FTB and the conspiracy to defraud/ Drawing a line under this pointless crap

Chuckle, so my evil HAXOR skills have earned me the honor of a dozen or so blog posts telling me what an evil, evil man I am.

Pah, N00b, Neo would have just re-clicked the subscribe button!

The bizarre thing is the principal horror seems to be over something I did NOT actually do.  Namely that I DID NOT drop anyones docs!, and what’s more docs they had already ‘officially’ sent me on their mailing list.

-So how to turn something I did NOT do into an evil act of malice?

Why by speculating of course!  The argument continues like this, ‘but you are an evil haxor, therefore why should I trust you when you say u wont drop docs’.  That’s right, in the absence of any actual doc dropping, speculate that they MIGHT doc drop!  Oddly enough the one question such folk will never directly answer, because they know the answer as well as you, is ‘do you think I would drop anyones docs?’

Thankfully FTBers don’t apply this reasoning to their own, such as the good man PZ.  He was clearly dishonest to me about the deal when I came on board at FTB (freedom to blog about what I wanted my ass! ‘rip into anyone you want’ my ass!)…..  He ‘HACKED’ a phone system by ‘stealing’ a passcode and using it to ‘break in’!! ‘He’s dishonest! Unspeakable, it’s a unconscionably horrific breach of trust… he should be drummed out of the community as a pariah etc etc’ /sarcasm

Why shouldn’t he drop someones docs too?  After all, on paper he officially has access to all the personal details I do!

‘Indeed, given his hatred of me, why shouldn’t he leak docs himself, then blame me for it?  I mean if you read his posts, is there any level the bilious odious man wouldn’t go to fulfill his vindictive vendetta of hatred of….. etc etc.’

-Wow, I can engage in inventive filled paranoid rambling about crimes people MIGHT commit as much as FTB!

However all this time I had been working on the basis that FTB had a significant media footprint, which I now think is wrong.  Put simply, even though FTB have a LOT of skeletons in the closet, and engage in some pretty cheap and vindictive scheming (I wouldn’t have stayed long associated to such a group, even if they hadn’t expelled me first), the bottom line is they are a small group, they are kings of a small hill of beans (I’m still getting more hits than 10 of their bloggers having been gone for a month! see below): they simply are not worth the time when there are bigger fish to fry!  So let me take this opportunity to draw some sort of line under this (I know that sentence alone will have bought rapturous applause from many sectors!).

Bear with me on this…. this is going somewhere!

From my evil haxor skills, FTBer were saying the following on their secret mailing list about a month after I was thrown off.

“Plus, TF had more hits than ten of our bloggers today.  Please tell me he is not getting paid for them.  And that we are divvying up his spoils.”

Firstly FTBers are actually suggesting, not only an intention of stealing, but to do it as a group and to share their ill gotten gains from this fiscal theft.

Secondly, I laughed my ass off when I read that.  Even after being gone from FTB for over a month, I’m still one of their prize bloggers!  If they were the significant organization I initially thought they were, their petit conspiracies would have been a bigger burden on the community, and my whistle blowing more pertinent.  However that’s simply not the organization FTBs is.

Anyways, Ed Brayton, the guy who holds the purse strings responds thusly.

“I haven’t even given any thought to the point at which I would stop paying him. The blog was killed on July 1. I could call that the end or pay him for hits in July, which were not unsubstantial. Or at this point I could just tell him to go fuck himself.”

Lets try to draw a line under this Ed.  DPRJones has a charity event coming up for Medicine Sans Frontier. You can donate ALL my ‘not unsubstantial’ earnings to this charity event (try to keep it dignified Ed, make sure you let people know where the money came from), and then you can delete my blogs hosted on FTB.

To be honest, I wouldn’t want to be seen to profit off petit drama like this (I never monetize videos that deal with this sort of thing), and I’m sure FTB would likewise agree.  Indeed it would be nice to see FTB follow my lead on this and donate all the revenue generated from this pointless drama to the same charity.

From my chair, that pretty much draws a line under this.

This request has been personally sent to Ed Brayton.  Balls in his court now.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

633 Responses to “FTB and the conspiracy to defraud/ Drawing a line under this pointless crap”

  1. CoffeeLovingSkeptic (@CLSkeptic) Says:

    Surprise, surprise. They use OTT language like ‘hacking’ when you read a mailing list.

    If they get any more OTT they might actually write something interesting. Or maybe die of hyperbole overdose. I’d be happy with either option.

  2. FreeFromAgod Says:

    This topic is getting real old fast! All parties involved are acting like 4 year olds! Give it a rest and move on with your life. All of you involved in this are not helping the appearance of Atheists as a whole by acting like spoiled children on the Internet. Please get over it and as I stated before, move on with your life!

    • tardisguy Says:

      /*scratches head/* So… we should just… ignore them? Unfortunately it doesnt work that way in society. We “ignored” religion for quite some time. In fact, Its considered “taboo” to speak of issues relating.

      The reason why issues remain is BECAUSE they are not rejected. You have to think 3-4 or even 47 steps ahead to understand the cause and effect of the situation.

      • oolon Says:

        Haha another one that equates FtBs with religion. On the one hand TF says they are irrelevant – even his dead blog gets more hits – now they are *really* important we cannot ignore them. Only true atheist-sceptics are allowed a voice on Tardisguy’s internet!

        But wait! Tardisguy is the Gary Kasperov of atheism he can *see* 47 steps ahead and knows the damage done in the future…. Do you have any awareness of how stupid you sound?

        • operatoroscillation Says:

          One guy says FTB is irrelevant, another guy says we can’t ignore them, then treat them like the same person who says one thing then says another. Do you have any idea how stupid YOU sound?

          • tardisguy Says:

            no… no I don’t. Is this your attempt to seperate yourself from the argument to get some attention?

            Because you didn’t actually make a point.

          • oolon Says:

            Keep scratching that head… You may stimulate enough neurons to get there eventually.

    • Quawonk Says:

      Yes, we should just ignore their conspiracy to steal TF’s money. I’m sure you’d like us to ignore it if it was your money.

  3. musinlon Says:

    I think you’re making the right move by drawing the line under it TF. I can’t say I agree with what you did during this fiasco but I think PZ Myers has come out of it as badly as you have.

    I think everyone in the community is sick to death of this nonsense by now and would like to bury it for good.

    I hope to see some new videos and some good science related postings soon.

  4. NMcC Says:

    In other words: ‘You all at FTBs are just as scummy as I am, but I’ve managed to wangle a way to appear to occupy the high moral ground. Even if I really am the scumbag PZ labelled me’.

    There are few things worse than organised religion, and organised atheism is one of them.

    • Cattlehunter Says:

      Yeah, all those atheists going around killing people, or taking away their freedoms, in the name of atheism. They’re the worst!

      • Mike De Fleuriot Says:

        Muslima is that you?

      • NMcC Says:

        ‘Taking away (his) freedoms’ is exactly what Thunderpants is saying this particular spat is all about. Keep up son. As to the ‘killing people’, do you really doubt that the present crowd of atheists in the spotlight, along with their blog warrior followers, would have the slightest compunction in reaching for the weapons in the unlikely event that any of them ever got near any seat of power? On the evidence of the last couple of years, the only one who would be likely to step back from such a scenario would be PZ Myers. I would fear for any country in which any of the rest of the entire crowd of atheists got the upper hand.

        • Jazen Valencia Says:

          You’re kidding right? Most atheist I’ve met are pacifist or about that. I am the only atheist I know who owns more than 1 gun even. As for PZ, he’d probably shit himself rather than get in a real fight. And as for the FTBloggers forget about about the cry babies, and move on to more important stuff. Peace J

  5. CoffeeLovingSkeptic (@CLSkeptic) Says:

    Also, I hope to see those earnings donated. Keep us updated on that particular issue please.

  6. Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

    And yet, you still haven’t justified the fact that you weaselled your way back on to a private mailing list and are still posting the contents of that private mailing list after you were officially welcome there for everyone to see. I guess you’re hoping that we’re all going to forget that they removed you twice, and you tried to get back on twice.

    I love how you act like a scumbag and then get absolutely insulted that they treat you like one, and are unwilling to trust you when you try to declare some ethical high ground because you aren’t going to use the sensitive information that you obtained through nefarious means.

    • Timothy (@timothygmd) Says:

      It’s pretty human to see one’s sins as less serious than those of the other fellow, even if it’s the same sin. Wrongs inflicted tend to be seen as less than wrongs suffered. The secrets of others tend to be held less dear and less justified than the secrets of one’s own.

      There is an equivalence between PZ and TF here, and you do have an insight. Regretfully, it’s a failing of most of us.

    • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

      Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says: And yet, you still haven’t justified the fact that you weaselled your way back on to a private mailing list and are still posting the contents of that private mailing list after you were officially welcome there for everyone to see.

      It just gets more ridiculous the more it’s repeated. Accusing TF of ethical crimes against the most barren wasteland of parasitic liars, frauds and slanderers the secular world has ever seen. That’s pretty fucking rich. If they are too stupid to configure their own mailing lists and allow generic links to grant access, I find what TF has achieved to be both laughable and, as far as crimes against humanity go, trivial compared to the bahavior of the baboons in general, and PZ Myers in particular.

      • Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

        So FTB basically asked for it, then? Their mailing list dressed slutty, so it was entirely justified for Thunderf00t to penetrate their mailing list and thrust away with archiving of private conversations?

        Does the actions of FTB, whatever you believe them to be (and I don’t for a second think your hyperbole approaches anything resembling accuracy, but keep spewing hate, friend) have any bearing on the rightness of the decisions made by our good friend here? I think not.

        Whatever FTB may have done, Thunderf00t is in the wrong and he refuses to acknowledge that.

        • FTB trolls in damage control Says:

          Another deluded FTB Troll.

          How do you justify all the despicable behaviour by anonymous FTB trolls in their mailing list and directed against Thunderf00t? It started well before Thunderf00t’s first post at FTB.

          PZ Myers has actually stolen passcodes to access private forums. Any comment? Thunderf00t used re-submitted a request in his own name from an e-mail INVITATION and it was approved by the FTB system.

          • Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

            I’m not trying to justify FTB actions. My point, my very specific point, was that their actions have no bearing on whether what Thunderf00t did was right or not. Two wrongs, and all that.

            It doesn’t matter whether I agree with PZ dialing in to a conference call early and hearing them give out the pass code. It doesn’t matter whether I think he was right to burst in unannounced and interrupt people uninvited.

            But if you’re going to act like PZ was out of line doing that, then there is no justification for Thunderf00t doing the same thing. How about some decency from somewhere?

        • hannanibal Says:

          HAHAHAHA!!!! “The mailing list dressed slutty so it deserved it!!” Oh my fucking word tell me you are not serious….Plese nobody can make an analogy that bad without trollin..can they?
          He clicked a link and it allowed him onto the list . He didn’t stick his cock into the USB drive and rape anybody.

          • Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

            The rape analogy was probably extreme and I apologize, but Devil’s Towelboy was quickly clearly saying “They didn’t lock down their mailing list, and so Thunder had every right to sign back up again.” It wasn’t their fault that Thunderf00t decided to go in secretly, it was his decision to make. Don’t blame them for his decisions.

        • Mike Paps Says:

          So FTB basically asked for it, then? Their mailing list dressed slutty, so it was entirely justified for Thunderf00t to penetrate their mailing list and thrust away with archiving of private conversations?

          Leave it to a FTB apologist to use a rape analogy when referring to accessing a mailing list, how rich. lol

          And a fail rape analogy at that because there’s nothing wrong with dressing slutty. What FTB did was wrong, so yes they got what they deserved, or “asked for”.

        • John D Says:

          Hahahaha…. this is the funniest blog I have read in a month! Email hacker rape apology analogy. The rape analogy planted in the fertile soil of victimization, and watered by hyperbole…. it grows into a flower of hypocrisy! oh my…. they are lunatics at FTB!

    • Quawonk Says:

      Ir Rebecca Watson also a scumbag? Read this and get back to me. So far this has gone unaddressed in the comments on this blog.


      • Quawonk Says:

        and it’ll probably stay unaddressed. She’s the good guy, erm, girl after all and can do no wrong.

        • Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

          I don’t see what Rebecca Watson has to do with what I said, nor do I think it important whether I agree with her actions or not. But if we’re going to go there – if what she did is so horrible, why do you defend Thunderf00t as being justified?

          Stop making assumptions about your red herrings. I’m talking about Thunderf00t’s behaviour, nobody else’s.

          • Quawonk Says:

            >>>I’m talking about Thunderf00t’s behaviour, nobody else’s.

            Exactly. So is everyone else. The would prefer to ignore when one of their heroes does something equally unethical and disgusting. That’s how hypocrites operate.

        • Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

          I can’t reply to your latest comment, so I’m replying here:

          “Exactly. So is everyone else. The would prefer to ignore when one of their heroes does something equally unethical and disgusting. That’s how hypocrites operate.”

          No, that’s not the case. Rebecca Watson’s behaviour is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We can talk about hers independently,but it has nothing to do with whether Thunderf00t is in the right. Your attempt to deflect and derail the discussion is not going to work.

          But again, why does her wrong make Thunderf00t right? You forgot to answer that part.

          • Psychoticmeow Says:

            Why is it irrelevant? You might want to explain that, because it appears plainly relevant from where I sit.

          • Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

            Meow – I can’t reply to you so I’m replying to me.

            Since when do two wrongs make a right, and this whole discussion is not about whether Rebecca Watson was right or not. Quawonk was derailing the point with a non-sequitur by attacking me for “hero worship” of RW’s behaviour. It had nothing to do with my question or my point. What she did two years ago has nothing to do with what Thunder did now, and so it is irrelevant. Especially irrelevant is whether I support her or not, because I’ve made no claim to that. We aren’t talking about Rebecca Watson (who, I should point out, is also not on Freethoughblogs), we’re talking about Thunderf00t.

            His/her argument is especially ludicrous because they were accusing me of hypocrisy, but have yet to answer why the reverse is true in their case.

          • buzzomatic Says:

            > Since when do two wrongs make a right

            When did I ever say this?

            > this whole discussion is not about whether Rebecca Watson was right or not

            Indeed, but that was a similar situation that we could learn from.

            > Quawonk was derailing the point with a non-sequitur by attacking me for “hero worship” of RW’s behaviour

            Yeah that was pretty shit, I agree with you on that.

    • PJLandis Says:

      It’s true he surreptitously got back onto the mailing list, but, as far I know, since then he has only published or made reference to comments attacking himself. Questionable maybe, but does that really make him a scumbag?

      And it’s worth noting his original sin was telling someone else about disparaging comments directed at them on the list, which is at worst tantamount to gossiping.

      • Life Post-Shaggy (@postshaggy) Says:

        Sneaking back on a list he was removed from and compiling conversations not meant for him, all the while yelling about how terrible, manipulative and ethically bankrupt FTB is seems pretty scummy to me.

        Say somebody picked up your phone landline while you, frustrated, vented about things to your friend. Say they recorded it and held on to it for posterity. Now say that you had removed all other landline phones from your house, and this person deliberately plugged one in to listen in and record. Does that sound just ‘questionable?’

        And now say that they heard you talking about someone else in a private conversation with your friend. Someone you were frustrated with and needed to vent without fear of recrimination for empty statements made. And imagine this person, recording your messages, then went to the subject of your frustration and played the recording back. Does that sound like gossiping to you?

        Apparently sending some of those conversations to other people is not simply “gossiping.” Committing this kind of espionage with a deliberate desire to further his agenda of the “FTBullies” is pretty damn scummy.

        • PJLandis Says:

          I don’t think the phone line is a good analogy , nor is the friends thing since they were an organization (with money at stake). That’s actually a defense legally in SCA cases. He didn’t sneak into anyone’s home or tap their phones, he simply got into an email list which despite it’s social nature was very relevant to a business he was involved in and had unfinished business with. Point being, I don’t think it’s as bad as tapping someone’s phone; it’s more like eavesdropping which I would call questionable.

          So he has business interests and was rightfully concerned about retaliation, harm to his name and reputation, even before he was labeled a scumbag for eavesdropping. And as for just venting, I don’t think he was being malicious when he took those comments about the CFI guy at face value, who attacks someone even mildly for expressing a personal opinion? “He didn’t like our blogs, lets do something about him;” I hope my friends would do the same.

          And so far the only information TF posted consist of personal/professional attacks on himself (plus the messages sent to a targeted critic). It’s still an invasion of privacy, but I don’t see how that’s furthering an agenda other than protecting himself personally and professionally and warning an innocent person. I haven’t seen any posted messages not about him, including one that discusses denying him payment. Hiding money and not paying someone, is an example is something I would consider clearly beyond questionable an classic scumbag behavior.

          As for the third paragraph, that sounds exactly like gossiping to me. So a group of friends are talking shit over lunch about someone (“OMG! He finds us undreable! We can’t let him have an opinion, he needs to apologize!”, you eavesdrop and then you call that person and say “OMG! you wouldn’t believe what ‘so and so’ said about you and me!”

          So, overall his “leaks” have been a heads-up to someone who was a possible target for expressing an opinion and then messages calling for his career and reputation to be destroyed, and perhaps even have his money stolen. I still think his email list access was questionable and not scummy.

  7. Magnus the Good Says:

    Y U HAX PPL?!?!?!1111!

    Keep on rockin’, tf00t! You have my full understanding for wanting to defend your name/reputation from the lies and trashtalk of the drama- and attentionwhores at FTB.

    • John K. Says:

      Hear Hear! I was sickened when I saw Matt. Dillihunty’s response to all of this. People I used to have massive respect for have lowered themselves to a level that I can no longer feel the same about them.

      • CommanderTuvok Says:

        Dillahunty is such a FTB acolyte these days that I coined the term “Doormatt Dillahunty”.

        • Mike De Fleuriot Says:

          As I said before you should take a listen to some of the very early AE and non prophets shows. They really have a go at the “new atheists” and things like TAM. That is until they got invited to join up and be part of the club, then the story changed.

  8. Timothy (@timothygmd) Says:


    Most of us who read you are with you, and understand your anger. Personally, I am annoyed at those who confuse humanism and politics with skepticism or science, and feel that this is the root of the problem. A good scientist will firstly value the process, as you do. PZ and his crowd have a set of conclusions and beliefs which they hold foremost.

    I also am perplexed at them, and feel that they damage the scientific/skeptical movement. However, this is not a battle that will be won with the most gunfire. No one is going away.

    As I think Dawkins has perceived, he who ventures into this arena looses credibility and power in proportion to his anger and efforts. PZ is no longer a hero among skeptics. He is a hero among those who share his outlook, and those who place this outlook above the scientific enterprise.

    This conflict does not have value to the skeptical community. What may have value is the exploration of how these things happen and snowball. The philosophical underpinnings of these discordances could also be interesting.

    The minutia, the “he said/she said”, the anger, the base conflicts – has the same interest as a traffic accident on the highway. We turn, we stare and pause, but ultimately move on.

    • musinlon Says:

      Timothy- PZ and his crowd have a set of conclusions and beliefs which they hold foremost.

      Couldn’t agree more. PZ is a sceptical about theism, he is as fanatical as any conservative christian about his politics.

      • Hammer of Dog Says:

        Yes, PZ is a humanist AND an atheist, as I am. As many atheists are, but apparently the tf00t crowd are not. Fine, don’t be humanists, but don’t expect the respect of humanists when you speak against humanist values.

        Also, I would highly doubt that you place any less value on your political beliefs than PZ does on his. I don’t know you, so could be wrong, but I would bet I am not far off the mark.

        And tf00t, you still say “I don’t doc drop,” immediately before doc dropping. You’re being an idiot. And you can’t see it.
        Pathetic. I wold expect better from one obviously so intelligent.

        • Muzer Says:

          Who, where, spoke against humanist values?

        • Muzer Says:

          Er, I’d made my reply before reading the ludicrous final paragraph. Where does he doc drop? He quotes a message from a mailing list (which, as has already been established, is perfectly legal) that contains no personal details or anything that could remotely be considered “docs”. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the term “doc dropping”.

        • musinlon Says:

          Where in any of my posts did you get the idea that I agree with Tfoot ? I specifically and quite plainly stated in my very first comment that I did not agree with what he did.

          I am a humanist and PZ’s positions on issues are largely my own. His position on issues are not my problem, his fundamentalist-like devotion to them are. PZ chooses a position and he will devoite himself fanatically to that position like any fundamentalist adherent of any religion would.

          He has shown that he has no problem lying about others that are against his position to try and sully their reputation, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris for example.

          Only a dishonest fanatic could claim Hitchens advocated genocide as PZ did or the nonsense he writes about Sam Harris.

          If you need to lie about your opponents and act dishonestly just to defend your position than you really need to take a look at the reasons you support that position in the first place.

          I don’t agree with everything Hitchens wrote or Sam Harris but I’m not going to start making wild accusations against them just because we disagree.

          And as for my political beliefs and the value I place on them. I do place a great deal of value on my political thinking but I am not a fanatic that has to claim everything my ‘side’ does is right and anyone who disagrees is ‘evil’ like many Americans seem to do with the Left vs the Right.

