as his longtime mistress sat
behind his pulpit on one side while his wife sat on the other. Moreover,
Hyles' school for young fundamentalists used to put extraordinary focus on
pleasures of the flesh by insisting some of the more well-endowed female
students must wear Band-Aids over their nipples to avoid inflaming the
passions of their fellow "saved" male Christians.  Apparently Hyles
understood being "saved" is a transitory proposition no matter what you
proclaim from the pews on Sunday.

For those who doubt the similarity of sex control urges between
fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, I'd invite you to explore their views
in the own words. On the Christian side of fundamentalism there is a
treatise on The Submission of the Christian Wife or Submission Is Not a Foul
Word or simply, Submit to your Husband.

As for vagina-fearing  Muslims, an organization called MEMRI TV is an
excellent source of from-the-horse's-mouth-or-some-other-body-part video
clips about the Islamic compulsion to keep women in their place. The clips
are culled from Middle East TV so you'll have to read the subtitles, but
reading television has seldom been so interesting. 

Echoing Christian fundamentalism, there is the Islamic preacher who says a
woman should serve her husband like a maid; a woman's "strength" (quotes
added) lies in her weakness. Then there's the video to be envied by
Christian wife beaters everywhere in which faithful Muslims are advised that
if your wife bothers you or annoys you or you simply "suspect something"
then beat her - break her head.

All of this may make some wonder if we couldn't solve the Muslim/Christian
conflict that is driving so much military action in today's world by pushing
the politicians aside and having fundamentalist imams and preachers and
priests get together to find common ground in denigrating and demeaning
women. After, all it is written that it is Somebody-or-Other's will.

We're Fucked by Anti-Intellectualism

So I have long complained that for some reason people want to embrace anti-intellectualism, and they rail against intelligence.  Having an education is viewed as a bad thing.  Being smart makes you a target.  Well, having these backward and primitive views will probably bite us in the end.  Even USA Today (a trash venue of print) picked up a story on it.  I'll reproduce it below in a bit.

Sadly, the TEA party, and the GOP are probably the biggest perpetrators of this crime on our ability to be a vibrant and productive country.  Their insistence that anyone with a brain should be considered an effete snob, or part of some intellectual elite has sown a distrust in the mind of the average citizen that anything associated with learning is shunned.  The only "experts" these people will accept now are those who adhere to bronze age fables or do all they can to reinforce their particular myths.  It's sad really.  It's almost as if these people are trying to destroy the US.  And here they were all afraid of the Taliban and Al-Queda, when they are doing the job better than these savages ever could hope for.

Good job fuckwads...


Report: Poor science education impairs U.S. economy

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

Stagnant scientific education imperils U.S. economic leadership, says a report by leading business and science figures.

Released Thursday at a congressional briefing attended by senators and Congress members of both parties, the report updates a 2005 science education report that led to moves to double federal research funding.

Nevertheless, the Rising Above the Gathering Storm review finds little improvement in U.S. elementary and secondary technical education since then.

"Our nation's outlook has worsened," concludes the report panel headed by former Lockheed Martin chief Norman Augustine. The report "paints a daunting outlook for America if it were to continue on the perilous path it has been following":

•U.S. K-12 education in mathematics and science ranks 48th worldwide.

•49% of U.S. adults don't know how long it takes for the Earth to circle the sun.

•China has replaced the United States as the world's top high-technology exporter.

Although U.S. school achievement scores have stagnated, harming the economy as employers look elsewhere for competent workers, the report says that other nations have made gains.

If the USA's students matched Finland's, for example, analysis suggests the U.S. economy would grow 9%-16%. "The real point is that we have to have a well-educated workforce to create opportunities for young people," says Charles Vest, head of the National Academy of Engineering, a report sponsor. "Otherwise, we don't have a chance."

"The current economic crisis makes the link between education and employment very clear," says Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland.