          • aceofsevens Says:

            Where did PZ claim that? As far as I can tell, the only critical thing he’s said about Sam Harris is when he linked to the Five Worst Atheists article and said that its criticisms were largely accurate. That article didn’t accuse Harris of advocating genocide either. It accused him of advocating racial profiling. Some of his commenters may have said he advocated genocide, but how is that PZ’s responsibility?

          • musinlon Says:

            I said, “Only a dishonest fanatic could claim Hitchens advocated genocide as PZ did or the nonsense he writes about Sam Harris.”

            I said he wrote nonsense about Harris. Not that Harris advocated genocide.

        • brainfromarous Says:

          Myers is a self-described humanist, sure. Politically, however, he comes across as a paint-by-numbers New Left ideologue.

          Whatever public kisses he blows to the ideals of Science and Skepticism must be weighed against his classically Jacobin behavior in the face anything beyond the most marginal criticism.

          Secularism and humanism are not the same thing. A man can be as anti-clerical as the day as long and still be an Inquisitor at heart.

        • PJLandis Says:

          I’m gonna second Muzer, I haven’t seen anyone speaking out against humanist values but I’m glad you’re here to defend it in just in case. We don’t want any dissent.

  9. justnorrik Says:

    I don’t blame TF for keeping track of old rivals, sometimes they can come back and undermine hard work when you least expect it…
    Social dissonance can be ugly business if not prepared..

    If I had access to some nasty internal emails within a group, where they referenced going after, exploiting and/or attacking specific issues or persons, I’d want to quietly stay or get back on that email list if I got kicked out for dissonance.. I’d keep tabs on whats being said, just to make sure they’re not coming after me, and if they do I’ll know how and be prepared.. I think most of us would do the same thing to protect ourselves, but maybe that is just my opinion..

    • FTB trolls in damage control Says:

      Here here.

      Thunderf00t also needed to stand up to this organised nest of anonymous vipers on behalf of all those smaller commentators unjustly vilified and smeared before him, simply because they proposed a difference in ideas.

    • Patrick Says:

      TBH, I would’ve done the same, just to keep an eye on them, given their track record (even if it is ethically questionable). I wouldn’t be surprised if whatever software they were using was simply misconfigured, or that it was considered “secure through obscurity” (which doesn’t work well in practice) and therefore didn’t need to be set up securely as long as it worked. Email isn’t a particularly secure medium in any case.

  10. FTB trolls in damage control Says:

    Absolutely disgusting behaviour on the part of FTB. They have lost all credibility. Why does PZ Myers put up with that garbage.

    Keep moving forward Thunderf00t. Why not setup your own Blog system to host blogs? I and others will help you if necessary.

    • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

      FTB trolls in damage control Says: Absolutely disgusting behaviour on the part of FTB. They have lost all credibility. Why does PZ Myers put up with that garbage.

      Because Myers is the vilest offender of all.

  11. Steve Williamson (@SteveW68) Says:

    Pops a fresh bag of popcorn on the go whilst waiting for the plethora of FTB blogs to denounce this a weaselling. The ball really IS in “Ed”‘s court now (Ed is not his real name BTW) and like CLS, I would like to see evidence that these monies from your hits, as well as a proportion of the revenue of the blogs written in response to this particular issue are donated to DPR Jones.

  12. Tom Says:

    I wish you had just left things alone when the booted you so that it never got this far. However, I do agree that they disingenuously sensationalized the threat you posed in order to discredit you. They are not blameless in this matter. You are still my favorite YouTube atheist, and I look forward to some more Why People Laugh at Creationists. I’m glad this is all over. I just hope both they decide to leave it at that instead of keeping it going.

    • Michael Says:

      Why should he have just lied down and shut up? Personally I applaud him for actually standing up to these idiots and their holier than thou attitude. He’s giving FTB more and more rope and they seem to be more than willing to keep wrapping it around the tree and their collective necks. If they keep it up they’ll be laughed out of the next conference as they should have right after the whole Elevatorgate bullshit started.

  13. LJL Says:

    TFoot. I admire your fight against the dishonest people pretending to be rational free thinking people. But can you maybe explain why the reaction to Matt D, as he told us on his youtube video?

    • dougal445 Says:

      I suspect maybe Thunder suffered from some all too human pride.
      If Thunder is now prepared to draw a line, I think it’s best that we leave it for now. Hopefully bridges can be mended in the not too distant future.

    • FTB trolls in damage control Says:

      Matt has yet to be villified and mis-represented by FTB. How would you feel if you were in TF’s shoes?

    • Namefag Says:

      Check out TF and/or MD on twitter.
      Matt basically demonises TF, ignores his arguments, spits the dummy, and blocks him. Matt acted like a baby IMO but you should check the tweets and decide for yourself.

  14. dougal445 Says:

    I really hope this is over, thunderf00t and we can all put this behind us.
    Get back to what made you great, bring back the old rational thunderf00t,

  15. Thunderf00t Is On A Roll, Exposes Fraud, Photos Of P.Z. Myers With Pants Down « The Lonely Elevator Says:

    [...] his factual report he details his experiences with Freethought Blogs and how their leaders raped him for [...]

  16. Scented Nectar Says:

    It’s good to see you confront, and show the truth behind, FfTB’s allegations against you.
    They were never scared of you docdropping. They lied on that too. You already had their emails, etc, before they booted you.

    They were scared you would whistleblow on their various plans to fuck people up, such as their attempts to get the person from CFI in trouble with a tattletale phone marathon, and playing with ideas on what THEY would do with YOUR earnings.

    • oolon Says:

      Interesting FtBs managed to be scared of whistle blowing when TF posted his amazing ‘smoking gun’ evidence in the same blog post that they complained about in relation to doc dropping. Do try to keep up or you may look foolish.

  17. mouth mixture Says:

    Good for you. They have reached a stage where any talking from them about ‘community’ only refers to their own fapping/shlicking circle. Who would want to be a part of that? The horror, the horror..

  18. PirateFish (@TheGreatFSM) Says:

    In the beginning of these events, and by following, reading and listening to many sides of the issues, my respect for FTB, and PZ in particular, went from like a 9 to about a 5. As recent time progressed that meter steadily continued to fall. At this point my meter had completely bottomed out to 0.
    However, if Ed (FTB) actually has the good sense enough to do with those proceeds – and do it publicly might I add, without animosity – my respect for FTB may rise back to a 1 or 2. As for PZ though, I’m not too sure that the prior personal respect which has been lost there can ever be regained at this point.

  19. mouth mixture Says:

    Oh, and their chatter about how they speculate about embezzling the income the network gets with your posts? Just goes to show that the little controversy manufacturing plant they’ve put up is just that: a money making/ego stroking machine. What a bunch of horrible little persons.

  20. Roibeaird Says:

    While it could be said that there is legal recourse for TF to be sued by FTB, being that he “hacked”, read exploited a loop hole in their mailing system and could acquire sensitive information. Of course how sensitive is the information circling around the water cooler of FTB? I doubt we are talking corporate secrets here, but it does seem the sabotage of dissenters careers’ are quite common.

    He’s motivations for resubscribing to the mailing list are unknown to us. It is possible that he wanted his voice to be heard in the “hive”, having be so summarily denied but stumbled upon the seedy underbelly it seems of FTB. In legal tit for tat, “hacking” a mailing list is one thing, trying to destroy another’s career is quite another.

    • stakkalee Says:

      I’m sorry but your understanding of the situation is incorrect, or at least incomplete. No one from FTB was calling for Mr. Payton to be removed from his position with CFI. Some members of the listserv did post messages complaining about Mr. Payton’s ill-considered tweet, but they later publicly posted those same complaints on their blog. TF has the backchannel messages, and yet he has not posted any messages containing calls to “get” Mr. Payton. And given the subject of this post, we can both agree that TF has no qualms about continuing to publish these private messages he obtained through unauthorized means.

      • Roibeaird Says:

        The impetus behind the emails concerning Mr.Payton may not have been as threatening as TF assumed, however the allegation that complaints were make about him in an attempt if not to have him removed at least reprimanded for his own views is a damning one indeed. Likewise the more blatant scorn that was directed at TF to become a “pariah” is threatening.

        “given the subject of this post, we can both agree that TF has no qualms about continuing to publish these private messages he obtained through unauthorized means.”

        One must question what is the nature of the emails themselves, i.e. what do they contain. Like I mentioned earlier I doubt something akin to launch codes for PZ personal nuclear arsenal are contained within nor are there bank details for FTBs members. If there was something that sensitive flouting around FTB, then that is a serious security failing on behalf of FTB, both its IT and it members who would so carelessly disclose such material.

        If in reality and more likely actuality it is just personal information or backroom gossip, information that given freely mostly without our knowledge or concern.

        The I.P address that you are using to view this blog is logged and stored, it doesn’t take much to backtrack that to a location, a ISP provider and a person. Your I.P address that is given freely is more information then TF could possibly have gotten from a mailing list.

        • stakkalee Says:

          I understand the impetus behind the Payton emails to be to express frustration at him for his ill-considered tweet. Those frustrations were later compiled into a blogpost by Zinnia Jones. Indeed, there was no call even for a reprimand, simply a desire for an apology and a retraction. I cannot say if there is anything more than that in the backchannel emails; Thunderf00t could, as he has access to those messages. Will you join me in asking TF to publicly confirm the backchannel emails don’t include any further “plotting?” Or do you disagree about my characterization of the impetus for the emails?

          Further, even if the emails only contain personal information and griping, several of the FTB bloggers (not involved in this feud between TF and PZ) have expressed concern that the release of that personal information could cause them real, physical harm, regardless of whether TF intends them harm or not. Natalie Reed, for instance, blogs under a pseudonym because she lives in a community where being an atheist could lead to attacks. However, she did reveal her actual name on the backchannel listserv, and if TF were to reveal that information, even accidentally, it could have serious consequences for her. Surely you’ll agree that’s a valid concern? I’ve previously asked TF if he can give Ms. Reed any guarantee beyond his word that he won’t release any information about her. Will you join me in asking TF to answer that question?

          • Roibeaird Says:

            *I cannot say if there is anything more than that in the backchannel emails; Thunderf00t could, as he has access to those messages.*

            By his own admission, some of them.

            *Will you join me in asking TF to publicly confirm the backchannel emails don’t include any further “plotting?”*

            I thought the goal here was for thunderf00t to not read any more of the emails nor to disclose any of the content. Where he to do so, “we” (the wider community I mean) would demand evidence as to how he came to this conclusion, regarding the lack of threat. I doubt we would take his word for it, we aren’t talking his word now.

            *Or do you disagree about my characterization of the impetus for the emails?*

            What characterization do you mean?
            That TF would publish the contents of the emails for pure sadistic sake?
            If that is so I’m sure he would have done so already, I doubt there would be any discourse.

            *Further, even if the emails only contain personal information and griping, several of the FTB bloggers (not involved in this feud between TF and PZ) have expressed concern that the release of that personal information could cause them real, physical harm, regardless of whether TF intends them harm or not.*

            Methinks that is the paranoia of some massive egos.
            Jedward get more hate mail than the FTB bloggers and they keep right on going, sadly that is.

            *However, she did reveal her actual name on the backchannel listserv and if TF were to reveal that information, even accidentally, it could have serious consequences for her.*

            Only if those who read the blog, know who she is and where she is and of course how to get away with murder.

            If she had enemies who were that willing I think she would know to keep her identity secret.

            *Surely you’ll agree that’s a valid concern? I’ve previously asked TF if he can give Ms. Reed any guarantee beyond his word that he won’t release any information about her. Will you join me in asking TF to answer that question?*

            Interesting point without access to the emails we have only her word that her name is in there.
            As you mentioned a person on the sidelines of this hissy fit, a person that TF quite likely doesn’t know and can’t distinguish a real name from a alias, nor could the vast majority of us being that we know them neither.
            Only those who do know her personally and seeing as she is fearful for her life quite likely don’t know of her blogging and would have no reason to look for it.

            The hysteria all comes down to:
            Do you think TF a sadist?

          • stakkalee Says:

            @Roibeaird, I think TF behaved unethically. By his own admission he has all of the backchannel emails. We have no way of knowing how widely TF has disseminated the backchannel emails. If you’ll agree that no one from FTB directly threatened Mr. Payton’s position at CFI, I’ll agree that there is no need for TF to produce any further information from the emails and we can disregard it further.

            You characterized the impetus for the FTB bloggers sending the initial messages regarding Mr. Payton was to ‘threaten or reprimand’ (if I may paraphrase) him. I contend that the impetus for sending the messages was to complain and vent. I was not discussing TF’s impetus for forwarding the messages to Mr. Payton; if that’s what you were discussing I apologize for the misunderstanding.

            Have you read Natalie Reed’s post regarding the personal info contained in the private messages? If not, I’d recommend you do so; despite the length of the piece I think it captures the potential for damage present in those messages. And if you do read her post you’ll see that TF ‘knows that he knows’ her real name because she told it to him, back when he was a trusted member of the listserv. If you’re suggesting she shouldn’t have trusted TF with that information, I’d wager she’s wondering the same thing.

            There isn’t any hysteria about this situation; many people are concerned by TF’s unethical breach of a private listserv. To date he has failed to offer any valid defense of his actions.

          • Acathode Says:

            I have to agree with you on the point of TFs actions being unethical, I in no way support them, but I have to say that my impression of Natalie Reed’s post and her scare for being outed seems rather… drummed up.

            Looking at the information that she herself has made available, I have a hard time seeing a person who is actually scared of anyone figuring out her real name.

            From the “About the author” information on FTB she gives away where she is currently living, where she grew up and when she got her BA, 2 min on google leads you to her livejournal profile, which will give you from what collage she got her BA, and in what exactly, and also her birthplace.
            Then if you actually check her livejournal entries, she freely gives away almost exactly where in Vancouver she lives.
            From a interview with her, available on youtube, you can get photos of her face.

            If you actually wanted to find out her name, this info she herself has published will get you almost all the way, and that’s from a few minutes on google.

            Of course, she might still be really concerned about people finding out her real name and worried about her privacy, but… it’s seriously hard to get very worked up about it considering how little she seems to have cared for it herself until now.

            It doesn’t excuse TFs behavior, but it’s really hard to not draw the conclusion that she started to care about her privacy mostly from the moment it could be used to show what an evil guy TF is.
            Also, if you actually read her post, most of it is actually a rant about how fed up she is because large chunks of the “community” doesn’t gobble up the FTB ideology.

          • stakkalee Says:

            @Acathode, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I personally agree think you’re mostly right; I don’t think Ms. Reed has much to worry about from TF, and I think she’s been pretty free with her personal information so far. But I’m not her so I can’t say that her concerns are unjustified – they’re her concerns. And she only has TF’s word to go on, and I think you’ll agree she doesn’t have much reason to trust TF’s word. Is she just bringing up the issue to take a whack at TF? Maybe. Doesn’t TF deserve a few whacks?

            I don’t want to make too much of the issue, because I think it’s irrelevant to the larger conversation. TF behaved rather shittily, and none of the shitty FTB behavior justifies what he did. I see a lot of posters here essentially shrugging off what he did, minimizing the “hacking” by calling it eavesdropping, as if all TF did was listen in on a conversation in the next restaurant booth, or splitting semantic hairs about what “authorized” means. I understand a lot of people have grudges against FTB, but it doesn’t say much about your character (not you you, the hypothetical you) if you’re willing to accept shitty behavior because it harms someone you don’t like. I work in IT security, and what TF did is a BIG deal. A person’s ethics are a BIG deal.

          • Acathode Says:

            @stakkalee: Thank you too, for the civil discourse. I have to disagree though.

            I think that it is relevant to point out Reed seems to have had very little concern over her privacy herself, going as far as to she herself publishing the next best thing to her exact living address, because it addresses and counters the spin on the whole affair that’s coming from FTB.
            In essence, the way they are trying to play this is by implying that TF might have actually endangered Reed, and that simply doesn’t fit with her behavior.

            You ask if TF deserves a few “whacks”, and IMO yes he does, but if so, the “whacks” he get should be for the right reason, and not because a drummed up hysteria that by the end of it will have TF almost putting Reed’s life at risk, as if she were living with a protected identity under witness protection with real credible threats to her life (yes, I’m exaggerating a bit, to get the point across).

            TF deserves to get some crap thrown at him for sneaking back on the listserv, that’s the real “douche move”. I don’t think he deserve any crap for “almost killing Reed by outing her”. Neither do I think that he should be “drummed out”.

          • stakkalee Says:

            @Acathode – I agree with that, for the most part, but again, there’s a lot of big issues here, and I think most of the FTB anger stems from the violation of privacy. And I’ll also point out that Ms. Reed has been for the most part uninvolved in this feud. According to her, TF responded to a tweet of hers where she presented her subjective opinion on his ouster by calling her a liar and threatening to publish the backchannel emails to “prove” she was a liar (why would she lie about her subjective opinion?) When she told him she didn’t want him to release any of her private information he told her he thought his actions would be justified because of the way PZ and “the rest” of FTB had treated him. That’s why he deserves a whack on the Natalie Reed issue.

          • Acathode Says:

            @stakkalee: Sorry for the late reply. I agree, most of the anger probably stems from the breech in their privacy, but that’s not really how they are playing this game to the public, is it? I mean, pretty much everyone of them are pointing to Reed’s post and in various forms hinting at that TF actually somehow risked Reed’s wellbeing IRL.

            Basically, they are implying or outright saying that TF did something that is quite a lot more serious than just breeching someones privacy, stuff like actually risking causing bodily harm goes magnitudes above reading their private mail.

            All I’m trying to point out is that the danger to Reed’s person seems to have been severely over-exaggerated, which I think is rather relevant. To me, the only action that actually deserves any real attention is TF sneaking back on the listserv. The rest just strikes me as rather minor…

            Your own description of the Reed/TF issue more or less boils down to “TF said he was going to do something bad on twitter and used a really stupid argument to justify it”, but he hasn’t actually done anything yet.

            Sure it’s not good, but in comparison to getting back on the listserv it is such a minor thing the only response I can muster is “meh”.

      • Michael Says:

        It’s called “plausible deniability”. Do you really think they don’t know how their “audience” would react to their postings? Most of these people aren’t stupid, they’re just dogmatic and narcissistic. They know full well that they can silence their critics indirectly by having their “fans” go after them.

        • stakkalee Says:

          So I guess you sided with Charles Carreon in his lawsuit against The Oatmeal, huh? He claimed that Matt Inman was somehow directing his fans to hack Carreon’s site. He even claimed Inman was responsible even if he wasn’t directly inciting anything from anyone.

          “Plausible deniability.” I bet you even believe you’re applying critical thinking skills, don’t you?

          • Michael Says:

            No I don’t. There is a difference between someone like Carreon starting a fight and then crying uncle when he’s getting pummelled and a group of people who are starting out from a position of power.

            If Carreon would have put out a tweet saying that The Oatmeal sucks and isn’t funny and THEN he would have activated his fans then yes, you are right, I’d sided with Carreon, but that’s not what happened.

            In the case of the FTB: They are the ones “in power” and they live off of that controversy. Myers et. al. have tried to squash any kind of “dissent” by people who have some cloud. To go after a guy who tweets that he thinks your “blog network” is crap? That’s just low.

          • stakkalee Says:

            FTB didn’t go after Payton, except to write a blog post about him. Nothing TF has presented, in the two posts of hacked emails he’s released, shows anyone from FTB threatening to “do a knife job on” Payton (TF’s words, by the way; pretty inflammatory, wouldn’t you agree?) The emails complain about his bullshit tweet, someone was short-tempered and petty and wrote a blog post about it, and that’s it. TF has implied that it was FTB that went after Payton’s job, but he hasn’t actually shown that. And have we actually confirmed that someone went after Payton’s job? I haven’t seen any evidence of that either, but I don’t follow Payton’s twitter feed so it’s definitely possible I missed something; if you’re aware of any info about it, I’d genuinely like to see it.

            I get that this whole FTB/anti-FTB bullshit slapfight that’s going on in the online community is really just politics, libertarian-types versus progressive-types; don’t fool yourself into thinking this has anything to do with who’s the best skeptic. And I get that this whole fight is about how the online atheist community is going to mobilize itself politically going forward. And you should realize that, too. The Schism is here, and it’s here to stay. But we all need to set aside our biases when something like this happens, where a respected voice in the online community does something unethical. And please, please, don’t minimize what TF did. Don’t blame FTB for making it easy, don’t say there’s no privacy protections online, don’t construct elaborate conspiracies, don’t say “The other guys are just as bad”; TF hacked a private server. He hacked a private server, and he listened in on a whole community’s private communications, and he even shared some of that email with a third-party. And what did he find? What did his “whistleblowing” uncover? Bupkis. Nothing. Atheists can be petty – holy Shit. Angry people are sometimes tempted to do bad things – amazing. TF didn’t find anything, and if he had anything to find, why hasn’t he released it in the two posts of emails he’s already released? Please, set aside your biases for a second, and think rationally about this. Do you think TF fucked up? If so, how badly? If it were up to you, how would he be punished, if at all?

          • Michael Says:

            “FTB didn’t go after Payton, except to write a blog post about him. Nothing TF has presented, in the two posts of hacked emails he’s released, shows anyone from FTB threatening to “do a knife job on” Payton (TF’s words, by the way; pretty inflammatory, wouldn’t you agree?)”

            No I wouldn’t agree. And actually, if you get your panties in a bundle after someone says he thinks you don’t produce anything of value just tells me that you really are not producing anything of value. Otherwise you’d be ignoring it and keep producing value.

            “The emails complain about his bullshit tweet, someone was short-tempered and petty and wrote a blog post about it, and that’s it. TF has implied that it was FTB that went after Payton’s job, but he hasn’t actually shown that. And have we actually confirmed that someone went after Payton’s job? I haven’t seen any evidence of that either, but I don’t follow Payton’s twitter feed so it’s definitely possible I missed something; if you’re aware of any info about it, I’d genuinely like to see it.”

            No, he didn’t say that FTB was going after his job, rather that the cheer club in the comments did. And THAT I have no problem believing after seeing the masses react to “elevatorgate”.

            And yes, writing an inflammatory blog post etc. IS exactly what I would expect those thin skinned, self-proclaimed skeptics to do and then gleefully sitting back as their fans go out and “exact revenge”.

            “I get that this whole FTB/anti-FTB bullshit slapfight that’s going on in the online community is really just politics, libertarian-types versus progressive-types; don’t fool yourself into thinking this has anything to do with who’s the best skeptic.”

            I never did. What I do though is realize that all these self-proclaimed skeptics aren’t really skeptics. They like to fashion themselves as rational, skeptical and “enlightened” when in reality they are petty, navel gazing cry-babies who feel prosecuted by those damn… well, people who disagree with them.

            “And I get that this whole fight is about how the online atheist community is going to mobilize itself politically going forward. And you should realize that, too. The Schism is here, and it’s here to stay.”

            The shism is one that is mostly fermented by the big wigs in the “business”. Watson et. al. make a good coin out of the controversy, they have done NOTHING but stoking the fire and people like you expect those they attack to just lie down, roll over and take it. For what reason exactly? Isn’t part of skepticism to piss at authorities legs and question their actions? Apparently that’s only okay as long as the authority is not “one of ours”.

            To be clear, I never had any use for this bullshit “new atheism”, I give Dawkins credit as an evolutionary biologist but I wish he would just up when it comes to religion and belief, same goes all the other “big wigs” in the movement, especially North America. And yes, I am not from here, I can see this entire insanity play out with quite a bit of amusement.

            “But we all need to set aside our biases when something like this happens, where a respected voice in the online community does something unethical. And please, please, don’t minimize what TF did.”

            That’s amusing. So you want to crucify TF while all the bullshit that PZM and Watson have pulled over the last year we just… what exactly? Accept as “cost of doing business”? That’s the problem. The FTB Mafia claims the right for itself to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong, with them always being right and everybody else always being wrong.

            If TF would have been a journalists and would have published these things in the context of an article, would you also lambast the messenger? Or would you maybe take a different look at FTB? To be clear, I had ZERO interest in this whole BS, but leading up to TAM my Twitter suddenly exploded and I got drawn into this bullshit and let’s be clear, this bullshit started with Watson and since then has continued to pile up and stink more day by day. There is no “clean nose” in this at all, but when we talk about abuse of power here it lands squarely in the lap of FTB and Skepchick and all the associated people.

            “Don’t blame FTB for making it easy, don’t say there’s no privacy protections online, don’t construct elaborate conspiracies, don’t say “The other guys are just as bad”; TF hacked a private server.”

            No he did not hack it. Regardless of badly you and FTB want this to be true. Try some truth for once, maybe then people could take the whole thing more serious. These crocodile tears by the FTB people and their followers belong in a Kindergarten, not in an adult discussion.

            “He hacked a private server, and he listened in on a whole community’s private communications, and he even shared some of that email with a third-party. And what did he find? What did his “whistleblowing” uncover? Bupkis. Nothing.”

            Uhuuu. Sure sure.

            “Atheists can be petty – holy Shit. Angry people are sometimes tempted to do bad things – amazing. TF didn’t find anything, and if he had anything to find, why hasn’t he released it in the two posts of emails he’s already released? Please, set aside your biases for a second, and think rationally about this. Do you think TF fucked up? If so, how badly? If it were up to you, how would he be punished, if at all?”

            My preferred solution is to take all the people involved in this bullshit, put them in a sack and keep whacking it. You wouldn’t hit one wrong person.

          • stakkalee Says:

            Great, good solution, that’s real good.

            What did he find? “Uhuuu. Sure sure. What did he find?

    • tardisguy Says:

      Simply Put:

      FTB is an oxymoron at any rate.
      Even with the mentality behind “PZ”s apologetic redefinition, applied to the concept of the site.

      The very idea of “Skepticism” is not to place preconceived notions upon a system of governing, even in something as arguably “trivial” as a website.

      This alone creates an atmospheric bias:
      Something as crucial a study to religion as Psychology and Sociology becomes domain of any gender related occupants within such a study. Even a postulation of gender roles in the development of any social anomaly becomes, with equal regard, as any evil, blasphemous or taboo slight against doctrine.

      To have “Concern” about the “emotions” of any single when it comes to any single observation made, or theory proposed, just because that one person or group is related to it… defeats the very idea of asking the question in the first place.

      If in a place of asking questions, you are squelched because of an emotional regard, then you are not in a place of exploration.

      You are in a place of condemnation.
      A place where it is decided what is right and what is wrong and not correct and incorrect.
      A anti-theist gathering yet far from free thinking,
      far from new ideas.
      And very close to a place that resembles a church…
      A church with a minister.
      A church with a book.
      A church with disciples
      and the only God lacking?

      Is the immortal one.

  21. Comradde PhysioProffe Says:

    Dude, you claim you are “drawing a line under this”, yet in this very post, you publish yet more confidential material that you obtained from a private mailing list that you rejoined under false pretenses, knowing full well that you had no legitimate authorization to access. And at the same time that you continue to post confidential material that you effectively lied to obtain–by using an authorization token that you knew you had no right to use–you mock people for being concerned that you might post other confidential material.

    What the fucken fucke is your goddamn problem?

    • Gumby Says:

      Lamebrain, just go back to FTB and your horribly-written, idiotic, completely content-free sandbox you so laughably call a “blog”.

    • Quawonk Says:

      Yup, attack TF and not FTB for conspiring to steal his money. I bet FTB could have him and his family murdered and you’d still take their side.

    • ekscalybur Says:

      I take issue with your characterization about Tf00ts accessing the mailing list. You go on and on about unauthorized this, and false pretenses that. If he wasn’t authorized to access, clicking re-subscribe wouldn’t have worked.

      If people are going to claim a mailing list is secure and private, shouldn’t someone exert the effort to make sure that is actually the case?

      If no one revoked his authorization after kicking him, his authorization to rejoin is completely and utterly legitimate. Its the exact same authorization that was legitimate when it was first given to him. The mailing list admins who stupidly dropped the ball are the ones you should be directing your ire. This is the exact reason why when you quit/lose a job, they REMOVE your ability to access the companies internal networks.

    • PJLandis Says:

      I was reading this post:

      PZ Myers (2 months ago)
      “You demand respect?
      OK, there’s the problem right there. You don’t get to demand respect. Ever.”

      I wonder if this means Myers doesn’t respect women? Assuming they haven’t “earned” it from him yet.

    • PJLandis Says:

      The above messages discuss defrauding TF out of his money. It’s somewhat hard to argue that he was out-of-line for keeping tabs on an organization that was profiting from his content and discussing how best to distribute those profits after defrauding TF.

  22. ikonografer (@ikonografer) Says:

    dear TF: i would quibble with your characterization of PZ; you wrote: “…is there any level the bilious odious man wouldn’t go to fulfill his vindictive vendetta of hatred of….. etc etc.’,”

    i would argue that you neglected to add ‘vile little’, such that it would read\ ” is there any level the bilious odious vile little man wouldn’t go to fulfill his vindictive vendetta of hatred of….. etc etc.’”

    other than that, excellently said.

  23. John K. Says:

    With the line drawn and the high ground taken TF can now move on and do what he does better than anyone over at FTB. One day perhaps they will try to mend fences and offer an actual apology but I somehow doubt it. What we have learned from all this is that the folks over there do not care for free-thought at all. In fact they will go out of their way to demonize and villify anyone with a different opinion.

    • Comradde PhysioProffe Says:

      What kind of depraved fucken moral compass do you have that leads you to interpret continuing to publish more confidential material obtained under false pretenses and without authorization as “the high ground taken”?

      • John K. Says:

        Wow, really and you think I’m morally depraved? Mirror meet Comradde.

      • tardisguy Says:

        You can say “continuing to publish more confidential material obtained under false pretenses and without authorization” as many times as you want, doesnt make it true.

        Sounds kinda like…

        “Who will speak for the babies… the innocent babies that cant speak”

        “but what about the mot-”

        “The babies!!! The Itty bitty cute little unborn bab-”


      • PJLandis Says:

        Again, it’s evidence of an intent to defraud. When someone retains your work and continues to profit from it, then you aren’t exactly committing high treason by keeping tabs on your legitimate interests.

        But I guess you’re right, the high-ground is reserved for those who steal. While gossip is clearly the depths of moral depravity.

  24. stakkalee Says:

    TF, glad to see you’re continuing to address this topic. I posted a series of questions on Friday’s post and I’d love to get some answers to them.

    1) According to Jason Thibeault, you re-accessed the private FTB listserv shortly after being dismissed from your blogging position there. Why did you attempt to access the listserv at that time? This was well before any discussion of Mr. Payton occurred, so it can’t have been for any reason related to that.

    2) How many unauthorized people have you forwarded these private messages to?

    3) Do you feel you have behaved ethically in this matter towards the other members of the FTB listserv who are not involved with your feud with PZ?

    Thank you again for reading this, and thank you for any answers you feel like providing.

    • Comradde PhysioProffe Says:

      Obviously, no answers to these questions are forthcoming. Thunderf00t and his fans are reduced to trying to shift the focus to how much FTB suckes, and away from the ethical analysis of Thunderf00t’s actions.

    • FTB trolls in damage control Says:

      DO NOT REPLY to this FTB troll.

      • FTB trolls in damage control Says:

        Anything you say will probably be twisted to use against you….WARNING

      • Comradde PhysioProffe Says:

        Yeah, don’t address the relevant questions. Focus on how much FTB sucks, as if that justifies Thunderf00t’s actions.

      • oolon Says:

        Yup all FtB = trolls. Nice logic dimwit.

      • stakkalee Says:

        I’m curious as to what metric you use to decide I’m an “FTB troll?” Is it because I’m asking TF hard questions? I thought we rationalists were supposed to ask hard questions. Is it because I’m not supporting TF in this matter? Many people have found fault with TF’s actions in this matter.

        But beyond that, I’m curious as to whether you think you are applying critical thinking skills to this issue? TF has all but admitted to the unauthorized access of the private FTB listserv (I consider the fact that he forwarded some of the messages as an admission, but I’d be willing to consider alternatives if you could provide an argument for it.) The FTB bloggers have been very clear that he was no longer welcome on their private listserv. TF and some of his supporters have claimed his actions were justified because he potentially saved Mr. Payton’s job, but the timeline suggests that reading is incorrect. Do you dispute the timeline? Are you suggesting Mr. Thibeault is lying? Do you think “the ends justify the means?” I’m curious where this action would fall on your own personal ethical scale. For myself, I believe the unauthorized access to be unethical, and I can’t think of any reason where that access would be justified, but I’m willing to entertain arguments, so please, have at it.

        • Muzer Says:

          You’ll probably find that your (I’m assuming you’re a FTBer) email servers sent him those messages. He didn’t “access” anything. He merely clicked a link in an email, quite possibly out of frustration of being blocked from the list without a good reason, then got emails sent to him. All the link did was send a *request* to a server to add him to a list – it was a validly-formed request, it wasn’t maliciously constructed to exploit bugs in the mail server.

          So, there was no hacking. There was no unauthorised access. All there was was a misconfigured mailing list server sending emails, addressed to him.

          That was speaking technically. Speaking morally, I am not a philosopher, but by that time, FTB had already demonstrated that they’re a highly immoral organisation. Others have already used whilstleblowing analogies, and I think they’re valid personally; TF probably thought he would find more examples of immoral behaviour that he could call out (and he was right!). He has not used those emails for personal gain as far as anyone can tell; he has used them completely selflessly, exposing wrongdoing but at the same time, protecting both innocent and guilty parties by not revealing any sensitive, personal information; only the comments themselves. Considering that Thunderf00t does have a reputation of not dropping docs, and FTB does have a reputation of immoral, bullying behaviour, I would be inclined to take TF for his word that he hasn’t given away sensitive information, and not take FTB at their word that they never called for this person to be fired.

          Feel free to post arguments that aren’t just restatements of the ones you’ve already made (unless you feel clearly that I’ve avoided commenting on them, in which case it was probably me just overlooking them)

          • stakkalee Says:

            You’re free to assume anything you wish. First off, your characterization of TF’s actions is simply incorrect. If you have some aversion to calling it hacking, that’s fine. Call it eavesdropping. The fact is, whatever his reasons, TF went back someplace he knew he wasn’t welcome, and instead of letting the relevant people know so they could correct the problem he decided to keep listening in. I understand he was very butthurt about how FTB treated him, but that simply doesn’t justify the initial action he took. I think that’s a fundamental point, and can’t be argued; some people have said “we all would do that” (click on the subscribe link), but that’s not a valid justification. We all may be tempted, but that decision is a test of character, a test TF failed.

            On to the information TF discovered. To my understanding, there are two pieces of information TF uncovered – the communications surrounding Mr. Payton and the communications about what to do with the advertising proceeds. If there’s something else I’m missing please let me know. On the matter of the Payton emails, I’ve heard allegations that the emails contained a plot to “do a knife job on” Mr. Payton (TF’s words), and I’ve heard allegations that some unknown person made an attempt to have CFI reprimand or fire Mr. Payton, but I haven’t seen TF confirm that the emails actually contain direct threats against Mr. Payton’s job. One of the bloggers in question, Zinnia Jones, has claimed that she wrote some backchannel emails about Mr. Payton, but that she was simply venting her frustration at Mr. Payton’s ill-considered tweet, and that she later published those same complaints in blog form. Unless TF can confirm the messages contained anything other than that I have to question whether what he found was valuable in any way, other than to let us know that yes, some bloggers on FTB were mad about a tweet that criticized them. I’m not saying no one from FTB tried to get Payton fired, I’m saying TF doesn’t know that if that’s true or not, and yet he’s still comfortable claiming it’s true.

            On the matter of the emails where Ed Brayton briefly considers keeping the advertising proceeds from TF’s blog, I agree it’s slimy but A)as is apparently important round these parts, that’s not illegal, and B)he hasn’t actually done so. Assuming he does what TF requested and donates the money to MSF, then that’s a test of character as well, and we’ll see what kind of character Mr. Brayton has.

            On the subject of doc dropping, you’re right. TF did the right thing by removing the personal information, but that’s not to say that Natalie Reed’s concerns aren’t valid.

            I understand many people are critical of FTB, the viewpoints they represent, and the way some of them behave in online interactions, but none of that justifies what TF did. A lot of commenters here have taken the position that what TF did was no big deal, and given what we know about what TF did, I don’t understand how they can come to that conclusion. None of this is FTB allegations; this is stuff TF has admitted to doing.

          • Michael Says:

            I have managed listservrs in the past and the one thing the system does by default is sending an email to the admin the moment someone new subscribes. So if he “weasled his way back in”, the admin should have known and could have simply blocked him from any further attempts by blacklisting the email address.

            That they didn’t do this either means that whoever configures the listserv is an idiot who doesn’t know what they are doing OR they purposefully left him on the list in order to have an argument against anything he’s doing from there on in.

            Take your pick of what you think is more likely.

          • stakkalee Says:

            HOLY SHIT. You’re really claiming FTB cooked up this false-flag operation, relying on TF to click that link again, AND not do anything for a month, until FTB could come along and trick TF into thinking they were trying to get Michael Payton fired, all while leaving their wording purposefully vague, just so they could get TF to publish some of these emails, so they could drum him out of the online atheist community? Yes, please tell me how likely you think that scenario is.

            Or, if the more likely solution is simply incompetence, please tell me how that absolves TF of taking responsibility for his actions?

          • Michael Says:

            “HOLY SHIT. You’re really claiming FTB cooked up this false-flag operation, relying on TF to click that link again, AND not do anything for a month, until FTB could come along and trick TF into thinking they were trying to get Michael Payton fired, all while leaving their wording purposefully vague, just so they could get TF to publish some of these emails, so they could drum him out of the online atheist community? Yes, please tell me how likely you think that scenario is.”

            Bit of an active imagination there buddy? No, I am saying that I don’t put it past them that they know he was listening in and decided to let it slide in case it could become useful. Yes, I do think they play dirty.

            As I also said: The other option is that their admin is completely clueless / useless and if so they should hire someone who actually knows what they are doing.

            “Or, if the more likely solution is simply incompetence, please tell me how that absolves TF of taking responsibility for his actions?”

            Did I ever imply that? You seem to have this bizarro idea that I am thinking TF is a saint while FTB is the devil. I have neither such opinion. What I DO think though is that the entire TFB is a bunch of narcissistic little pricks who will do whatever they have to do in order to stay relevant in the “atheist scene” and no low is too low to achieve that.

            As for TF? I don’t know the guy. I know some of his writings and videos, I follow this whole thing more out of amusement as I just get my own impression confirmed that the entire circle jerk that is the atheist / skeptic / feminist / TBC movement is a joke that only exists for itself.

          • stakkalee Says:

            Fine, you have nothing to say about the main topic, you just wanted to say that FTB is probably either incompentent or devious. Thanks for the “contribution”.

          • Michael Says:

            “Fine, you have nothing to say about the main topic, you just wanted to say that FTB is probably either incompentent or devious. Thanks for the “contribution”.”

            And what exactly are YOUR contributions here? Outside of attacking anybody who dares not to sing the praises of the great PZM et. al?

          • stakkalee Says:

            Asking hard questions you’re apparently unwilling to. Or maybe they just never occurred to you?

          • Michael Says:

            “Asking hard questions you’re apparently unwilling to. Or maybe they just never occurred to you?”

            Oh that’s cute, as if any of your posts is actually asking tough questions. You have one very narrow focus, trying to re-affirm what you already know “true” and damn the rest.

            That’s exactly the problem. You, like most people on here, are a partisan hack. I have more sympathy with TF if only for the reason that he has little to personally gain from all this while for PZM et. al. in no small part their lifelihood and “god status” is on the line.

            You want to ask tough questions? Go back a year, start asking then and follow the lead. But that may give you some “unhappy” answers, so why bother?

            Unlike you I don’t see anybody in the right here, just different shades of wrong, but again, that would actually require to make an intellectual argument, not an emotional one and that point we passed roughly five seconds after Watson whined about that dude who tried to pick her up and PZM trying to be the hero of the ladies.

          • stakkalee Says:

            I asked a question above, and it’s apparently so hard you haven’t answered it. What did TF find? “Uhuuu. Sure sure.” is not an answer. What did TF find?

    • rjmx Says:

      I would guess that, since half of you seem to think that what TF did was actually illegal and would probably set the police on him if you thought you could get away with it, he’s not replying because it’d only give you more ammunition.

      • stakkalee Says:

        I’m not a lawyer, so I make a point never to speculate about legal matters online; it’s a good way to get yourself in trouble.

        I think what TF did was unethical. I’ve asked repeatedly in this thread and the earlier thread for TF to justify his actions. To date he’s offered only one – the threat to Mr. Payton’s position at CFI. As I’ve mentioned before, several facts, such as Jason Thibeault’s timeline, show that can’t be used to justify the actions he took when he took them.

        I believe I’ve made my opinion of TF’s behavior clear. Do you feel TF has behaved ethically in this matter? If so, why?

    • Wrath0fKhan Says:

      This time “you” are pulling the short one, whether you like it or not. hehehe

      • stakkalee Says:

        No, I’m pulling the other one. It has bells on.

        But seriously, what’s your opinion on TF’s behavior? Do you think my questions are valid? Do you think they add anything to the discussion?

    • Time Kitten Says:

      I support ThunderF00t… and I support this line of questions.

      • stakkalee Says:

        Thanks for the support Time Kitten. There’s another question I didn’t include in that list that I really want an answer to. There seems to be a misunderstanding about whether anyone from FTB actually threatened Mr. Payton’s job, or if they were just bitching, and TF still hasn’t cleared that up. I think that point especially is very important to the issue at hand.

  25. Shann Bridges Says:

    “Dropping docs” isn’t a crime. Using unauthorized access via a security flaw to crack into private places on the web is.

    • tardisguy Says:

      Either someone “hacked” something.
      Or someone let someone in…

      Now if they “hacked” it, then thats “bad”
      If i were the other side, Id say it was hacked too…

    • Eric P Says:

      I’d hardly classify it as a security flaw unless you also point out that it was the software operators fault that the proper precautions were not in place. I have run my own servers in the past (FTP, WebDav, SMTP, etc.) and BEFORE I allowed access to any of them I checked them multiple times for my own errors. Given that the system was not set from the get go to require Admin approval to join I would hardly call this an episode of “hacking”. Ethically though I am withholding judgement since I don’t know personally if EITHER side is being 100% truthful.