In 2007, however, an analysis led by B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University found that worries about U.S. science education were overblown. It saw three times more science and engineering college graduates than job openings each year. Other reports have found top science and engineering students migrating to better-paying jobs in finance, law and medicine since the 1990s.

Reaction to "Gathering Storm" U.S. science education report

A National Academies report Thursday warned of a crummy economic future unless fixes are made to U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education.

Students watch a NASA rocket launch their experiments into space on a NASA Terrier-Orion sounding rocket as part of the RockOn! and RockSat-C projects.

CAPTION

NASA

Included below are longer reactions to the "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," report:
Steven Newton, Programs and Policy Director, National Center for Science Education, Inc.

The NCSE welcomes this report, and we hope that the call for improving education—particularly in science, math, and technology fields—is heard by many. When the 2005 Gathering Storm report was released, the New York Times' Thomas Friedman wrote that the urgency of its findings required a bold "new New Deal" for education.
But meaningful educational reforms have not materialized.
Today, most school districts operate at a starvation level. Hawaii, for example, now requires students to bring their own toilet paper! Worse, in the first half of 2010, Hawaii ran its public schools only 4 days a week—this at a time when we should be expanding the hours students spend in school, not cutting them.
Cuts to education are almost always short-sighted; there is a direct link between education and the economy. Educated citizens earn more, and pay more taxes. When states save money by not fixing roads, more drivers get flat tires. But when states try to save money by short-changing public education, they rob kids of their futures and they rob America of its economic growth.
The current economic crisis makes the link between education and employment very clear. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2009, 14.6% of workers without a high school diploma were unemployed, compared to just 2.5% of those with a PhD. Moreover, those with doctorates earned on average over one thousand dollars per week more than those without high school diplomas. These differences highlight the increasing urgency of fixing the long-term problems in American education.

ResearchAmerica!, a science advocacy group, weighed in as well with a statement (excerpted):

"America's economic destiny lies in innovation, technology, science and research. It is here that investments will pay off in strong economic growth and a bright future," said former Congressman John Edward Porter, Research!America's chair. "The America COMPETES Act provides crucial support for STEM education—science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This is the vital base that must be supported for our country—our children and grandchildren—to compete internationally. America today leads the world in science and technology, but that lead is being challenged. In my judgment, substantial and ongoing investments in science research and education are needed or our lead will disappear and our economy and living standards will decline."

Mary Woolley, Research!America's president and CEO, noted, "In a recent poll we commissioned, 88% of Americans agreed that it is important for the federal government to support basic scientific research, and 97% said they think education and training in science, technology, engineering and math is important—74% said very important—to U.S. competitiveness and future economic prosperity. The American public is solidly behind this issue. It's time for Congress to get behind the America COMPETES Act."
Woolley added, "In the same poll, 87% said it is important for the U.S. to achieve the goal adopted by other countries of spending 3% of GDP on research and development. We need measures like making the R&D tax credit permanent to help us achieve this goal."

B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown Univerity also spoke by phone with USA TODAY about the report:

"It's easy to understand with the America COMPETES Act up for renewal why advocates would frame the situation this way. But it seems less helpful to frame things in a voice of crisis rather than a more reasoned response. Things aren't as bad as this report paints them.

The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, "a coalition of businesses and business organizations, scientific societies, and higher education associations", did advocate for the Competes Act in its statement:

The Task Force on American Innovation urges the U.S. Senate to quickly reauthorize the America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act to ensure that the foundation for developing high-tech jobs is in place and that the U.S. remains competitive in the face of increased global competition.
The five-year review of the highly acclaimed Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, released today by the National Academies of Science, states that the nation's ability to compete for quality jobs in the global economy has deteriorated since the last report was issued. Meanwhile, nations in Europe and Asia have increased their efforts to compete with the U.S. by boosting their investments in research and science and math education.
The report asserts that, even in the face of budgetary challenges, the U.S. must make the necessary investments in science and innovation that have led to developments such as the Internet, MRI and Global Positioning System to keep the country on a path of sustained economic growth.
This task force, representing numerous industries, research universities and scientific societies, believes that reauthorizing the COMPETES Act is a crucial step toward achieving that goal. The bill provides the legislative blueprint to double investments for America's science research programs and expands math and science education – investments that are critically important to the nation's long-term prosperity and competitiveness. We urge Congress to act quickly.