    • Phill Says:

      Except he did use authorized access. See this is what you people don’t understand, the invite can give you authorized entrance to the mail list, the invitation wasn’t timed out so it was still an authorized way to gain entrance. That he wasn’t SUPPOSED to gain access doesn’t matter one bit, he got the authority to gain access, if that wasn’t supposed to happen then that is the fault of the software or the admin. If you gave somebody the authority to access something and you forgot to remove that authority from him that is your own fault.

      • stakkalee Says:

        I’m sorry but your understanding of the situation is incorrect. The initial invitation email that was sent to TF remained active even after FTB removed TF’s address from the listserv. When he was removed, any authority TF had to access the system was revoked. The fact that the admins failed to fully secure their system in no way absolved TF of his responsibility to respect another person or group’s stated desire for privacy. Or do you contend otherwise? If a property owner fails to fully secure their property, do you think they bear any culpability for the actions of a third party who violates their security?

        • Phill Says:

          It SHOULD revoke authorization but it didn’t. The fact that the invitation didn’t time out meant it was still an authorized way to gain access, hence gave him authorization to enter, if it didn’t the software would have blocked him. Software can’t make mistakes, it works by strict protocol that is set in stone so to say. If X = Y then authorization is granted, that is how it works. The software gave permission to enter the site, similar to an security guard granting you access to a building. You can’t possible blame somebody for trespassing if you let them in the building, same way you can’t blame somebody for hacking if you let them on your site.
          Yeah people didn’t want Thunderf00t on the mailing list but luckily its not a crime to not respect someone’s wishes. Saying you don’t want somebody on their site is not a legal binding contract. You have all the rights to make sure that person doesn’t enter your site but you have no footing too stand on if he finds a (legal) way to re-enter.
          Its not like a house or a store where you can ban a person with a court order, we are talking about an internet ban, it only denies you permission, it doesn’t mean you can’t in any way enter that site in anyway possible, it just means you are restricted access, they determine how restricted that access is.

          • stakkalee Says:

            I’m sorry but that’s just incorrect. First off, we aren’t talking about a public blog, we’re talking about a private listserv that requires an invitation to join. TF’s invitation was revoked, and he knew it was revoked. The fact they fucked up the software configuration doesn’t change that at all. I’ll agree that it’s not illegal to disrespect someone’s wishes, but plenty of things are legal and still unethical, and it’s the ethics of the situation I’m most concerned about.

            Again, we’re not talking about an “Internet ban”, FTB didn’t say “TF, you can never come back and read any of our blogs.” They kicked him off a private mailing list, and he rejoined the list without tipping them off. It’s as simple, and unethical, as that.

          • Phill Says:

            If TF’s invitation was revoked he wouldn’t be able to join the server, its that simple.
            Software protocol does not make mistakes.

    • Quawonk Says:

      So Rebecca Watson is just as much, if not more, a criminal as TF then? http://tinyurl.com/8lcodah

  26. Pete Hague Says:

    I think it would be a great idea, as suggested by a poster above, to create your own skeptical blogging community thunderf00t.

    But don’t create another FTB; you would need to make the effort to invite people who disagree, even perhaps people currently on the side of FTB, and you would need a strict comment moderation policy designed to keep the conversation civil, rather than to give the moderators the last word in all arguments.

    Groups like FTB and Skepchick would be best buried by more people showing them how a rational community should really look.

    • Michael Says:

      Do we really need something like FTB? Wouldn’t it be better to just have a “hub”, a site that provides links / references to interesting blogs etc.?

      The problem is the moment you add a financial motive you’re jeopardising the content. It’s much easier to just let everybody do their own thing and then aggregate it independently. This way the individual blogger can decide how commercial they want to be and the chance of “group think” would be greatly reduced.

  27. lordirek1 Says:

    I’ve followed the FTB controversy loosely since it started, and I gotta say, they seem a seriously mean-spirited group, and while your (tf00t) behavior will never be construed as a shining bastion of morality, I think you did what was necessary for your own protection. Still waiting on the next WDPLAC’s…..

  28. oolon Says:

    Not even a small admission of guilt even though commenters standing up for TF on the other post still said it was a shitty move to access the listserv. Nope just PZ was bad once – look over there!

    More innuendo with no evidence – FtB have *lots* of skeletons in their closet only TF is far too honest to expose them. Still some of his more foolish fans think FtBs really were plotting to have Payton fired – that amateurish juxtaposition of assertion to quote worked with some.

    The quotes about payment are evidence of nothing other than people not liking TF at FtBs (Amazing revelation!) – unless he doesn’t get paid – Ed Brayton already replied to TF on another post saying he would happily pay the proceeds of ad clicks to a charity if he named one and assured him he’d get paid. TF apparently ‘forgot’ this and it is all his idea now :-) http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/freethoughtblogs-and-pc-lyers/#comment-4052

    So more distraction – anything other than admit a mistake.

    Seems he has burnt bridges – alienated friends (AronRa, Dillahunty and PZ) – and make a complete fool of himself. Why will I not be surprised to see TF added to Phawrongula as one of the victims of FtBs bullying :-D

    • Anonymous Says:

      I cant handle all the smug pseudo informed mentality going on in this post.
      You doubt thunderfoots claims of skeletons and yet defend Ed Brayton based on his own words with nothing backing them.
      I assume you believe when Ed says “I’ve already explained why this is not true in other venues, and I’m fully aware that many people will not believe that. I can’t provide details because we have a policy against revealing what is said on the FTB mailing list.” that he’s telling the truth right? there’s definitely no double standard?

      • Steph Says:

        If anyone has proof that Ed is lying here it’s Thunder. He has posted no proof.

      • 0verlord Says:

        Oh of course not. Ed Brayton and PZ Myers are bastions of honesty and integrity and have a track record of acting honestly. (That was actually painful to say even in jest.)

      • oolon Says:

        Slight point – I doubt Thunder cos he has no proof despite access to the secret list. I doubt Ed Brayton is doing wrong until he has not paid Thunder or the charity. I see no evidence and TF is all about evidence, right?

        Anyway that is all the fluff and distraction to avoid the core question. Why did he access the listserv? No answer comes from the Thunderf00ted one.

        He has tried to claim it was because they were plotting against Payton — but he accessed the list a month before. So fail there.

        He now tries to distract with sins of PZ and imagined future ones of Ed Brayton. So fail there too.

        All to avoid the Elephant in the room… Why?

        • Anonymous Says:

          Because this entire fiasco is a megafucktonne of retardation from everyone involved.
          Honestly I’m glad it happened the youtube atheist community was full of faggotry (not homophobic literally gay, but meaning displeasant in the everyday use of the word.) Now hopefully they never try to make a rational community out of irrational shit fling primates again.

          • oolon Says:

            Youtube’s atheist community will continue to have idiots in it. Some of TFs fans will continue to be idiots. There will be idiots in FtBs until Tuvok manages to bring about the end times.

            “…irrational shit fling primates…”, unless you want to join the YECs then that is exactly what we all are at times. Idiocy is one thing that is common across all communities. I don’t quite understand why people think ‘our community’ would be free of stupidity, sexism, racism or whatever. Just having a fairly firm position on the non-existence of god(s) does not make you better than anyone else.

    • dougal445 Says:

      has aronra fallen out? I hadn’t heard from him.
      I don’t think dillanhunty was ever a friend in the meaningful sense.
      As for pz, he did blatently missrepresent thunder and break his promise too him, argueably pz is largely to blame for all this.

      • oolon Says:

        True I think I’ve only seen his wife, Lilandra, say that they had tried to speak some sense into him and given up. No actual statement from AronRa so my mistake – I think he is rightly keeping out of it.

        Although I’m apparently an official FtB mouthpiece I’ll jeopardise my few pieces of silver and say I agree with you a little about it being PZs fault. PZ’s post in response to TFs first volley on FtBs was poorly written and thought out. I think he reacted emotionally as he had recommended TF himself and was embarrassed by the reception to his unorthodox writing style (Diplomacy in action there). If he had managed to either ignore it or write a more reasoned response then TF may not have gone over the deep end.

    • FTB criminals Says:

      Oolon thinks it’s ok that he and FTB’s other anonymous members steal Thunderf00t’s advertising royalties.

      A low-life criminal if there ever was one.

      • oolon Says:

        Yeah we were all plotting for a few dollars more how did you find out our fiendish plot to deprive Thunderf00t from his cash? It is so many millions we sold our souls to PZ and his feminazi nun horde in return for a few comments.

  29. Anonymous Says:

    PZ and FTB are scumbags, obviously, but that was pretty much exposed the first time I heard about this.

    Having it go on… endlessly… seemed about as exciting as watching paint dry.

    Thank you for *finally* bringing this to an end. We appreciate it.

  30. justnorrik Says:

    “I think it would be a great idea, as suggested by a poster above, to create your own skeptical blogging community thunderf00t.”

    I don’t think he would, and I wouldn’t blame him for passing on it for the reasons this argument has become. I’d also like to think creating such a community without some type of public peer-review would lead to another FTB. I have the server space to contribute to it, so I’m game for it…

    On a side note, we each have control over our own “docs” and should conduct ourselves in our own best interest when it comes to protecting them. We have to protect ourselves first, not expect others who we don’t know on the web to do it for us as if we’re assigned interwebz secretaries…

  31. Steph Says:

    TF, your word is not good enough. They don’t trust you because you violated THEIR trust. The fact that you can’t grasp this simple concept makes you startlingly socially inept.

    You kicked the hornet’s nest from day one. Of course your blog has a lot of hits because you’re at the center of this controversy that you created by being an unapproachable douchebag! When you engage with discussion with someone you have to engage them on the merits of their argument. You also have to treat your opponent with respect. You did neither of these things.

    FtB is not a creationist blog. They’re atheists and skeptics with a focus on feminism and I believe it would have been productive for you to engage them in a civil, intelligent discussion, WHICH YOU DID NOT DO. You attacked them like VFX. Do you see how this was not appropriate? Do you think that ‘free speech’ means you’re free to approach an argument like a wailing toddler?

    I think you need to get off the internet for a while. You’ve forgotten how to engage with real people.

    • 0verlord Says:

      LOL this is rich! Nobody would ever “engage” real people in the way that FFTB drones do. Take your own advice.

    • dougal445 Says:

      Actually I reckon you have that back to front!
      Whether you agreed with all or any of it, thunders first post was a fairly reasoned arguement. Thunder was then met with attacks and miss-representations (pretty much confirming a point he had made in that post ironically)
      Agreed thunders response to those attacks and miss-representation could have been more measured, but still?

      • Steph Says:

        No, I would not agree with that. Thunder’s first post was mostly opinion. He’s never been harassed at a conference and he has female friends who have never been harassed, so that’s the evidence he stands on: pure anecdote. Then when PZ confronted him on his use of anecdotal evidence he completely flipped his lid. The tone of his second post was HOW DARE ANYONE CRITICIZE ME!? His response was immature and embarrassing.

        • dougal445 Says:

          i should have said ‘whether you agree witn all or any of it OR NOT’

          what you mention was not the entirety of thunders post.
          Pz did misrepresent, thunders respone was angry at the missrepresentation not valid critisism.

          • dougal445 Says:

            this fact is further evidenced by the fact that thunder had no problem of bloggers such as richard carrier, who had made valid critisism of what thunder actually said and also acknowledged some of the points thunder made. Its a shame the rest of ftb are not of that calibre. How different things may have been.

          • Steph Says:

            I just read Carrier’s response (I was not aware of it until now) and it sounds basically the same as PZ’s response. At least he hits all the same notes, albeit in a more neutral tone. If I was Thunder I would have expected PZ to give me a good riffing, which is just his style, but he does address Thunder’s argument in his post.

            I honestly find Thunder’s blog difficult to read, especially his FtB entries, because of the excessive amount of internet language (WTF!? FFS), namecalling (“Strawmyers”) and his stream of consciousness writing, which is much better suited to a vblog. The style of his writing is very… teenage boy on the internet. I believe this was a much more significant factor in his expulsion from FtB than most people realize. His writing style is undeniably nonacademic.

          • dougal445 Says:

            There is no comparison to richard carriers post which acknosledged some of what thunderf00t said and also critisised what HE ACTUALLY SAID! (sorry did the caps confuse you?) and pz critisesed a complete strawman and repeatedly missreprestented what thunderfoot said.

          • Steph Says:

            Is it possible there was a misunderstanding? The first time I read TF’s post I found it very hard to figure out what he was trying to say. At some points in his post it does seem like he wants people to shut up about sexual harassment whereas at other points he’s arguing for a balanced approach. There’s not a lot of consistence between his tone and the points he is making.

            For example, his allegation that having explicit rules about conduct is akin to releasing the fun police is a complete strawman. Having clearly stated rules of conduct is helpful because it gives both parties a clear idea of what is and isn’t allowed. Most places of business have explicit rules about sexual harassment and a conference is a place of business. Yet he makes a huge deal about this.

            If TF only wanted to say that the FtB and Skepchic community is spending an inordinate amount of time on issues of sexual harassment he could have stated it with a little more clarity. I for one do think that encouraging diversity at these conferences is important and making minorities and women feel safe there is one way to do that (although there are certainly better ways). There is a discussion to be had here. If TF put as much effort into his blog posts as he does his videos I do not think this would have happened.

          • dougal445 Says:

            obviously there clearly was misunderstandings, it was apparent from what people were saying although i really don’t know why, it was very clear to me. I found the missrepresentations abound quite staggering. And yes i agreed with some of it, disagreed with some parts and was in between on other parts.

          • Steph Says:

            What is clear is that Thunderf00t accessing the mail system was no misunderstanding. His forwarding of private e-mails to third parties was no misunderstanding. He acted with clear intent – although until he tells us what he actually planned to do once he was back on the mailing list, his motives remain a mystery. I also find it disgusting that when writing his first blog post he took on the despicable tone of someone who knows that he is right and needs no convincing. It’s as if his first official post was designed to provoke an emotional response rather than an intellectual one. That’s why I can’t side with Thunder on this.

            As for FtB’s standing, I have no opinion. I’ve been away from their blog for about a year and only got interested again when I got wind of this “controversy.” I do appreciate the effort PZ and others have made to stand up in defense of feminism, as it’s given me more confidence to stand up for myself as a woman and made me more aware of gender basis, where it does exist. I still hesitate to call myself a feminist, however, because I believe in equality and “feminist” is obviously a one-sided word. But I’m getting off track…

        • Ellt Says:

          “I do appreciate the effort PZ and others have made to stand up in defense of feminism, as it’s given me more confidence to stand up for myself as a woman”

          It’s the same sort of confidence one might have wrongly felt for a half-second when various government entities and politicians declared they would try to get Chick-fil-A out of their areas (or not let the franchise in).

          PZ Myers is someone who can be relied on to support a certain side in any debate (feminists), with all honest and all dishonest means available, and whether in that instance that side is right or not. He will always support feminists on every issue, right or not.

          “As a woman”, if in any important particular instance you disagree with the feminist side, you will be bullied. Your position will be dishonestly represented and you will be personally attacked and have bizarrely pernicious motives ascribed to you. You will be publicly mocked by popular figures.

          Process is more important than particular debates’ substance. An unemotional debate in which the views of those taking the *unpopular* position are respected – that is what is important. One in which those who, as a group, criticize the unpopular check their understanding if their first interpretation of the other is that they advocate something absurd.

          Essentially no one misrepresents others’ arguments as ubiquitously as feminists do (this is an observation of people that has nothing to do with the correctness of particular arguments of an ideology).

          Feminists’ correctness on details of TF’s misbehavior or sexual harassment policies is beside the point. FTB is a detriment to critical thinking, reason, skepticism, honesty, and other abstract things despite its value against specific wrong things such as UFO cults, Catholic pedophiles, etc.

          Debates can occur here, in this less moderated forum, that cannot on FTB due to censorship. Does moderation make PZ Myers’ comment section better than a content-free, self-congratulatory toxic cesspit? No, but it does stifle honest exchange of opinions in a free marketplace of ideas.

          PZ, Watson, and other feminists remind me of the “liberal” governors who tried to ban Chick-fil-A for the bigoted comments of its CEO. I am much more comfortable under gay-bashing (insert random other bad traits here) politicians who are committed to fairness and due process than I am under such “progressives.”

          All egalitarian people should generally oppose FTB, as part of opposing TF for his wrong actions. Anyone who doesn’t, I don’t trust as actually opposing TF for good reasons. Sure, I will listen to their arguments that I and other principled people should criticize TF’s actions, or should not criticize FTB, or should consider TF as holding even lower ground than FTB in this case (no one has the moral high ground).

          But anyone who doesn’t see FTB weighing down honest skeptical discourse on the internet like an ulcerating tumor on a wounded hummingbird is someone whose judgement I just don’t trust.

    • Cattlehunter Says:

      A defense of FtB on the grounds that the disagreement with them is rooted in not understanding how to engage with real people.

      If irony could kill you’d be facing murder charges right now.

      • Steph Says:

        Do you like sucking Thunder’s cock, Cattlehunter? Because apparently that’s all his fans are good for.

        And if FtB fans are all sucking PZ’s cock then I guess that makes you kids even, doesn’t it?

        Look, I don’t really care about this petty feud. No matter who ‘wins the day’ FtB will continue to exist until they become unprofitable and Thunder will continue to post until his lust for internet fame is sated. I wanted to believe that I was mistaken about Thunder but he’s proven me right again and again, but what really boggles my mind is the support he gets for his dishonesty and inflated ego. In a pissing contest between FtB and Thunderf00t Thunder has pissed a river. The world keeps on turning. Nobody cares.

        Enjoy your internet slap fight.

    • Jules Holande Says:

      FfTB would find that you would have a productive worthwhile site if you were less of a pack of cunts.

  32. Ametspeaks Says:


  33. 0verlord Says:

    A brilliantly played end game, tf00t. Also good to know they really are laughable to pretty much everyone except themselves.

  34. Rick Says:

    Three things: 1) PZ earns money the more this continues. 2) FTB is neither free, nor contains thoughts = false advertising. Every visit there racks up traffic. 3) I have posted about this in several places – this is exactly what will continue to happen as the atheist movement gains traction. The strongest threats will be censored. Get used to it. Welcome to the resistance.

    • Steph Says:

      Welcome to hyperbole.

      • Jack Rawlinson Says:

        Welcome to FtB drones becoming pariahs in the atheist “community”. You hypersensitive, histrionic FtB wankers are so obviously full of hypocritical shit, and too many of us have seen that for you to reclaim the ground now. You probably don’t believe this yet But you will. Oh, you will.

    • oolon Says:

      We’ve been fighting a long time. We are out numbered by FtB trolls working around the clock without quitting. We idiots have a strength that cannot be measured. This is Rick. If you are listening to this, you are the resistance.

  35. Bleep Says:

    Something to take away from this: If you think that FTB is a safe space for you as a blogger, forget about it. Private details are not protected there. Their system allowed TF00t to sign on without any problems or any hacking whatsoever. Their concern for privacy and security sucks, and they should get an audit for their IT system and the procedures involved if they want to regain any credibility. Respect is a different matter – they’re so deep in the minus on that one, it’s laughable.

    So if you have something private to say, don’t use a place that doesn’t invalidate subscription tickets and just allows people to subscribe to listservs (that they weren’t even banned from in the first place). They have themselves to blame, for the biggest part. My guess would be that the listserv sends unencrypted mail, too – despite the abundance of PGP/GPG nowdays. Putting your private lives/defrauding operations at risk for any malicious man in the middle. I wouldn’t be too surprised.

    Your phone number and a polaroid of your behind, glued with spit and bubblegum to the wall of a restroom stall in a midwestern truck stop might be better protected than anything you do or say on a FTB mailing list.

    • Steph Says:

      This is the only point here I can agree with. Although I don’t think they are to blame for Thunder’s behavior, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. I hope they’ve learned from this experience and will make FtB a safer place for it’s bloggers.

    • rjmx Says:

      “My guess would be that the listserv sends unencrypted mail, too – despite the abundance of PGP/GPG nowdays. Putting your private lives/defrauding operations at risk for any malicious man in the middle. I wouldn’t be too surprised.”

      They were apparently using Mailman, which is known for, among other things, sending you your password *in clear* via email once a month. I’ve never used the thing, so it’s possible that that’s a configuration option these days, but I doubt it. In any case, that pack of clowns would probably have been too stupid to turn it off it were an option.

      See http://www.jwz.org/doc/mailman.html for an amusing, if rather old, rant about Mailman.

      • stakkalee Says:

        I agree, MailMan is very well known as a poorly-implemented listserv manager. I believe they’ve since switched to a different platform, although I’m unaware of which one, or of it’s security capabilities.

        Tell me, do you think their failure to understand the security limitations of their mailing software justify in any way Thunderf00t’s unauthorized access of the listserv after he had been explicitly removed from it? What responsibility does a property owner have to protect his property from a malicious intruder, especially in a cybersecurity context?

  36. Allison Says:

    It simply amazes me that there are still people out there attempting to defend the behavious or Myers, Benson, Watson, and the rest of their clown troop. At least some good has come from all this – I am now aware of your internet presence whereas I was not before you joined FTB! (FTB – which I no longer visit, by the way)

  37. CommanderTuvok Says:

    I can’t blame TF for wanting to move on – the cat is now thoroughly out of the bag, and FfTB is thoroughly sullied. The wider a/s communities regard FfTB as a joke. Their attempts to “shun” people out of the community have failed dramatically, and as we saw at TAM2012, it is the Baboons (ie leaders and acolytes of FfTB) who have made themselves ‘persona not grata’ in the community.

    Many don’t want to admit it, but we owe ERV and The Slyme Pit big time for bringing down the Goliath.

    • stakkalee Says:

      I agree with you on that, CommanderTuvok. The behavior of the Slyme Pit has definitely precipitated this wider schism in the online atheist/skeptical/rationalist community, and I would definitely be willing to credit them for all the positive developments that are occurring.

    • mouth mixture Says:

      Indeed. ERV and the sly/imepit where major sources of good in all of this. It has prevailed despite all the lies, slander and dehumanisation attempts by some FTB/Skepchicken bloggers.

  38. dougal445 Says:

    that wasn’t the entirety of the post!
    Pz did misrepresent, thunder was angry at the misrepresentation.

  39. xx(@SisterChromatid) Says:

    Click Thundef00t’s old links for charity:


  40. Matt Dillahunty needs a reality check Says:

    I can’t believe I used to like Matt Dillahunty. Grow a f..ing brain Matt. What if FTB’s anonymous trolls had their knife in your back?

    I luv this popular reply to Matt moronic youtube critique of Thunderf00t:

  41. Matt Dillahunty needs a reality check Says:


  42. secular Steve Says:

    It’s safe to say FTB has earned itself a place deep inside a shitpile of toxic waste. PZ, Ed and the rest of the merry men and little girls whom represent Ftbullies surely must realise their little footprint is hardly worth a mention, unless it’s for conflict related issues. A bunch of cry babies.
    FTCrybabyBlogs. Immature dipshits with too much time on their hands. A big fish in a tiny little pond, about the size of a rain puddle. FTB seem to believe in delusions of grandeur.

    • Steph Says:

      So you’re saying Thunderf00t is the Pope of Atheism. Got it.

      • hannanibal Says:

        How did you possibly read that comment and come to that conclusion?
        So you are saying PZ Myers rapes fish? Ok. Got it.

        • Steph Says:

          Given the black and white nature of TF’s fans I thought it was a reasonable conclusion. Am I to understand that you do not worship the ground TF walks on?

          • hannanibal Says:

            I’ve yet to see any ground Thunderf00t has walked on so have not had the chance to decide whether it is worthy of my worship.
            I still don’t get how you came to the Pope conclusion from the original comment.

          • Steph Says:

            Take a look around you. So many of TF’s fans have said that this little slapfight is causing a ‘schism’ in the atheist movement, as if TF was a leader of said movement or at least in a position where he could be leader if the movement split. How truly laughable.

          • Lsuoma Says:

            Am I to understand that you do not worship the ground TF walks on?

            I’ve only ever met him in Yellowstone NP, so while I wouldn’t say I worship it, it IS pretty fucking awesome!

          • Michael Says:

            Black & White is a speciality of the Watson / PZ Myer groupies who seem to think they are on top of Moral Mountain and anybody who isn’t agreeing with them should be thrown off of it.

        • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

          So you are saying PZ Myers rapes fish? Ok. Got it.


          I do experiments on fish. I’ve killed tens of thousands of embryos…

          — PZ Myers

  43. LMU Says:

    “To be honest, I wouldn’t want to be seen to profit off petit drama like this (I never monetize videos that deal with this sort of thing), and I’m sure FTB would likewise agree. Indeed it would be nice to see FTB follow my lead on this and donate all the revenue generated from this pointless drama to the same charity.”

    I hope the bloggers at FTB agree with this, because it does seem like they are trying to make money off of drama. That plus Ed saying, “Or at this point I could just tell him to go fuck himself.” after promising to pay TF, really looks dishonest. Perhaps they would donate their share for the same time period? Perhaps just the blogs that responded to TF (participating in the drama). At the very least they could match TF’s donation.

  44. Ken Says:

    Since so many at FTB have repeated the falsehood that thunderf00t ‘hacked’, ‘weasled’, ‘displayed knowledge of the Internet to get’ into that mailing list, let FTB member Jason Thibeault explain what in fact happened:


    Now Mr. Thibeault is clearly trying to cover his ‘FTB admin’s’ asses here, but thunderf00t DID NOT NEED to ‘hack’ the list, because FTB’s admins FAILED to ban him from it. Can’t tell from the article if they simply forgot to ban him, or did not read their software manual or did not know how to.

    The fact remains that thunderf00t was invited to the list and because of the list administrators’s mistakes, he remained invited to the list. It was not thunderf00t’s responsibility to fix the admin’s mistakes for them when they (allegedly) sent the list to him by mistake.

    • stakkalee Says:

      You posted this comment verbatim on Friday’s post, so I’ll just paste my response to you in case you missed it over there.
      I’m sorry but your understanding of the situation is incorrect. The fact remains that after TF’s email address was removed from the private listserv he actively took steps to re-access that listserv against the explicit wishes of the private system’s owner. The fact that they were ignorant of how their software operates does not absolve TF of his responsibility to respect their wishes for privacy.

      • Ken Says:

        Stakkalee, I hereby inform you of my ‘wish for privacy.’ Do not ever quote me or respond to me or any of my public postings. If you do so I’ll claim some law prohibits it.

        And it’s your responsibility to enforce all this, not mine.

        • brainfromarous Says:

          Nice one, Ken. :)

          • stakkalee Says:

            Of course, Ken can’t speak for you, so I’m free to respond to anything you say. Unless, of course, you want to tuck tail and hide too? If you do I won’t mind. Apparently people around here are afraid of me.

            So, how unethical do you think TF’s actions were? Do you think he should suffer any professional consequences? Richard Carrier has said TF deserves jail time – what do you think? Would you ever hire a person who admitted to the actions TF has admitted to? Please, be as creative as you can in your answers – this place is pretty boring, if Ken is any indication.

        • brainfromarous Says:

          “Unless, of course, you want to tuck tail and hide too? If you do I won’t mind. Apparently people around here are afraid of me.”

          Stakk, I thought what Ken wrote was funny. I’ve got no beef with you personally – this is the first time I’ve ever directly addressed you as far as I know. You really want to start off with a schoolyard taunt?

          This comment system SUCKS, what with the ever-narrowing response width. But you are asking serious questions, so let’s start over at the bottom (so to speak.) See my next post…. there.

    • Steph Says:

      Thunderf00t was unsubscribed from the list. He should have taken this to mean that he was no longer welcome there; in fact, it’s ridiculous to assume that he could have interpreted this any other way. After he was unsubscribed he resubscribed by going back to the e-mail he was sent at the time he was first given access to join the list and clicked the ‘subscribe’ link. It’s like being kicked out of a bar for disorderly conduct and then sneaking back through the front door when the bouncer isn’t looking. He did this knowingly.

      Not that it matters, since the act of sharing private e-mails with third parties is unquestionably unethical. I’ve heard some people compare this to PZ sharing e-mails on his blog. Couple differences: 1) PZ doesn’t forward his e-mails to his readers, so there’s no chance of them discovering who wrote them. 2) Most of these e-mails are hate mail shared for a laugh. The nature of the e-mails Thunder has access to is entirely different; FtB’s private e-mails were filled with personal information and private discussions about the bloggers’ lives, things they didn’t feel comfortable posting on their blogs. The e-mails PZ shares are not of a personal nature.

      I’ve also seen people bring up PZ’s phone hacking. Again, apples and oranges. Even if what PZ did was unquestionably unethical it wouldn’t validate Thunder’s actions.

    • Time Kitten Says:

      I looked at the message log excerpt and CRACKED UP. I’ve seen several automated email services do that. No idea why they do, but the server is pretty darned flawed to be accepting it.

      • stakkalee Says:

        I agree MailMan is a crappy program. I’ve read speculation that it was never intended to run private listservs, just public ones. I don’t want to talk too much shit about it, because it’s a free, public program and I’m sure the developers have worked hard on it, but damn!

  45. Thunderf00t Says:

    ooloon, you are right, I had already said for Ed to give the money to charity. (I think u missed this comment)

    However evidently he had forgotten this as Eds above msg was sent some weeks afterwards. Its clear that he was sitting on my ‘not unsubstantial earnings’ wondering what to do with it. Well hopefully having this donated to the MSF charity drive by DPRJones will put a somewhat upbeat end to this.

    • oolon Says:

      Given I’m right, if a bit of a loon, how about ending on the moral high ground and apologising for the re-subscribing to the listserv even when you knew you were not allowed in?

      That and a nice wedge to charity would remove a lot of the bitterness and prove you are not the brass-necked caricature some think you are?

      • Spence Says:

        How about YOU back down on your equally unethical claim that tf00t’s actions were illegal?


        You’re just as bad as he is then.

        • oolon Says:

          Not going to get into a drawn out discussion with the Spencemeister.

          • Spence Says:

            I didn’t claim moral equivalence. I was seeing if you were honest in your attempt to get people to step back from the rhetoric.

            I got my answer. You’re not.

            PS. You already got drawn into a long discussion earlier, so you even failed at that. Well done!

        • oolon Says:

          Just had a worrying thought though. TF says I’m right but Spence says I’m equally as wrong as TF… Does this lead into some sort of infinite regress of morality that will DesTroY the AtieSm MovemEnt!??!! Much like a few Skepchicks, PeeZus and the FtB collective? I’m genuinely concerned now, what can we do?

          • Spence Says:

            TF says you’re right about the legality of his actions? Where does he say that?

            (Remember my comment was not about the ethics, on which I agree with John C Welch, but the legality, which are two separate aspects. If you can’t tell the difference between the two you have bigger problems than I ever thought)

          • oolon Says:

            Cheers Spence everyone can see why I’m not going to engage you in a long conversation – and believe me it is not due to the force of your argument or sparkling wit.

            I can’t believe I have to say this… It was a joke comment FFS!

          • Spence Says:

            Ah, sorry, you said something stupid as a joke.

            It’s just kind of difficult to distinguish between that and your normal schtick of saying something stupid in all seriousness. Poe’s law and all.

            Good luck sticking the flounce. It’s easier than evidence, after all.

        • Anonymous Says:

          If you are still around Spence you can try arguing minutia with Carrier – he loves that sort of thing. He is calling it ‘illegal’, oh the inhumanity of it!

    • oolon Says:

      Not even a little tempted?

      • hannanibal Says:

        Oolon. You are a slave to the Ted :P Awesome comedy BTW.

        • oolon Says:

          We agree on something!! And it’s not all this crap about whether there is some sort of sky fairy, really important stuff like what makes us laugh. I’ll remember to keep all conversations about Father Ted if we ever meet up!

    • PJLandis Says:

      I’ll just note, for legal reasons you shouldn’t apologize or admit to anything until you know they aren’t going to pursue legal case for purposes of harassment.

  46. Rabidoux Says:

    This is yet another childish, immature post on the entire issue.

    You just had to get one last jab in before “drawing a line” under it.

    Regardless, if this is indeed the last blog/vlog/mention of FTB ever by Tf00t, I’m a happy guy.

    Now, pretty please with sugar on top, get back to making science videos and cut the goddamn drama.


    • Clueless twits Says:

      I am getting sick of morons like this and their clueless comments.

      The record needed to be set straight and the scum at FTB needed to be held to account. This has been accomplished admirably.

      I bet you wouldn’t be so quick to ‘just move on” if this were your reputation at stake.

      • Steph Says:

        If all Thunder’s fans are as blindly loyal as you then he won’t need to worry about his “reputation.”

        • Vic Says:

          It’s nice to see you think having different oppinions on a subject means one side has “blind loyalty”. Says a lot about your humanity.

  47. hannanibal Says:

    How many people here would have re-clicked the subscribe link to a mailing list of people you know are bitching about you? I would.

    • Roibeaird Says:

      I think we all would. Those who say no are either the messiah reincarnated or lying, I’ll probably side for the latter.

      You’d check just to see if you could get in, then see how long you could last before your caught.

      Just so happens to be you found something quite suspect in the process.

      • Steph Says:

        Truly flawless logic. Bravo. *clap* *clap* *clap*

        • Roibeaird Says:

          Thank you.

          Now while I bad mouth you to my friends try not to listen in. There’s a good lad.

          • Steph Says:


            PS – That’s “lass.”

          • Roibeaird Says:

            Well you’ve got CAPS on so that’s a good start.

            Calling me a racist or sexist that’s next step I think.

            But didn’t I tell you not to listen in, couldn’t help yourself could ye.

          • Steph Says:

            Listen in on what, exactly? Did you forget we’re in a comment thread on a blog?

      • stakkalee Says:

        I would not have done this, regardless of the circumstances. Accessing a system for which you have no authorization is unethical. If I knew that people were potentially ‘talking shit’ about me behind my back I’d make it a point to avoid them, and I’d be inclined to treat them more doubtfully than otherwise in any further interactions, but I wouldn’t invade their privacy. It’s unethical, and if you believe you would have performed the same actions in TF’s place perhaps you should take a moment of self-reflection. how important do you think a person’s ethics are when evaluating their character?

        • Roibeaird Says:

          Forgive me if I am resident to believe you and your nobility.

          Being that this is a public forum, for the most part there is a certain amount of social desirability at play here.

          TF doesn’t have to have a higher moral code than the rest of us. It would be wrong for us to think he should.

          • Steph Says:

            Excuse me for butting in, but why look up to him if he’s no better than the rest of us dogs?

          • stakkalee Says:

            Indeed, under the cover of anonynimity it’s possible to claim many things. Therefore, I think basing any argument on claims of “I think we all would” is ultimately self-defeating.

            The discussion should be on TF’s actions, whether they are unethical, and what the response should be, both from TF and from the wider community.

          • Roibeaird Says:

            I’ll respond to my self as it is too hard to read when it’s so small.

            *Excuse me for butting in, but why look up to him if he’s no better than the rest of us dogs?*

            Who said I looked up to him?

            Why would I look up to him, yes he has a greater scientific understanding than me but that’s not cause for veneration.

            *Indeed, under the cover of anonynimity it’s possible to claim many things. Therefore, I think basing any argument on claims of “I think we all would” is ultimately self-defeating.*

            I would encourage you to read some papers on Social desirability, Conformity (Asch, Milgram), even some papers regarding ethics and anonymity, even Freud if you want to give that a go as I’m not that interested in condensing an undergrad course into this little box.

          • Steph Says:

            Then why are you asking as if what TF did was okay? Because it’s human nature? Human nature can change, you know. You’re using a computer. Do you think your ancestors were prepared for that?

            This just sounds like an excuse to let bad behavior happen without repercussion.

          • stakkalee Says:

            I agree that nested comments are a vile pox – they should be reviled as a matter of course.

            Thank you for the reading suggestions; I’ve been looking for something to add to my usual rotation of Philip K. Dick and comic books.

            You used “I think we all would” to excuse TF’s unethical behavior. You offered no proof that “we all would”; I’m familiar with the philosophical concept The Ring of Gyges and what it supposedly suggests about human behavior; if Asch and Milgram have done studies pertaining to ethical behavior and computer systems I’d appreciate a direct link; not an undergrad course, just a link.

            I don’t believe you’ve offered your opinion on TF’s behavior. Do you think he behaved ethically by accessing the listserv without authorization at the time that he did? Further, do you think the information he discovered rises to a level of severity that would retroactively justify that behavior?

      • oolon Says:

        We already had this lack of logic on the other thread…

        I’m a shit, I think you’d be a shit therefore TF is not a shit.

        • Roibeaird Says:


          I’m a human being, so are you.

          I do what I feel is in my best interest, so do you.

          I’m not naive to think that everything I will ever do is perfectly ethical and immaculate.

  48. Anonymous Says:

    I’d say this is your trump card on anything FTB may offer up.

    “If you see something you don’t like, rip into it.”

  49. The Psychotic Atheist Says:

    Since thunderf00t has decided to ‘draw a line’ I’m assuming that he will not defend his actions any further. So I’m going to have to go on what evidence has been presented and go with the preponderance thereof.

    As far as I can tell the story goes something like this. Michael Payton (a person of some influence) says something negative about FTB. FTB talk about how to react to this negative comment.

    So far I see nothing surprising or interesting.

    But thunderf00t has hacked his way onto a mailing list he was clearly not welcome or ethically authorised to receive. Some people have questioned calling it hacking. But that’s how hacking works, exploiting an old invite code that hasn’t technically expired or been revoked, editing cookies and so on, its all hacking.

    And I’ve waited for the denial of this claim, but instead I just find a mocking referral to ‘evil HAXOR skills’. So on the preponderance of the evidence, I can only conclude the story of how the unauthorised access was gained is true.

    What’s more, thunderf00t, having gained unauthorised access to confidential information, compounds his unethical acts by passing that confidential information on to a third party. And subsequently posting some of that information publicly.

    And I see no ethical defence for this presented, so can presume there is none. I see no greater good being served, nor any public interest in the contents of the discussion as presented. All I see here is the interests of thunderf00t being served.

    What is interesting about a person criticising the writing of a bunch of writers, and those writers discussing that and being upset about it? What is remotely surprising about the reaction to the invasion of confidentiality that has followed?

    Might their reaction be over the top? Probably – but I think that tends to happen with victims of crime or other unethical social betrayals (such as a breach of confidentiality). And their reaction to the situation is not justification of causing the situation.

    I’ll keep my eye open, in case anyone is able to justify it to me in some way, in case thunderf00t decides to make any more posts on the matter. But failing that I can only conclude that thunderf00t is in the wrong here. All I see is commentary to the effect that somehow FtB deserved to have their confidence breached. Does anyone have something better?

    • Anonymous Says:

      I’d offer up, you’re using “hacked” incorrectly. Unauthorized access is subjective, but you’ve destroyed your whole comment by using ‘hacked’

      • The Psychotic Atheist Says:

        If identifying and exploiting a security weakness to gain access to information you are not authorized to gain is not your definition of hacking then fair enough. I think you are thinking too narrowly about hacking. Hacking includes social engineering (eg., persuading people to give you their password), brute force attacks, manipulating cookies, exploiting sessions, invitation codes and so on that have not timed out. And more.

        I think dismissing my comment as ‘destroyed’ on the basis of a disagreement over the correct word to describe getting on a mailing list you are clearly not intended to be on by use of a simple exploit is a bit silly, don’t you? I suspect all you really wanted to do was express your disdain at my using the wrong word. I’ve defended my use of it – perhaps you can put forward your argument as to why my use is ‘incorrect’?

        What about the issue regarding the ethics of breaching confidentiality? How is that ‘destroyed’ because I used the ‘incorrect’ word?

        • Eric P Says:

          I would counter that perhaps you are thinking too broadly about what hacking encompasses. Your social engineering example made me think of the arguments being made regarding the brutal treatment in Abu Ghraib when the military was justifying forced nakedness and putting prisoners in womens panties by complaining that the prisoners were using asymmetrical warfare because they were committing suicide. Sure it embarrassed the jailers and the suicides were no doubt a radical form of prisoner protest but it hardly constituted “warfare” and did not justify unethical inhuman treatment. Likewise figuring out a persons password because you know their wifes name, birthday, anniversary, etc. and they are predictably unsophisticated in their password choices doesn’t make you a hacker, just a clever opportunist. Why do you think that the user in question shouldn’t bear the burden of creating their own secure environment? You don’t walk out of your home without double checking the locks do you? I don’t think that an open door should be a free pass to burglary but if you leave your doors open and find your home ransacked when you get home can you REALLY claim that someone “broke in”?

          • The Psychotic Atheist Says:

            I think it does make you a hacker, and nothing you say seems to change that. Not a particularly accomplished hacker, a pretty petty and trivial one . But I stand by my claim that circumventing security of an information system to gain information you are not authorised to get is hacking. If you prefer another term, by all means use it and replace what I said with that.

            Why the focus on the usage of a word, and no discussion about the actual ethical issue at stake? I take it you are also incapable of justifying the acts carried out? You seem to be trying to minimize it, while also blaming the victim for not securing their system sufficiently.

            And while the user has a responsibility to protect their security, that doesn’t make it moral to breach their security should they inadvertently make it easy. It is unethical to use a password you found in a notebook, its unethical to persuade someone to give you their password, it is unethical to to use outdated invitation codes to regain access to a mailing list you have been de-authorised to use.

            And yes, you can claim that someone was being unethical, and even criminal if they enter your house through an unlocked door or opened window. We can suggest that leaving the door open is stupid.