By Dan Vergano

A Beginner's Guide to Skeptical Dickery

A fellow by the name of Dean Burnett over at Science Digestive made a post that I enjoyed tremendously.  It reminded me of a taxonomy of Internet Trolls that I once saw, but can't find.  And yes, I realize the irony in my own dickishness against the willfully ignorant and others who seem to have minimal connections to reality.  Well, too fucking bad if you think I'm being a dick.  In my opinion, you probably deserve it.  Oh, and I like the suggestion of saying "skepdick" instead of his preferred "skeprick".  As one of his commenter said, it rolls off the tongue better.  Anyway, on to Dean's most excellent post:

A Beginner's Guide to Skeptical Dickery

Regular readers of this blog will know that I’ve become known on the internet due to my science-based letters and other comedy articles. When I say ‘known on the internet’, it’s the equivalent of someone saying they’re ‘known on TV’ because they once did a guest spot on a 3am call-in show on Challenge TV, or one of those other pointless channels where the nameless presenter tries to remain jovial but ends up looking psychotically desperate while talking to strangers drunk enough to think calling a premium rate line is a good idea but too drunk to work out a simple word jumble like ‘MASTE OF WONEY’. But still, it’s more than I expected. So, thanks for that.

Anyway, as a result of my blogging and satirical approach to science, it appears that I’m now part of the skeptic community (and it’s sKeptic for a specific reason apparently, but damned if I can remember what it is right now). I wasn’t invited to join, nor did I apply, it just sort of happened as a result of my attempts to make science interesting/amusing.

For all the use of the phrase ‘skeptic community’, there is no discernable central organisation or committee that regulates skeptic activities; you just sort of get acknowledged as a part of it and that’s it. This is by far the best possible system. If there were a central organisation you had to apply to, imagine the paperwork you’d have to fill in to prove your identity to a bunch of superskeptics? You’d probably have to submit a video of your actual birth along with DNA samples of all your family members before they’d even agree to send you the forms.

Either that, or maybe there’d be some ancient entry ritual involving the slaughter of a goat or virgin (presumably just to prove that such an act has no superstitious or unnatural consequences other than a lot of screaming, a terrible mess and a high likelihood of imprisonment).

But lately, it’s been pointed out several times that a lot of skeptics are dicks. Either that, or they come across as dicks, which to a casual observer is the same thing. As skeptics spend a great deal of effort trying to encourage others to join in or at least see things differently (i.e. more rationally), this isn’t a useful trait.

This has caused a lot of discussion and heated debate as to who exactly is being a dick and why. One side usually accuses another of being dicks because of their ‘incorrect’ actions when engaging others, and these in turn accuse their accusers of being dicks because they’re ‘clearly’ the ones in the ‘wrong’. And on and on, like a bunch of dicks.

Oh, the irony. Also, my preferred term of 'skeprick' hasn't been picked up.

The whole thing is quite confusing; especially for someone like me who is relatively new to the skeptics (I’ve still not got my membership card). So, in order to make some sense of this for myself and other potential newbies, here is a list of the type of skeptical dicks I’ve noticed, coupled with what I’ve learned about the skeptic community to make some sense of the ‘why’ of it. And as an experienced stand-up, I have a lot of experience dealing with dicks (metaphorically) so have suggested some strategies for dealing with these people should you be on the receiving end of their dick-ness (again, metaphorically).

(DISCLAIMERS: This list is based entirely on my own observations and conclusions, no examples are cited because I’m trying not to be a dick to people myself and, conversely, much of it can be applied to me).