            In physical terms this is comparable to breaking up with someone, but then using the key under their mat to regain access to their apartment so you can check their mail to see if they are talking about you. Sure – we can discuss how silly it was to continue leaving the key under the mat, or not changing the locks and so on – and we can discuss whether or not it is technically breaking in or whether it’s against the letter of the law – but that shouldn’t distract from the main issue that a confidence was breached by means of a security exploit.

            Just because it is easy, does not make it right. The right thing to do when you discover a security problem is to contact the administrator with details. It is not moral to listen in, and pass on the information you acquire to third parties and post extracts on your blog. It is possible for this to be moral in a ‘greater good’ kind of context, but I don’t see any greater good or public interest being served here.

          • Eric P Says:

            Okay, let’s talk about whether it was “right” or “wrong”, but let me begin with a tale of my own…

            Back in 1992 I was dating and living with the woman I thought I would end up marrying, we had a few spats but fewer than many couples we knew, and as far as I knew at the time I thought things were going fairly well between us. One day I was in our bedroom looking for something or other and saw her purse on the floor, open, with the credit card bill poking out of the top of it. Well, the card was mine but I had (foolishly, stupidly as I soon found out) put her on it to help her establish credit of her own, so while I debated the ethics of taking something from her purse I decided to take the bill because why would she hide it? I could come up with no good reasons so I opened the bill and braced myself. It was bad enough that she had spent more than the credit limit allowed (by about $500.00 if I remember correctly) but in reading the voluminous list of line item charges I found two charges to a hotel chain. Both on nights when I was working. Which then made me wonder what might be on my phone bill. Was it ethical of me to check into what she was doing in her private life? Since it affected me both monetarily and emotionally and we were still cohabitating in a relationship that she never bothered to terminate was it REALLY all on ME to uphold the greater ethic when I was being wronged? Maybe I should have ignored the impulse to find out what she was hiding, but it is all too human to protect yourself, or at least see if you should be.

            So did TF do wrong… as you can see I might not be the best judge of such things, but he did what humans often do, he sought to protect himself. Did he need to, I don’t know, but if FTB was a girlfriend I probably would have counseled him to go get a restraining order. I certainly hope that TF doesn’t do anything that might put anyone in any kind of jeopardy and IF he does then THAT is an issue we will probably both find common ground on, but this? I would like to say I wouldn’t have done it but… nobody want’s to get shafted.

            It took me years to pay off the credit card debt my ex amassed and I never really did get over the betrayal even to this day. I am much more wary of EVERYONE these days, even science blogging atheist college professors.

          • The Psychotic Atheist Says:

            I don’t think you did anything that unethical in your dealings, but maybe closer analysis would see things different.

            I don’t think ‘protecting myself’ is justification for fooling a computer system into sending you emails that the senders did not intend for you to receive unless one is protecting ones self against a real and credible threat.

            I see no such threat in this case. Perhaps you can illuminate what threat was so pressing that TF can be excused his otherwise unethical behaviour?

            But even if there were such a threat – that was not the only end to which TF used his acquired information. Even if TF was eavesdropping to protect himself against something, he subsequently disseminated what he ‘heard’ while eavesdropping to third parties who are completely unrelated to TF’s protection. As is the human thing, once he acquired some measure of power, his use of it expanded from the original justification. Now it appears he is ‘protecting’ others, ie., Michael Payton, from …what? A critical blog post(s) on a blog network he probably won’t read?

            This would be like you finding out that your ex was engaged in correspondence with her aunt about, say, a family dispute – and then you forwarded parts of that correspondence on the family members in question. That would be unethical, whatever your social problems with the girl was. If you acquired that information by fooling the post office into forwarding her mail on to you – that also would be unethical, even if it was easy to do. Even if you originally had mail sent to you by rationalizing that it was protecting you against something.

            Why would you get a restraining order against FTB were it an ex? Has FTB done anything but write critical things? Perhaps contacted TF by mail to try settling things privately, or even given him a phone call or what have you. Had they threatened him with anything other than with social consequences? Have I missed some key part of their behaviour regarding Tf00t that makes the situation much more ambiguous than it appears from the evidence I am examining?

            The ‘he’s only human’ argument does not work either. As you say ‘he did what humans often do’ and that ‘nobody want’s to get shafted.’ But that clearly must fail as an ethical defence. Human males are practically built for coalationary violence, but when a gang of young men kills another man we don’t say ‘Well, they were just trying to get laid, or reduce the competition for getting laid or whatever, that’s what humans have often done for millions of years, we should let them off the hook’.

            I’m willing to accept human frailty as part of an apology, not as part of an excuse.

    • PJLandis Says:

      There is the Dan Savage defense, wherein it’s wrong to snoop but if you’re suspicions are justified there is no reason not to act on that knowledge.

  50. Steph Says:

    There’s a lot of speculation going on here about Natalie and the danger she may or may not be in. Isn’t it best to err on the side of caution?

    • John D Says:

      Steph – Your whole line of discussion here is 100% lame. TF has her name. Understood. He had her name weeks ago when he was welcome to FfTB. He knew who she was and I assume he is smart enough to still know who she is.

      He gave his word that he would not “out” her. Well… that is the best you are going to get darling. There is nothing else you can do… and there is nothing else TF can do.

      I love how you assume people will get all worried (and support your babbling) because you are crying again. The only atheists attacking other atheists (like contacting employers etc.) have been the scum at FfTB. Most of us are not that vile.

      You disgust me.

      • oolon Says:

        John is sort of right – he knew her details anyway…. But then Natalie found out TF was not beneath an unethical move like accessing the listserv when not allowed and then forwarding those emails to others. If I was in her position then I’d be a little concerned, yes.

        Some on here think that such an action could not possibly worry a reasonable person as to TFs intentions. Let alone raise questions as to his ability to keep their private details private. Stephs theory is that this is due to blind fanboyism – I’d agree but add blind hatred of FtBs as a second factor.

      • Steph Says:

        First off, he had no reason to out her when he was a member of FtB. Now that he’s not, he does. It wouldn’t harm him any to drop her docs except that he might lose some of his loyal followers.

        Second, many people have questioned whether Natalie is telling the truth or simply overreacting. Why take that chance? Why is it okay to blindly assume that Natalie is lying when no one even bothers to question TF’s motives? I don’t think we can make excuses for TF based on whether Natalie is telling the truth. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

        Third, what evidence do you have – besides TF’s word – that FtB tried to get Michael fired? I’ve yet to see any. And yes, I know that I’m taking Natalie’s word on faith, but that’s because very little rests on her claim and it’s more credible. The claim that FtB was conspiring to have a prominent figure in Canada’s atheist community fired over a tweet is… well… huge. It matters a hell of a lot if TF is telling the truth.

        • John D Says:

          You really have not been watching. Here is the short list:

          TF outs the FfTB for going after a CFI Canada guy. We all watch FfTB try to vilify Grothe and TAM. Most of us have seen the entire ERV attack by FfTB unfold. Laden goes on an email rampage and threatens someone stating he knows the victims address. These are all well documented and I fear there are probably dozens more events like this we do not know about. (PS – Skepchicks are no better… perhaps worse)

          In this cae TF is what we call a “whistle-blower”. Look it up!

          FfTB are scum and you disgust me!

          I am not a particularly big fan of TF but he has never done anything close to the slander and attacks done by the FfTB gang.

          • Steph Says:

            I’m not familiar with any of those things. I’m talking about what Thunderf00t has done. Also, I don’t believe TF had anything to do with Michael Payton. The post is up on FtB for all to see and they say nothing about wanting to fire him. What did TF leaking these e-mails actually accomplish? Not much, I’d say.

            I find it funny how you think I’m on anyone’s side in this debate. Since I’m against TF I must be with FtB, right? Some logic.

          • John D Says:

            And I’ve ot some prime real estate in Florida I think you might want to buy.

          • Steph Says:

            You have fun with that.

        • Anonymous Says:

          Why would thunder have a reason to “out” her now.
          Non-sequeter me thinks.

          • LightninLew Says:

            Because now that he’s an evil mastermind hacker it’s fair game to speculate about how he probably kills children, more than likely rapes kittens and definitely drops docs outing transsexuals for fun.

        • PJLandis Says:

          Anyone on that list could someday have a reason to out her, the risk was taken when she joined the list.

  51. Dimitris Batis Says:

    It really saddens me to see how obsessed you have become with this matter, considering that your creationist videos were some of the first material I viewed that got me interested in the skepticism movement.

    Even if you were right in the first place, your actions and behavior has become so obsessive and disgusting when you transform even the most benign actions of FTB into huge conspiracies of character assassinations, as in your previous blog post. I really, really hope that you come to your senses sooner rather than later…

    • spectator Says:

      FfTB’s just keeps on embarrassing themselves.
      I love how even they realize their behavior is so atrociously indefensible that the don’t even attempt to justify it.

      Red herring, anyone? The baboons are just regurgitating the faux moral outrage their intellectually-bankrupt heroes are shrieking. They don’t even realize how pathetically twisted it is to absolve the FTBullies of despicable behavior. Rather than justify or provide context for unscrupulous tactics displayed, the horde focuses a maniacal obsession with the alleged impropriety regarding the manner by which it was exposed. Malicious gossip, extortion, defamation, slander, libel, theft, dishonesty, conspiring to embezzle money, retribution for mildest possible criticism, the inconsistency of publishing “confidential” communications when it suits their agenda? Nope. It’s all perfectly fine to let that slide. But Oh NO! Thunderf00t exposed what they so stupidly and openly documented when they assumed they’d get away with it.
      They have such unbelievably high expectations and standards for virtually everyone else on the planet (not just the majority of humanity that attests to the existence of the Almighty).

      Next time you find yourself in an ethical dilemma, ask yourself “What would PZ, RW, Stephanie, Ophelia, Jen, Surly Amy, Greg, or Gretta do?” Oh wait! That’s a scary thought!

      At least Thunderf00t has the humanity for a conversation with Ray Comfort. Even hang out and have fun with TogetherForPeace. PZ can’t even tolerate a senator welcoming the Reason Rally to DC. Such an admirable man to emulate! Go steal a consecrated wafer for your impeccable leader! Good Baboon!!!

      • Milton Says:

        Well said Spectator.

        Steph, Oolong et all are all that’s left of the FTB trolls still trying to attack Thunderf00t in the face of their immoral behaviour at FTB. They get around their own hypocrisy by pretending they are not supporters of FTB.

        “Me? Support FTB? No!! I’m just a concerned citizen worried about the moral implications of re-subscribing to a blog.”

        For f sake, you can all stop pretending now.

        • Steph Says:

          The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

        • oolon Says:

          Not quite – I don’t think your logic of they are as bad over there so it doesn’t matter is particularly compelling.

          I’m fairly consistently contrarian and so not that hypocritical -hence I expressed my displeasure with PZs latest call to arms against you ‘barbarians’ on Pharyngula. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/12/these-sensible-people-shouldnt-be-so-rare

          I don’t agree with taking sides and consistently denigrating the ‘opposition’ be they ERV/slimepit or FtBs/skepchick in the face of all the evidence. I don’t feel at all surprised and dismayed that the ‘atheist-sceptic movement’ is involved in this as we are not better than anyone else just cos we can spot god/bigfoot is a fake. No pretence required Milton.

          So why are you so consistently anti-FtBs?

  52. Anonymous Says:

    Careful not to create strawmen again Tfoot. Natalie Reed’s account was the only one of theirs’ that I read, but it seems that what they were more worried about was the POSSIBILITY that you MIGHT publish the docs to prove a point (ie Natalie Reed is a liar) and in doing so divulge private, need to know information… life and death stuff, you know. The reason they have presumably recused you before the event is because what you MIGHT have done would have had serious consequences for some of them. They acted out of an entirely rational fear for their safety, and the safety of those they knew.

    By the way, I thought hacking involved finding weaknesses in a network, and exploiting those to gain information, which to a reasonable degree it could be expected that that information was not for you, not intended for your use, or your reading, or for public publishing or exploitation, which is what they thought you’d do with it.

    GRRR. Get back to what you’re good at, debunking creationists and filming awesome chemistry. Please.

    • Michael Says:

      As much as I get her concern, I have to wonder why anybody who is that afraid for their (online) safety would do ANYTHING related to your activism with email accounts that are linked to your real persona.

      That was just an error of judgement on her part and now she’s trying to put the blame for this onto TF. You can agree or disagree with what he’s done, but she was the one who exposed herself to this possibility in the first place AND as she added herself, he hasn’t really done anything (yet?).

      I read her last post btw, and although she tries to make a few good points she falls into the same trap that she others accuses of having fallen into.

      The whole part on “White men atheism” was an interesting little thing, though then she goes off on the deep end by essentially accusing them of not caring about something that doesn’t personally affect them, all the while SHE makes it absolutely clear that she only does what she does because it personally affects her.

      I think there is a major disconnect within the “community”, the biggest one being that there is such a thing as a community and “consensus”. That’s a mistake “both sides” make, repeatedly.

  53. InnocentInfidel Says:

    A lot of people have lost my previous respect and admiration from this whole fiasco. TF is not one of them. Freethought blogs should be renamed to MYTHOUGHTS blogs as all and sundry fall in line behind PZ like sheep in the abatoir. He will turn on them one by one, as he has done with others …mark my words, its going to get ugly in there.

  54. Anonymous Says:

    You’ve come out the better person Thunderf00t. Like an American criminal organization, they will destroy themselves. Be happy you got away from them.

  55. aceofsevens Says:

    By your own reasoning, aren’t you out of line to condemn FTB for withholding payment unless they actually don’t make one?

  56. Anonymous Says:

    Let it go.

  57. Jesus H. Christ Says:

    Enough is enough! You keep saying you’re done. Please be done. How can you be my favorite atheist if you let schoolgirl politics take over your life?

    • spectator Says:

      So if anybody happens to ask, WWJD? we have our answer.
      Yes, Jesus would let it go. And he was killed for being outed!

  58. Anonymous Says:


  59. Sally Strange Says:

    I’m just here to point and laugh at the idiot who thinks Greta Christina, of all people will be upset about people spreading nude pictures of her around.

    Not familiar at all with her oeuvre at all, are you, troll?

  60. Sally Strange Says:

    She didn’t just post it at her blog, she published it in a calendar, the proceeds of which go towards supporting free expression by women, especially in Egypt, which is where the woman who inspired the whole thing, Aliaa Elmahdy, lives.


    It’s still for sale!

    • hannanibal Says:

      She won’t mind me childishly drawing hairy cocks all over it then will she?

      • Sally Strange Says:

        If you pay for it, you can do whatever you want with it.

        Someday you’ll understand the difference between a thing and a visual representation of a thing. But apparently not yet.

        Do you realize that you are discrediting yourself whenever you type? :D Please, continue to show the true caliber of FTB’s “opposition.”

        How charming that Thunderf00t tolerates such puerile sexist comments on his blog.

        • hannanibal Says:

          Pay for it? Nah. I’d download it if I wasn’t petrified that someone would find out about having that on my hard drive.

          Discrediting myself? Because I am a famous book writing nobleman with a wealth of academic awards and scientific papers to my name or am I just some bloke on the internet winding people up?

          TF00t “tolerating” comments however puerile, daft or offensive is admirable. You want censorship? Guess where you can go….

          • Sally Strange Says:

            Oh darling. There are a number of ways Thunderf00t could show his lack of tolerance for your puerile sexism, none of which involve “censorship.”

            1. He could simply state that he disapproves of comments about hate-fapping.

            2. He could request that you stop making such comments.

            3. He could revoke your posting privileges if you refuse to stop.

            Note that the third option does not actually stifle your free speech. This is Thunderf00t’s blog and he gets to decide who he allows to post here, just as he gets to decide who to allow inside his house or apartment. If he did decide to ban you, you would still have literally millions of venues, on and off-line, in which to announce your lack of sexual desire for Greta Christina.

            How predictable that a sexist idiot like you doesn’t even understand how free speech actually works.

            As far as discrediting yourself, my standard assumption when dealing with people online is that they are reasonable adults. You are discrediting even that basic credit that I, and probably most other people have extended to you by interacting with you at all. You’re also discrediting FTB’s critics by making it clear that their distaste for FTB has less to do with a genuine concern for the state of skepticism or freethought than it does with simple bigotry and hatred.

            Since you appear to be incapable of feeling shame about your obvious misogyny, I doubt this will make an impression on you.

  61. Anonymous Says:


    • hannanibal Says:

      Unable to hate fap to that source material. I promise I will try. I could get my dog to hump the screen maybe?

      • Steph Says:

        The level of maturity here is staggering.

        • hannanibal Says:

          Don’t deny you are flicking your bean over it.

        • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

          Quiz time!
          Who uttered these mature words in this very thread?

          Do you like sucking Thunder’s cock, Cattlehunter?

          Keep jerkin’ it, Jack.

          • hannanibal Says:

            Let me guess……The apex, nay, the zenith of maturity Steph?

            BTW. Troll attempt 2 is a success, repeat a success. The butthurt levels are rising to at least 2.1 megajoules.

          • Steph Says:

            Hey man, it’s funny when I say it! =P

            But I’m not one of TF’s supporters. I don’t particularly support FtB either, I just think what TF did was wrong. I was making a statement about a specific group of people, ie TF’s fans and their maturity level. Long story short I’ll say whatever the fuck I want. Now eat me.

          • Steph Says:

            In other words the only person I support here is myself. I also like making fun of assholes. :3

          • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

            I cannot abide chronic hypocrites.
            I therefore cannot abide most posters to FTB, and their sycophantic acolytes where exhibit the very core of hypocrisy.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            BTW. Troll attempt 2 is a success, repeat a success. The butthurt levels are rising to at least 2.1 megajoules.

            “I smeared shit all over the walls. Now people are mad. I WIN!!!”

          • Steph Says:

            “I cannot abide chronic hypocrites.
            I therefore cannot abide most posters to FTB, and their sycophantic acolytes where exhibit the very core of hypocrisy.”

            Good for you, buddy. I don’t post there.

  62. Cyberdactyl Says:

    “To learn who has no confidence in their convictions, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”


  63. starguts Says:

    Well, you responded with another poorly written screed that address none of the serious criticisms made against you, Phil.

    Everything that you have written has left a bad taste in my mouth. It is as if you are purposely ignoring what your critics are saying in order to avoid directly answering specific, clearly phrased, simple, and fair questions integral to the matter at hand.

    Maybe it is just that you are a very poor writer (which I think that you are); or maybe not, because I feel the same way about many of your personal non-science/non-scripted video, in any case, I am sorry to say that I can no longer support your youtube channel and after 6 years I am now un-subscribed.

    I formally withdraw my small show of public support for you, and hope that you may continue to find success in your original mission of inspiring change through the communication of science.

  64. Sally Strange Says:

    Remember fellows! Sluts are ladies who have too much sex, or the wrong kind of sex, or sex with people other than you! They must be shamed! They must be stopped! And the best way to shame them is to talk about how much they don’t make your dicks hard, because that’s the source of every woman’s self-esteem: the ability to make random internet trolls pop boners!

    These are your supporters, Thunderf00t. You’re welcome to them.

    • mouth mixture Says:

      Tell me about the drug you are on.

    • mouth mixture Says:

      mm.. Didn’t read some of the more deranged posts. Your response sounds more reasonable given those. Even though they are blantant attempts at trollage.

    • LightninLew Says:

      What the fuck are you on about? You know there’s a reply button right? Or do you just like randomly commenting about sluts and boners on a blog which has nothing to do with either of those things?

      • Vic Says:

        I think it’s an altered quote of Rush Limbeaugh and in that way he tries equate Rush = Thunderf00t follower.

        Quite strange.

    • mimi Says:

      Wow, that’s awful mean of you. I don’t consider myself a slut shamer in the least. You took an obvious troll’s comments and ran with them like hate speech composed the entire thread.

  65. Sally Strange Says:

    And while I’m here, I’d love to see some support for the thing that Thunderf00t did not say, but which his fans appear to have interpreted, which is that some person or persons at FTB was actively trying to threaten Michael Payton’s job. As far as I know, the conversation revolved entirely around criticizing some of Payton’s tweets, that is, whether and how to criticize him. No mention whatsoever of getting him fired.

    Come now, little skeptics! Show your skeptic chops! On what are you basing this?

    • Steph Says:

      They base it solely on Thunder’s word, unfortunately.

      • Sally Strange Says:

        Yes, but from what I can tell, Tf00t never actually came out and said that. He juxtaposed two statements: first, that people at FTB were criticizing Payton, and second, that CFI had received calls for Payton’s resignation.

        Was there some point at which Tf00t actually came out and said that the source of those calls which were asking for Payton’s firing were from FTB? Or am I missing something? Curious minds want to know!

        • Steph Says:

          Ah, good point! He never did say who the calls came from! Thunderf00t you clever bastard!

        • oolon Says:

          Where is Payton in all this – I even lowered myself to look on that awful twitter thing but looks like no one has even asked him about this…. He could confirm or deny the story, might be interesting to hear his thoughts on it.

    • Cyberdactyl Says:

      S. Strange, you did know, two posts in a row without a response is a classic indicator of a troll??

    • PJLandis Says:

      It was awfully strong response to a someone expressing their opinion about the quality of the Ft Blogs. He didn’t like your sites, what’s to apology for?

      And I’m betting Payton appreciated the heads-up.

  66. Kent Says:

    Isn’t time everyone moves on from the FTB controversy? There’s more important fish to fry.

  67. Anonymous Says:

    “I’m an aspiring scientist who’s currently unemployed.”

    • Sally Strange Says:

      Sweetie, I am a slut, but I’m actually not unemployed anymore. And your rape threats are actually illegal.

      I’m sad that you feel so insecure that you have to resort to making yourself feel superior to me by issuing threats of sexualized violence. Really, I am.

      • hannanibal Says:

        Did you get that job in the Oxfam shop then?

      • Pat Says:

        Sally, I think you’re brilliant. You’re not the only voice of reason here, but I appreciate your particular style and poise.

      • Steersman Says:

        Sally Strange said:

        Sweetie, I am a slut, but I’m actually not unemployed anymore. And your rape threats are actually illegal.

        I’m sad that you feel so insecure that you have to resort to making yourself feel superior to me by issuing threats of sexualized violence. Really, I am.

        And a cunt to boot – although, depending on the context, that could be either “a mean, obnoxious person” or someone who was “juicy, funky, flexible, and creative”. Or, if you buy into the hypocritical Pharyngulite schlock, a generalized insult of all women.

        But, considering this statement of yours over at Camel with Hammers:

        Please, make the case against emotion. I am curious to hear what you have to say.

        I am likewise curious whether you might now think that “Anonymous” – a real prick, I might add, and an ignorant one to boot – is “making a case against emotion”. Whether you might now think that the unrestrained, or the more hypocritical selective, use of epithets really doesn’t help matters much.

        And I’m likewise curious, not that you would necessarily know, why your sidekick, or at least your partner in crime from Pharyngula days, “Josh, Official SpokesGay”, hasn’t posted on this thread. Might it be because, he wouldn’t be able to hide behind Mama Myers skirts and might actually have to endure hearing an “Anglo-Saxon 2-syllable word instead of a Latinate 7-syllable two word phrase” for his sexual predilections?

      • Baboon Watcher Says:

        All within 60 seconds -

        Anonymous Says: August 13, 2012 at 12:06 am SALLY STRANGE YOU FUCKIN SLUT…
        Sally Strange Says: August 13, 2012 at 12:07 am making yourself feel superior to me by issuing threats of sexualized violence

        Oh look, Sally is threatening herself again. And then immediately tweeting blaming thunderf00t for it… Sweetie, if you’re gonna frame folks for the voices in your head, you need to pay more attention.

    • hannanibal Says:

      That was a bit too far…..

      • oolon Says:

        That was in a whole different galaxy far far away. Try and take the piss out of Sally by all means but I’d avoid the thread started by that shit stain.

    • Skeeve Says:

      Laden, is that you?

    • Steph Says:


    • mouth mixture Says:

      Something is fucking wrong with you, Anonymous.

    • Eric P Says:

      Wow, not really covering yourself in glory with this post. Rape threats? Fucking disgusting.

    • Timothy (@timothygmd) Says:


    • Vic Says:

      Successful troll is succesfull.

      Look at how many replys this has caused people to post.

      Those who are unable to ignore trolls should have their online rights taken away by the internet police.

      Also, 9, 8, 7… to feminst response of how the post above is “the typical mindset of the cisprivileged man and exactly what the feminist movement is fighting against”.

      • oolon Says:

        Trolling is no excuse – you may think it ‘just’ trolling but how do you tell? It makes it easy to dismiss all online hate towards women as ‘just’ trolling… Anita Sarkesian I suppose was either making it up or it was only trolls?

        But you go further and all people who cannot ignore trolls should have their internet rights removed. I personally find it very easy to ignore the morons on the internet and even the unhinged – more than that I find it very easy to take the piss out of them. Do I confuse my own abilities with what everyone *should* be able to do or even can do? Strangely no but then I seem to have a shred of empathy sadly missing in morons such as yourself.

  68. hannanibal Says:

    @ Steph. We will all say whatever the fuck we want. Feel free to keep saying whatever the fuck you want. I’ll pass on the offer to “eat” you though as I am fully against canniballism.

  69. Thunderf00t Says:

    BTW, although I will not engage in such activity myself, I approve comments about hate-fapping. If you’re dumb enough to post a nude picture of yourself on the Internet, you deserve it (and much more).

    • Sally Strange Says:

      What else does Greta Christina “deserve” for the awful crime of posting a nude pic of herself? Be specific, please.

    • hannanibal Says:

      Don’t forget poorly drawn spunky cocks and hairy balls scribbled on in MSPaint

    • stakkalee Says:

      Thunderf00t, glad to see you’re still engaged with the comment thread. I hope Ed Brayton does the right thing and donates your advertising proceeds to Médecins Sans Frontières; I think it would be the ethical thing to do.

      You’ve justified your unauthorized access of the FTB listserv by claiming you were helping to protect Michael Payton at CFI. However, the timeline presented by Jason Thibeault shows you accessed the listserv several weeks before any such conversations occurred. Further, as some commenters have pointed out, the wording in your previous post is ambiguous as to the source of the threats against Mr. Payton’s job. Can you please, without revealing the contents of the backchannel communications, confirm that none of them contain direct calls to threaten or reprimand Mr. Payton in any way other than the public censure of a blog post? And can you offer any further justification for your unauthorized access of the FTB listserv at the time you did? Thank you very much for any answers you might be willing to give.

    • oolon Says:

      This is not Thunderf00t! Look where is the pretty bunny? Why is he condoning rape threats and posting IPs to peoples stretched buttholes?
      I agree with light moderation on blog threads but letting people sock-puppet you on your own post is a bit daft.

      • stakkalee Says:

        I agree with that. If this isn’t actually TF it seems to me like he might want to correct the misperception. Otherwise it makes it look like he’s actively trolling his own comment thread. Frankly, leaving up a sock-puppet using his own name is another example of his poor judgment, and it makes me question whether he’s intellectually equipped to handle the fallout that is resulting from his unauthorized access of the private FTB mail system.

        • Acathode Says:

          I’m thinking that TF simply isn’t to used to blogging, and probably just doesn’t care to much about the comments. He admits as much himself in the “Freethoughtblogs and PC Lyers”-post in his conversation with Ed in the comment sections.
          I have one comment that have been awaiting moderation for more than a week now, doubt it ever will be, I just think anyone visiting this place simply will have to accept that it’s simply a side thing to TFs main thing, which is his YT channel.

          • stakkalee Says:

            You’re probably right, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Lots of bloggers take a hands-off approach to their comment section. Still, you’d think he’d want to stamp down on somebody sockpuppeting his own nym.

          • Acathode Says:

            I think he would want that as well, but I think he’s simply unaware of it.

            I have to say though, the stupidity of the people who actually believe it is TF, is kinda amusing. As far as trolling goes, it’s quite funny, I only wonder why no one hasn’t bothered to do Myers yet…

            (actually, I also wonder why no one has bothered to make a fake account and copied TFs avatar?)

  70. Sally Strange Says:

    Are you also cool with direct threats to find out where I live and rape me, Thunderf00t? I will note that that actually is a legally actionable threat. Anonymous isn’t just saying it would be a good idea if someone did that, he says he’ll do it himself if I don’t shut up. And I don’t plan on shutting up, so…

    • pok Says:

      That’s not actually Thunderf00t. It doesn’t have the bunny avatar.

      • NotInMyName2050 Says:

        Click on the username, its him.

        • Steph Says:

          Look, now I’m Thunderf00t!

        • Thunderf00t Says:

          I don’t think so.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            So, I take this to mean that you’re NOT going to do anything about illegal threats of violence being posted on your own blog then. Good to know.

          • John D Says:

            Call the Fembot rape police! Someone made a threat on the interblogs! This must be a real threat! Call the police now! Sally… you are making a spectacle of yourself…. and you were baited into it. Not very smart of you really.

          • The REAL Thunderf00t Says:

            You liar!

          • Sally Strange Says:

            I would like to call the police, actually… but I don’t have the IP address or email of the person who made that threat. If Tf00t is too busy to alert the authorities himself, he could just forward that information to me. Since he’s already demonstrated that he has no problem sharing private information with third parties, and surely making direct rape threats is at least as bad as whatever atrocities the FTBers are responsible for…

          • Thunderf00t Says:

            Sally I of course do not condone threats of violence on my blog, but will leave the message up for the time being to preserve the evidence. The IP address of that poster is

          • John D Says:

            Go for it Sally… please call the police now. and call Oprah Winfrey about the 9000 penises while you are at it!

          • Sally Strange Says:

            Thanks. The email would also be helpful. Since you have mine, you could just forward it to that address.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            …If you really are Thunderfoot, of course. If not, then there’ll be no messages in my inbox, I suppose. :)

          • Thunderf00t Says:

            There are still some kinks to be worked out on this blog. It currently does not require a real email. Unless the person has really registered 123@fake.com. You can probably find some stuff just from the IP, best I can do

          • Eric P Says:

   IP address location & more:
            IP address [?]: [Whois] [Reverse IP]
            IP country code: US
            IP address country: ip address flag United States
            IP address state: New Jersey
            IP address city: Newark
            IP address latitude: 40.7357
            IP address longitude: -74.1724
            ISP of this IP [?]: Linode
            Organization: Linode
            Host of this IP: [?]: li132-27.members.linode.com [Whois] [Trace]
            Local time in United States: 2012-08-12 23:45

            Hope any of this helps.

          • oolon Says:

            That is not Thunderf00t by the way… Just someone displaying their l33t hx0r skills by registering with the same nym. Don’t put the IP into a browers URL. Seriously :-)

            TF would not be able to get the IP – you need to ask WordPress as this runs on their servers. The IP will be recorded in their DB or referenced from the post to a webserver hit.

      • Sally Strange Says:

        I didn’t say it was. I am noting that Thunderf00t took time out of his busy schedule to explicitly condone hate-fapping, “and much more.” I am wondering if he also condones illegal threats of violence.

        • hannanibal Says:

          “hate fapping” LMFAO! You actually think it exists!!!!!

          Priceless. *sends many e-mails of screenshot”

        • Skeeve Says:

          Well, I guess we should wait and see if Thunderf00t actually posts. Since whoever you’re talking to isn’t Thunderf00t.

          “No, I had no idea. How could I have possibly lived this long without that vital piece of wisdom???”

          Apparently not long enough to spot a troll.

        • Sally Strange Says:

          Franc Hoggle provided pretty good evidence of the existence of hate-fapping. So good it’s occasionally called “hoggling.” I see no reason to doubt it. Hate-fucking is a thing, right?

          • hannanibal Says:

            Hoggling. LOL. You know more about it than me then! Do you partake of hate faps over TF00t then? For teh record I believe it’s impossible to climax over something you hate. I could never cum over tomato sauce for instance.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            You know, Hannibal, I don’t actually have an opinion about whether hate-fapping is a real thing. I suppose you could TRY it, and since you were the one who brought it up, I’m rather amused at your shock and surprise that people are responding to it. Do you REALLY want to be having a conversation about whether you are capable of jizzing over someone or something you hate? Is this your master troll plan? Um… well done, I guess.

          • The REAL Thunderf00t Says:

            You’re just not trying hard enough, hannanibal. Man up!

          • John D Says:

            Sally. I am convinced you are an idiot. This is my personal opinion. You obviously cannot read and did not read Franc’s post. You only decided that someone did a thing called “hate fapping” because your myopic idiotic interblog friends made it up. Idiots. Get a life loser.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            Oh dearie me. Someone who reads Franc Hoggle’s posts thinks I’m an idiot and a loser. I cannot convey to you the depths of despair into which I have been plunged at this shocking news.

          • John D Says:


        • franc hoggle Says:

          Sally Strange Says: Franc Hoggle provided pretty good evidence of the existence of hate-fapping. So good it’s occasionally called “hoggling.”

          Sally, you stupid, self-medicated cunt – to take a leaf out of the baboon hadiths: citation needed.

          And while you’re at it, provide a primary source citation for “cunt kick” – you cretins have turned it into a martyr’s mantra.

          Of course you will do neither – because my writing and your deranged chinese whisperings about them have zero realistic relation. Nothing useful will ever be gained by accurately quoting me in context.

          • Anonymous Says:

            Too late everyone has gone apart from a couple of saddos, which can only be considered a plus given your deranged ramblings. If nothing will ever be gained by accurately quoting what you say then why bother saying anything? There is obviously little of substance there if it requires some creativity on the part of the quoter for you to make sense.

          • pulseteresa Says:

            Oh, Hoggle, you are so endearingly charming. But you silly boy, don’t you know that insults, especially gendered insults, achieve nothing? That’s right, you chronically moronic, misanthropic, little-dicked failure at self fellatio. You are just the most adorable dirty-asshole-faced fuckwit. I can provide citations if needed. Just ask douche-eater.

          • franc hoggle Says:

            Baboons… one of the universe’s most reliable constants. Have a whole archive of your crayon drawings already, but thanks anyway -


          • hannanibal Says:

            @pulseteresa. Says “don’t you know that insults, especially gendered insults, achieve nothing?” But uses “little-dicked failure at self fellatio. ” in the next sentence as an insult….. :P
            Cannot. Laugh. Any. Harder.

          • hannanibal Says:

            Anonymous says “Too late everyone has gone apart from a couple of saddos,”
            I take it that you are including yourself in that description given that, ya know, you are replying and all…

          • oolon Says:

            Yup, but for some reason it marked me as anonymous…. If it had said oolon then I guess you would have just agreed ;-)

            No idea who Boss Hog is – I guess your ‘side’ like him/her and FtBs don’t. I’ll make sure to remember that nothing useful will ever be gained by accurately quoting Mr Hoggle in context and take care to ignore his pithy outpourings as a result.

      • aceofsevens Says:

        Which is ironic considering what he said about FTB’s poor mailing list security. Looks like someone never looked at the options in WordPress.

        • Ellt Says:

          Throughout history, at most levels of technology, offense has been easier than defense, militarily. This has been the case for all of the internet’s brief history as well. In general, if one party is not orders of magnitude more advanced than another party, both will be able to breach the other’s defenses.

          So it’s not too ironic. Breaking into a place merely means that they aren’t overwhelmingly superior to you. It’s not like tug of war, where the better one not only wins, but doesn’t lose.

    • Ellt Says:

      “I will note that that actually is a legally actionable threat. Anonymous isn’t just saying it would be a good idea if someone did that, he says he’ll do it himself if I don’t shut up. And I don’t plan on shutting up, so…”

      Are you sure? These sorts of things always need lawyers or specific, detailed knowledge of the law.

      “They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.”
      –Watts, 1969.

      Watts was arrested for threatening the president. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case.

      “We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was ‘a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.’ Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise.”

      Watts v. United States, Supreme Court case.

      “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”

      In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Klan’s above speech was protected because the threat of violence was future and conditional, despite every indication the President, Supreme Court, and Congress would continue to do what the Klan would consider “suppressing the Caucasian race.”

      By making the threat of violence conditional, it was made non-imminent. As it was non-imminent, it was protected. It seems similar to “SHUT THE FUCK UP OR I’M GONNA…”

      I am not a lawyer, so I only know of public policy sorts of cases like these. If anyone knows of any that deal with threats against non-political figures, deal with rape and not murder, deal with internet threats, or are otherwise relevant, please share them.

  71. hannanibal Says:

    Sally Strange: “I smeared shit all over the walls. Now people are mad. I WIN!!!”

    Good for you. You are finally getting the hang of this.

    • Sally Strange Says:

      So, you win because people are mad because you smeared shit on the walls.

      No, I’m not getting the hang of it. It makes no sense. Where does the winning come in? Please explain.

      • hannanibal Says:

        Your rage. MMmm… Tastes so nice.
        P.S. Drawing cocks over a picture of Greta Christina doesn’t equal misogyny. It just means I hate Greta Christina.

        • Sally Strange Says:

          There are lots of ways to express your hate for Greta Christina. That you pick drawing cocks on nude pictures of her, crowing about how little you want to fuck her, and making comments about “hate-fapping,” to express your hate, is what makes you seem like a misogynist.

          It would not occur to a non-misogynist to attempt to express his hate for a particular woman by talking about how little he wants to fuck her.

          • hannanibal Says:

            “It would not occur to a non-misogynist to attempt to express his hate for a particular woman by talking about how little he wants to fuck her.”
            Yes it would. Especially when it winds people up.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            A person who was not a misogynist would also not choose to “wind people up” by announcing his lack of sexual desire for a woman he hates.

            Look, I don’t understand why you’re resisting the label so much. Is there really anything inherently wrong with feeling contempt and hatred towards women as a class? Put your skeptic hat on and think about it! Maybe you should just own the label and try to get rid of the stigma around it!

          • John D Says:

            Call Webster and change the dictionary! The new definition for misogyny is:

            1) The hatred of women
            2) The fear of women
            3) Winding people up by announcing lack of sexual desire for a hated woman

          • Sally Strange Says:

            John D, this isn’t really for you, but for any lurkers who may be reading.

            The entire idea of insulting a woman–or making other people mad by insulting a woman–by announcing your lack of sexual desire for her is predicated on the idea that the whole of a woman’s worth to society depends on her ability to be sexually attractive to heterosexual men. Only in the context of that belief–that women’s most important trait is her ability to give guys boners –does it make ANY sense to use “my cock is soft for you!” as a cutting insult. Or a way to rile onlookers up.

            I suppose YOU are too dense to understand how evaluating the worth of an woman exclusively in terms of her ability to make boners pop betrays hatred and fear of women, but hopefully our erstwhile lurkers are more intelligent than you.

          • John D Says:

            ……and all the problems with women are caused by the patriarchy which not only cause men to only look at women as sex objects, it also makes men not realize they have magical privilege that they use to hate-fap over pictures of women they despise on the internet… yeah… I see where you are going with this. It all makes perfect sense!


          • brainfromarous Says:

            “I suppose YOU are too dense to understand how evaluating the worth of an woman exclusively in terms of her ability to make boners pop betrays hatred and fear of women… (SS)”

            Sally is right about this, in truth. It IS a low-class move and guys shouldn’t do it.

          • oolon Says:

            I’d also add that in terms of ‘winding up’ or as I call it ‘taking the piss’ it is a bit of a fail. The key is to take your target down a notch without making yourself look like an even bigger fool. Not easy to achieve.
            I’d humbly suggest that Hannanibals attempts here are ironically akin to the ‘post-fap shotgun’
            He got a little on target but mostly pissed all over the place including on his own shoes.

        • Sally Strange Says:

          Also, this isn’t rage. It’s bemused contempt. I imagine it tastes a bit saltier than actual rage.

          • hannanibal Says:

            Oh so you weren’t “mad over smearing shit all over the walls”?

            My mistake. MMmmm….Lies and hypocrisy…Such rich flavours.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            I was describing what I perceive to be your strategy, i.e., to “wind people up.” Is that not a synonym for making people mad? My mistake. Perhaps you should learn to communicate better.

        • Sally Strange Says:

          “I drew hairy cocks on your calendar. I WIN!!”

          Really, seriously, I don’t get how the winning works here.

          • hannanibal Says:

            Nom,nom,nom. The rage, the butthurt…..Oh such nourishment.
            The actual thought that I am going to draw cocks on the naked picture of your idol pisses you off so much.
            I can feel the waves of hate pulsing from the screen in every 1000 word post you make about the subject.

          • Sally Strange Says:

            How are you getting the idea that I am pissed off? And if I were angry, what does that get you?

        • hannanibal Says:

          On the contrary dear Oolon. The aim of the game is to get the target to rage for no other reason than my own pleasure. And in the case of Sally that aim has been achieved. Pissy shoes or not.

      • The REAL Thunderf00t Says:

        The only way to win is to lose.

  72. Skeeve Says:

    Just so everyone is clear, the Thunderf00t posting above isn’t Thunderf00t. If anyone had bother clicking his avatar you would have found this:

    Those tweets quoting “Thunderf00t” need to be deleted.

  73. CommanderTuvok Says:

    Sally Strange is a known troll from another blog.

    Also, reposting “anonymous” comments from here on Twitter is not impressive.

    • Sally Strange Says:

      I am perfectly sincere, Commander Tuvok, and thus do not fit into the classic definition of a troll. I don’t like you, either, though, so I guess we’re even on that front.

      • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

        Sally Strange Says: I am perfectly sincere, Commander Tuvok

        So was Valerie Solanas. You even sorta look the same, in a pilled out kind of way.

  74. hannanibal Says:

    @Sally Strange. I never brought it up. I was responding to a hate fap call-to-arms. I am quite enjoying our conversation actually. Never thought I’d be talking to an FTBer about hate fapping when I woke up this morning. Ah the glory of the internet eh?

    • Sally Strange Says:

      Ah, my mistake. You merely responded to comments about hate-fapping. Look, “the REAL Thunderf00t” apparently thinks climaxing over something you hate is possible, you’re just not trying hard enough. What do you say to that? And do you deny that hate-fucking is a thing?

      I think you have a narrow view of FTB. Discussions about hate-fapping are certainly not outside the boundaries there. Insults based on how soft your cock is in response to a specific person are, though, so perhaps you’d best avoid it anyway.