· THE EVIDENCE JUNKIE: A lot of things are just accepted as fact. E.g. If I let go of my coffee mug, it’ll fall and probably scald my leg, and lo there shall be heard much foul-mouthed cursing throughout the land. I don’t need evidence to know that’s the case. For anything less certain, skeptics are very big on evidence, which is as it should be, but none more so than the evidence junkie. When debating a contentious issue, a typical skeptic will demand evidence for the opposing argument. If this is presented, they should then adjust their position. However, an evidence junkie will want evidence that the evidence is real. Present this evidence, and they’ll question the validity of this follow up evidence, and on and on. For an evidence junkie, sufficient evidence is like the speed of light; something that can be approached with massive effort, but never actually reached. These skeptics are the ones that most closely resemble opponents of skeptics, and are always in danger of switching sides, becoming moon-landing deniers or antivaxxers

o BEST DEFENCE: If possible, respond with the same strategy. Demand evidence for every claim they make, even if blatantly true. They may realise they’re being unreasonable. If you’re especially lucky, you might cause them to question their own existence, at which point they’ll leave you alone in order to escape the Matrix, or something.

· THE “YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!” SKEPTIC: There is no manual on how to ‘do’ scepticism. Certain skeptics feel that their way is correct, and that other people’s methods are wrong (usually with regards to effectively engaging non-skeptic). When they feel the need to tell everyone else why they’re wrong and what they should be doing, that’s when they become a YDIW skeptic. They mean well, and may have many logical points, but they tend not to suggest but instruct others in the ‘correct’ approach despite being unable to confirm that their way is ‘correct’. And people don’t like that. Imagine an art class where an unknown fellow student keeps tearing up your paintings or squashing your wet clay sculptures because ‘they don’t look right to me’. Whatever their rationale, the unshakable impression they can generate in their victims is ‘and WHO THE F**K ARE YOU, exactly?’ Civilised debate with someone is difficult if they make you want to kick them in the nuts as soon as they open their patronising mouth.

o BEST DEFENCE: A passive approach is recommended as a YDIW skeptic usually means no harm. For someone who feels they are experts in effective engaging, pointing that their approach is infuriating may cause enough of a logical contradiction for them to revise their strategy. Or they might call you a prick, which further undermines their argument.

· THE IMPERIAL CONQUEROR: Upbringing and background varies considerably from person to person, and is possibly the most significant factor in deciding how a person behaves and what they believe. For an ‘imperial conqueror’ skeptic, none of this is an excuse. Like an imperial conqueror, they feel they have free reign to belittle and insult those from ‘inferior’ communities, and feels duty bound to bring skeptical civilisation to the savages. Backed up with their cast iron logic and evidence, an IC will wade into any debate or discussion and ridicule those with a less-than-rational viewpoint, no matter what the reason for their position. An IC is the sort of person you could imagine visiting a tribe of Native Americans and spending the whole time mocking them for not inventing iPods.

o BEST DEFENCE: Can be quite aggressive. Avoid if possible. If it’s an option, single out a physical flaw or failing (e.g. being overweight) that they could do something about but haven’t. Accept no excuses for this ‘oversight’ as, by their own arguments, they should know better

· THE ‘PRESENT COMPANY EXCEPTED’ SKEPTIC: Despite the rumours, some skeptics do have friends. You can sometimes spot these anomalies as they are equally enthusiastic as other skeptics about debunking ridiculous beliefs or pseudoscientific theories, except if they have a close friend who shares those beliefs, in which case they’re off limits to criticism. And not just to themselves, but often anyone else who probably doesn't have the same friends and sees no reason to make allowances. Accommodating the views of others is fine and diplomatic, as is not wanting to upset close friends, but with a PCE skeptic you do get the impression that they’d verbally tear you a new one if you mentioned you supported homeopathy, but would argue in favour of the merits of genocide if Idi Amin came to their house for dinner once and complemented their wallpaper.

o BEST DEFENCE: Claim to have friends who are committed sex-offenders or drug dealers, and that you see nothing wrong with their actions. If you manage to get them to face their double standards, the subsequent cognitive dissonance may cause their brains to reboot.

· THE 'GOAD AND WITHDRAW' SKEPTIC: People who have beliefs that aren't supported by science tend, to compensate, to get very angry when they're challenged. As such, skeptics have an instinctive distrust of people who argue from an emotional base rather than a logical one; citing an emotional element in your argument is akin to a Godwin's law of scepticism. Skeptics also like to win arguments. A GAW skeptic will get their debate-winning fix by deliberately making statements that have some supporting evidence but are clearly shocking or controversial to many people. They will then appear to be shocked and alarmed at the emotional response, retaining the moral high-ground by claiming to be simply trying to generate debate. Anyone with a logical argument delivered in an emotional manner is disqualified.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is only required if you're the one being goaded, in which case just reply rationally and calmly. If this isn't an option, simply overplay the emotional aspect; threaten to turn up at their house and bludgeon them to death in their sleep. You will be scorned for your childish overreaction. Then turn up at their house with a lump hammer. Upon seeing you, future goading should cease.

· THE 'WEIRD PRIORITY' SKEPTIC: Vaguely similar to the Goad and Withdraw, the WP skeptic will engage in debate but dismiss their opponents argument for reasons which have little or no bearing on the debate itself. E.g. incorrect grammar, the use of slang, a known relationship with a religious person etc. A current prominent example is the attacking of Jenny McCarthy's support of the anti-vaccination movement. Many skeptics claim that she has no possible credibility as she used to pose nude. Under this logic, any woman who performs in a strip club to pay their tuition fees (quite common, I'm told) is just wasting their time, as if you've exposed yourself to strangers for money you are incapable of having an informed view on anything. In truth, McCarthy being a dangerously deluded idiot is unlikely to have anything to do with her physical features being more familiar than most people's.

o BEST DEFENCE: Should a WP skeptic point out a ridiculous flaw which invalidates your argument, do everything possible to emphasise this flaw. Abandon grammar all together, adopt an incredibly dense cultural patois (preferably not your own), just strip off there and then. This should enrage/confuse/arouse them to the point that their own arguments become incomprehensible.

· THE ‘RELENTLESS KILLJOY' SKEPTIC: Science has yet to really accurately define and quantify 'fun', ergo some skeptics seem to feel that it doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. Harmless non-scientific or irrational activities that people enjoy are unacceptable and not to be tolerated, and any objection by people who enjoy these activities is irrelevant as joy can't be calculated on the metric system. You could easily imagine an RK skeptic turning up at Disneyworld and ripping the heads off the Mickey Mouse costumes worn by the entertainers, before angrily remonstrating with them and the crowd about how it's physiologically impossible for a mouse to have evolved into a bipedal humanoid. RK skeptics don't get on with PCE skeptics, partly because they see no exceptions for the application of ruthless rationality, partly because they don't see the point of friends.

o BEST DEFENCE: The RK is relentless. Your best bet is, when you see them approaching, fling a well known fictional novel (e.g. Harry Potter) off to one side, then make a run for it after they pounce on it and start crossing out all the bits which science does not agree with.

· THE 'ACOLYTE' SKEPTIC: Some people get involved with the skeptics because they want to be cool. As ridiculous as this sounds, being different is sometimes the same as cool, and most people aren't skeptics. As they're clearly influenced by the opinions and views of others, these people tend to latch to the most well known skeptic community figureheads and agree with anything they say, and react aggressively to anyone who dares criticise them. This completely misses the point of skepticism, but then again that's not why they're involved

o BEST DEFENCE: If on the receiving end of a monologue/rant about how great their hero is, casually slip in a mention of something you heard/saw about that person which is completely incongruous with their image (e.g. "Have you seen that video of Richard Dawkin's mud-wrestling with a sheep?"). They'll either think you have a superior knowledge of their idol's work, or make their excuses and immediately go to check your claims. Either way, rant over.

· THE 'SQUIRREL' SKEPTIC: The squirrel skeptic is not a dick, just inadvertently irritating. When someone finds out about the skeptic community, it can be very liberating to realise there are many others who share your interests and views. Sometimes though, these newcomers can be a little overzealous in their enthusiasm, scampering around the internet finding examples of pseudoscience and irrationality or blogs/articles they've written and sharing them with anyone who listens, like a squirrel gathering nuts with a rodent-like exuberance. However, they run the risk of repeating very familiar points, digging up old arguments or presenting you with things that you'd rather not have to encounter, like a cat dragging dead birds into your house. The squirrels are also the closest the skeptics have to cheerleaders, eager to defend skepticism as and when challenged, with an enthusiasm that can seem quite over the top.

o BEST DEFENCE: The Squirrels mean no harm and will most-likely settle down into a typical grumpy skeptic curmudgeon. Should they suddenly wade in to a polite debate you're having and risk upsetting the whole thing, just throw a stick or ball; they'll be compelled to chase it.

· THE 'ARISTOCRAT' SKEPTIC: Whereas many skeptics feel the need to engage with non-skeptics in some way, some seem to have a very specific view of the kind of 'non-skeptic' that should be engaged. Usually, people who aren't university educated, aren't scientists, have an arts/humanities qualification, have had or do have any connection with pseudoscience or irrational beliefs in any form, have read the wrong sorts of books, have read the right sort of books but have the wrong views about them, and so on. Being interested and keen to know more is not nearly enough, you have to meet their personal entry criteria. People who don't aren't referred to by Aristocrats as 'proles', 'muggles' or 'scum', but you can easily imagine them wanting to use those terms. Anyone who doesn't 'meet the grade' but dares to ask a question can either expect a hideously patronising indulgence (think house guest confronted by host's toddler showing off the contents of their potty) or utter disdain (think an expert film critic being told by someone that their favourite film is 'Dude, Where's my car?').

o BEST DEFENCE: If confronted by an Aristocrat, ask many random questions that can have no logical answer, such as "If ghosts did exist, how much would they weigh?" "When will science finally get round to producing the jetpack?" or "Would people pay more attention in talks/lectures if the speakers were forced to do them in the style of movie stars from the '80's?" They may attempt to answer the question, which will end up with them looking stupid, or they won't be able to answer, at which point you can indulgently accept their limitations, infuriating them.

· THE 'INSECURE JOKER' SKEPTIC: Probably a newcomer to the skeptic community, this one finds himself overwhelmed by the genuine intellectual curiosity most people involved demonstrate, and in order to compensate for his failings in this area becomes flippant and satirical where important issues are concerned. Highly qualified, but this is not evident in his output. Uses humour in all his dealings as a clear attempt to compensate for lack of knowledge. Makes wide and sweeping generalisations about diverse groups for the sake of a joke, but then pursues it too far and it gets boring and monotonous. Probably keeps a blog which varies wildly from relentless self-depreciation to breathtaking arrogance, such as adopting the mantle of the entirety of Science. Tries to be funny and incisive but probably ends up pissing a lot of people off, but carries on regardless.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is unnecessary, the 'insecure joker' knows how pointless he is already.

So there you go. In truth, every skeptic everywhere occasionally wanders into some of these categories to a certain extent, most likely without being aware of it. Because skeptics, like scientists, pseudoscientists and religious people the world over, are people; messy, confusing, complex, changeable people.

There are plenty of dicks in the skeptic community, I've even advocated being a dick myself, but (based entirely on my own experiences) they're the exception, rather than the norm. If people wish to generalise based on the few, that's their prerogative, but if you want to see truly breathtaking levels of self-aggrandising dickery, just take a look at any of the groups who oppose the skeptics.

Now, if we've spent enough time giving the dicks a spanking (a 3rd 'metaphorically' for luck), let's get back to work.

Dean