      • hannanibal Says:

        Hey if some random person on the internet believes that it’s possible to sexually climax over a thing you hate then that’s all good by me. Why don’t you try flicking one off to Tf00t’s blogposts and see if it’s true? Me, I prefer to wank over things I love like rainbows, the first breath of autumn and hardcore BDSM.
        Is hate fucking a thing? I don’t know. Is it? How many hate fucks do you get through on an average day? Please teach me. I am intruiged.

  75. hannanibal Says:

    @Sally Strange. Why so eager for me to accept your label of misogynist? Do misogynists get you hot?

  76. hannanibal Says:

    Sally Strange: “The entire idea of insulting a woman–or making other people mad by insulting a woman–by announcing your lack of sexual desire for her is predicated on the idea that the whole of a woman’s worth to society depends on her ability to be sexually attractive to heterosexual men.”

    No cupcake, it’s predicated on the fact that it pisses you off and is so easy to do.

    • Sally Strange Says:

      There are lots of things that piss me off. You chose a sexist thing to try to piss me off. So there you are.

      Hint: I’m not actually pissed off, just more curious than anything. I don’t believe you’re a troll, a genuine troll would have gotten bored by now. I can’t believe I’m that entertaining. Something in you cares a lot about this for some reason.

      • Steph Says:

        I think he has an internet crush on you, Sally.

      • hannanibal Says:

        It’s you Sally. It’s you I care about. And I have done for some time now …… When you wrote your first comment directed at me time stopped , my heart skipped a beat and Chris Isaak’s Wicked Game started playing in my head.
        I knew, just KNEW that you were the one.
        I love you Sally and I think I always will and this attempt at childish internet humour is just a ruse A RUSE I SAY! what I really must ask is….will you marry me? Right here right now? say the vows with me!? Don’t leave me hanging on this one Sally….
        “What a wicked game you play…..To make me feel this way…..What a wicked thing to do……” :D

    • John D Says:


  77. Michael Says:

    Beautiful, Line drawn, I think you are all a bunch of cunts, PZ, TF, skepchics, you are all self-absorbed faggots.

    Now get on with making good video’s about sceince, blogs about sceince, lets keep attacking theocrats, all this in-fighting is fkn annoying, distracting and almost cult like.

    I dont care who was right or wrong, get over it before the network you have spent the last few years of your life building washes away under the constant barrage of self indulgent and trivial rivalries

  78. daedamot Says:

    What is disturbing about this whole drama is that Thunderf00t has never felt the need to apologize or admit he’s done anything wrong whatsoever. Which is interesting because PZ and several individuals at FTB have apologized for mistakes they’ve made, and the ways they might have treated Thunderf00t wrong.

    Regardless if you think it’s an exaggeration to call it hacking or doc dropping what Tf00t did, he should have known that he had no right to read those emails and passing them along to third parties is at the least, highly unethical.

    Tf00t never admitting his faults when he’s clearly made mistakes does more damage to his credibility than anything PZ has said or done.

    • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

      daedamot Says: What is disturbing about this whole drama is that Thunderf00t has never felt the need to apologize or admit he’s done anything wrong whatsoever. Which is interesting because PZ and several individuals at FTB have apologized for mistakes they’ve made

      Oh jebus. I hate to have to use one of the favorite of all baboonisms, but, citation needed. When has the Naked Emperor apologized for anything? He is a bottomless pit of slander and deceit. He is continuously caught out. Nothing ever happens – other than commentary pointing these things out being purged from FfTB like it never existed and those raising them cast in the dungeon and labelled trolls, rapists and worse.

      Stop talking shit. Here is a past example of Myers slander that his baboons still repeat at any opportunity -


      Truly vile stuff. Apology? Never. Not even a retraction or correction.

      • daedamot Says:

        In PZ Myers’ response to Thunderf00t, he indicated things he and the community did wrong.

        That’s what I’m referring to. As for Hitchens, some of his rhetoric was a bit extreme, and lots of people criticize him for that. I have the same problem with Sam Harris. You can say “that he didn’t really mean that!” but oftentimes, it’s easy to extrapolate his words to mean exactly that. I see that Thunderf00t runs into the same problem with his rhetoric when he says stupid, easily debunked things like “the Muslim community has been silent in their criticism against radical Islam”, which is essentially the same as saying “I’m an idiot and I don’t know how to use Google”.

        And he has NEVER once, NOT ONCE admitted when he was wrong. His ego won’t allow it. He’s too damn important to show an ounce of regret or admit when he’s f’ed up. And it seems that his defenders are just trying to argue “well his critics are wrong because they did that,” but even if true, that doesn’t make Thunderf00t automatically right by default.

        Regardless of ANYTHING PZ has done, that does NOT justify Tf00t’s poor behavior in this whole situation. Why don’t you ask his close friends about it? People like AronRa and c0nc0rdance have been desperately been reaching out to him to stop this self-immolation, only to have Tf00t say he’s going to back off and then get right into the thick of it and double down. He doesn’t care.

        With all the whining and crying about being doc dropped by DawahFilms, you’d figure he’d exercise a little bit of restraint in spreading around emails from a private listserv he had NO right to access, some of which reveal the true identities of bloggers who for employment and personal reasons want to remain anonymous and they have been pulled into this drama even though they have had NO participation in this whole back-and-forth between PZ and Thunderf00t. It seems that Thunderf00t doesn’t care what the collateral damage is, as long as his war against FTB succeeds.

        At this point, Thunderf00t is not part of any community. He is a community of himself and his devoted followers. You can bitch and complain about PZ, but the fact is, lesser known atheist Youtubers have been pointing out Thunderf00t’s attitude problems for years. It’s about time that everyone else started to catch on.

        • N Says:

          Oh i get it! “FreeThought” isn’t free though! You see, PZ has removed the space between “free” and “thought”, thereby creating and entirely new word to describe something that is not free thought at all !

          All this over a simple misunderstanding lolz.

          • True Colors Says:

            I think you need to start ConsequenceFreeThought Blogs, because that’s what you want.

            PZ isn’t stopping stupid things from popping into your head. You’re just experiencing angst over having the stupid things in your head called stupid.

            Freethinking doesn’t mean that people won’t call you out when you don’t make sense–which is quite often for the crew around here.

    • N Says:

      Maybe if you asked him to apologize for an action that is a bit more proportional to what actually happened, rather than a dramatically embellished version of the events. Here let me try :

      Hey Thunderfoot,
      Would you please apologize for eavesdropping on a FTB bitching session and embarrassing them by exposing their mob mentality, scientology-like reaction to criticism and hypocritical aversion to actual free thought?

      • True Colors Says:

        Please direct me to the part of the statute that weighs the severity of the offense by the contents of the private communication obtained without authorization:


        • N Says:

          So i guess we should prosecute children for reading in their big sister’s diary then huh? Your line of reasoning is dangerously close to banana man’s “lusting in your heart = adultery”.

          • True Colors Says:

            Perhaps you should read the statute. See if you identify why a diary would fall outside the scope of the law.

            There are a couple of key words in there that give it away. I know it’s going to be tough, because it requires reading and understanding, but I bet you can do it.

            But holy shit, are you bad at thinking. That statute doesn’t prohibit thought crimes, it prohibits a very specific activity that Thunderf00t has admitted to having done. Not complicated, unless you’re dumb as fuck, and you seem like you’re dumb as fuck, so I’m not holding out hope that you’ll figure it out.

          • N Says:

            Very eloquent, bravo! Did you learn to speak like that at Harvard Law school?

          • True Colors Says:

            Yeah, sorry, let me translate to a simpler dialect so you have a chance at understanding:

            Breaking and entering is a crime. Regardless of why one finds in the place they’ve entered, the illegal access is at issue.

            If a murder or rape is committed after the entry, that will be a crime, but a person could literally do absolutely nothing after breaking in, and it would still be illegal.

            According to the fucking federal statute you’ve been spoon-fed (and still managed to burp up), unauthorized access to private networks or listservs is prohibited. It does not matter one bit what happens after the unauthorized access is obtained (though like the breaking and entering, TF could do things the information he obtained that would be separate crimes).

            And no, I didn’t go to Harvard Law. Top ten law school, though.

        • PJLandis Says:

          Westlaw this case if you’ve got access, it sounds like it might be good precedent.

        • PJLandis Says:

          And this is the case:
          Sherman & Co. v. Salton Maxim Housewares
          (E.D.Mich.2000), 94 F. Supp. 2d 817, 821, the court stated that “for ‘intentional’ access in excess
          of authorization to be a crime and actionable civilly, the offender must have obtained access to private files without authorization (e.g., using a computer he was not to use, or obtaining and using someone else’s password or code without authorization)

          • True Colors Says:

            So if we break down the elements:

            1) Obtain access to private files–yes.
            2) Without authorization–yes.

            The tag you put on the end is vague, at best, and given that the case is from 2000 (or 1,000,000BCE in computer years) I’m not impressed. It also depends on who gives “authorization.” TF’s authorization had clearly been revoked by the humans involved with the network. I would not want to argue in court that the automatic functioning of a computer program could assert authorization that trumps the will of the people actually running the network.

            As I mentioned before, I had a client who faced civil recourse (case settled, obviously can’t direct you to anything more for a number of ethical reasons), because she tried to use financial data obtained from a computer her son logged onto lawfully. The son had the password, had the computer by the consent of the owner, and my client simply looked over his shoulder to see a monthly income statement.

            She did far less than TF. She was never told directly to leave a private network, neither was she explicitly removed from access to that data only to sneak back on at a later time.

    • PJLandis Says:

      Not sure if this is his thought process, but admitting to any wrongdoing or apologizing is the last thing ThunderFoot should do at this moment.

      FtB has clearly stated they want to seek legal action, and while I’d say they have about zero chance of winning anything, any sort of admission on TF’s part could take a case that could be immediately dismissed or quickly disposed with a summary motion into a drawn out legal battle where he loses even if he wins. Not to assume FtB wants to do such a thing, but a harassing lawsuit is quite possible in a case like this.

      • True Colors Says:

        Obviously any statement of wrongdoing would occur within the context of a settlement agreement.

        Your legal opinion is also comical in it’s confidence to support ratio. I know you managed to find a case (that doesn’t really say what you want it to say, but you did find a case making unique in the realm of TF supporters), but that really isn’t representative of the scope of litigation on the issue.

        I would just read through this article, since you have Westlaw access:

        The Defense of a Computer Crime Case
        American Jurisprudence Trials 70 AMJUR TRIALS 435

        Of note are the number of statutes that require explicit authorization to access a network. Obviously TF didn’t meet that.

        Another statute reads, “unauthorized access…when knowing that the person is not authorized to do so, he knowingly accesses or causes to be accessed any computer or computer network without authorization.”

        TF knew he didn’t have authorization when he was removed from the network and he and FTB split ways. Again, I would love to be on the other side when he tries to argue that he thought the explicit revocation of his access to the network was trumped by the computer program that let him back on.

        Any good faith mistake will easily be rejected based on the fact that he 1) didn’t ask anyone if it was their intent to let him back on the network, and 2) that he lurked around, forwarded confidential information, and only went public when he was exposed by a third party.

        I hope you’re just a law student.

  79. g2-d34147f3f4e571d41cd1577a51e70a35 Says:


  80. Jazen Valencia Says:

    Ok seriously. Here’s the end of the story. Natalie Reed said that Thunderfoot never specifically threatened to out her real name. She never claimed that. Read her final blog on FTB. As for the “danger” of her being outed some how to her community and being harmed by person or persons unknown. Total B.S. period. She gives an interview on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pa4t2R5KqE If she’s so scared about being exposed. Why is she giving out interviews on the interweb? I mean really can someone tell me that? It’s like someone in the witless protection program going on a reality TV show.

    • stakkalee Says:

      I don’t think anyone has been claiming that TF was threatening to intentionally out Ms. Reed. If they have been, I’ll definitely stand with you in correcting that misperception.

      I’m willing to accept, for the purposes of this discussion, that concerns about the disposition of Ms. Reed’s private information are immaterial to the larger issue, the larger issue being TF’s unauthorized access of a private mail system. Do you believe TF acted unethically by accessing the private listserv at the time he did? If not, why not? If so, what should the response be in the wider online community?

      • WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES??!?! Says:

        If you automate your doorman and he *authorizes* someone to come inside, then the access is authorized. You’re use of the word “unauthorized” does not in this case describe the events, but rather your personal opinion. (Which is fine, as long as you accept it is your opinion.)

        The response should be proportional to what happened. All this pseudo philosophic discussion about morals and ethics is nothing but an emotionally motivated attempt to inflate the issue. And FTBers have to inflate the issue in order to validate their outrage at having their dirty knickers shown in public. Their reaction is one of embarrassment, and that embarrassment is well placed.

        A proper analogy is a man catching his wife cheating on him, and she goes into a rage, screaming about how her affairs were secret and the husband had violated her privacy. And now you are asking all the neighbors of that man to call him unethical and immoral (and demand apology!) for intruding on the wife’s private affairs. Those neighbors would look at you the same way i look at you now : unsure as to why you’re not seeing the larger context.

        TF eavesdropped on what amounts to schoolgirl gossip and a bitching session. That’s it. Is it impolite to eavesdrop? Sure. But in the context of the situation I, like a lot of others, don’t really care. For most of us the larger issue isn’t the eavesdropping, its the discussions that were eavesdropped on. That’s where the meat is.

        • stakkalee Says:

          Thank you for engaging in a discussion with me – it’s been difficult to get anyone to rationally consider these issues.

          I’m curious what word you would use to describe TF’s actions other than ‘unauthorized?’ You seem to characterize his behavior as nothing more than eavesdropping, but the fact is that his access to the listserv was removed when he was dismissed from FTB and they took his email address off the list. He utilized a misconfigured security setting to surreptitiously regain access to that listserv. So I think calling it ‘eavesdropping’ elides the very real fact that FTB was taking pains to keep their private listserv private, and TF circumvented those precautions, which is a far cry from eavesdropping.

          You claim that the information he uncovered amounted to ‘schoolgirl bitching and gossip.’ If the backchannel emails contain nothing but personal venting, there is no context of TF “saving” Mr. Payton’s job (indeed, we can’t even say that the threats originated from the FTB listserv, and to date TF refuses to confirm or deny that fact.) If the messages only contain what you claim, why do you think there is any “meat” there?

          You say that the community’s response should be proportional. In your estimation, how badly has TF behaved? Please keep in my, the justification of “saving Mr. Payton’s job” is an invalid, or at least incomplete, justification. We also know that he has released several of the messages he was not authorized to have (please substitute your own word for ‘authorized’ for clarity) to at least one third party, but again, he refuses to say whether the messages he forwarded contained any direct calls to “do a knife job” on Mr. Payton.

          In my mind TF has behaved very unethically, and his actions deserve censure from the wider community. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

          • N Says:

            -”I’m curious what word you would use to describe TF’s actions other than ‘unauthorized?’”


            -”You seem to characterize his behavior as nothing more than eavesdropping”

            Because that is what happened.

            -”He utilized a misconfigured security setting to surreptitiously regain access to that listserv. So I think calling it ‘eavesdropping’ elides the very real fact that FTB was taking pains to keep their private listserv private, and TF circumvented those precautions, which is a far cry from eavesdropping.”

            I wouldnt say FTB was “taking pains”, but lets pretend that yes. TF used the invite that was sent to him to renew authorization. At that point he’s authorized. He circumvented nothing; he used the front door. Was it “naughty” to do so? Maybe. But at that point the feelings of FTB on the subject are not really of any importance to me. I refer back to my cheating wife analogy ; you’re fixating on the fact that the husband may have peeked into her cellphone to find out she was cheating.
            Going through your wife’s personal assets is by itself not a very nice thing to do. But in the context of the cheating wife analogy, it can easily be ignored as being irrelevant to the subject.
            I can however understand the wife holding on to that fact in order to justify her anger at getting caught, which really only shows her embarrassment.

            -”If the messages only contain what you claim, why do you think there is any “meat” there?”

            I don’t think Mr.Payton’s job was at any risk at any time. I think FTB is very delusional about their stature to think they could affect that man’s job security. I think that issue doesn’t go much further than “hey check this out these idiots are bitching about you lolz”.

            By “meat” i mean mob mentality, scientology-like “fair game” reaction to criticism and a hypocritical aversion to actual free thought. Nothing illegal. No terrorist conspiracies. But definitively things that are embarrassing to FTB. Their public image is very important to them; they present themselves as ultra ethical leaders of the secular free thought “movement” and this discredits them (rightfully so).

            -”In your estimation, how badly has TF behaved?”

            As badly as the man in the cheating wife analogy, i guess. I don’t think it is impossible that he may have taken pleasure in taking a few stabs at FTB, just like the disgruntled husband may key the wife’s car on his way out. He is human after all. If you want to focus on that i would maybe say you are cherry picking.

            Should he be a “pariah”? Forsaken forever from progressive movements everywhere? (note that only someone who thinks he is the pope of atheism would actually say something like that).
            No, of course not. That’s overly dramatic and childish.

            -”In my mind TF has behaved very unethically, and his actions deserve censure from the wider community. Do you agree or disagree? Why?”

            I think that in a truly free thinking community, there is no top-down orders to censure certain individuals. I think that truly free thinking individuals can make up their own minds about TF, and are free to change their minds as often as they see fit. I think that these calls for TF’s erasure from the internets is overly dramatic and childish, along with being the very antithesis of free thought.
            I also think the overused words “ethical” and “moral” are vague, broad brush terms used in order ascribe an unwarranted seriousness to the issue. You could use the term “unethical” to describe a child stealing a cookie as you would a dictator gassing his own people.

          • stakkalee Says:

            Excellent, now we’re getting somewhere! I’m going to assume ‘N’ and ‘WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES??!?!’ are the same person – if that’s incorrect I apologize.

            If you’ll stipulate the definition of ‘eavesdropping’ is “To secretly listen to another person’s private conversation.” I’ll be happy to use the term, although I do want to make two points. One, TF’s actions included an element of recording the conversation, and as such is more akin to wire-tapping than simple eavesdropping, and two, you don’t say whether you consider eavesdropping to be a moral or ethical act, but for now we can ignore those issues.

            The analogy you used was of a husband (TF) catching his wife (FTB, presumably) cheating on him. The wife attempts to shift the focus from her actions to the actions of her husband and how he violated her privacy. You then posit that I am a ‘neighbor’ calling the husband’s actions unethical and immoral for violating her privacy while ignoring the actions of the wife. Firstly, married couples’ property is owned jointly, so I’ll agree the husband’s actions are “not a very nice thing to do”, but since TF doesn’t own the listserv jointly with FTB the analogy fails on those grounds. Further, you claim that the act of violating the wife’s privacy by “peek[ing] into her cellphone” is much less problematic than her act of infidelity, and I’ll agree those two actions don’t have corresponding levels of impropriety. However, the husband’s actions aren’t irrelevant, they simply don’t rise to the same level as the wife’s actions. So in order to continue your analogy, we need to determine the relative propriety of TF’s eavesdropping in relation to the contents of FTB’s backchannel communications. You yourself say that you don’t think the communications go much further than “‘hey check this out these idiots are bitching about you lolz.’”, so the question then becomes “Is TF’s eavesdropping of lesser, greater, or equal propriety to FTB’s bitching?” I would argue that eavesdropping is a greater moral impropriety than venting, but I recognize we’re now talking about personal opinion. Nevertheless, I think your analogy fails on a number of levels, and doesn’t really help in clarifying the conversation.

            You state that the “meat” of the emails is the “scientology-like ‘fair game’ reaction” exhibited by some of the FTB bloggers. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, we really don’t know the content of the messages beyond the fact they contained complaints about Mr. Payton’s ill-considered tweet. I’ve repeatedly asked TF to clarify whether or not the messages contain any direct references to “do[ing] a knife job on” (TF’s words) Mr. Payton. So until we have further clarification from TF I don’t think it’s possible to speculate on the content of the backchannel messages, and as such it is pointless to continue discussing them. However, if you have any additional info that may pertain to the point I’d love to discuss it.

            Finally, to your larger point, you suggest that a truly free-thinking community would have no top-down order, and that that lack of top-down order would preclude an individual from being censured. I have to say I disagree with this. The way a truly free-thinking community would determine the proper response to the actions of a member is to rationally discuss the severity of the actions, and to discuss the range of responses available to individuals in the community. For instance, you apparently see nothing wrong with TF’s eavesdropping, and feel that FTB has ‘cheated on’ TF, and that as such TF’s actions deserve no wider censure. I, on the other hand, believe he has acted out of vanity and spite, unethically, and that his eavesdropping on the private FTB mail server should lead to him being condemned by anyone who recognizes the impropriety of accessing a system you don’t own. Further, I think he should be barred from any leadership positions in any “real world” skeptical gatherings, although of course that’s just my opinion and those organizations are free to work with anyone they choose. I also think any future blogging group that sees fit to invite TF to participate should think twice about whether they truly want to do that, and to perform a thorough audit of their security practices before they invite him to join.

            As to your ultimate point, about overuse of the words “ethical” and “moral”, unfortunately the English language gives us no gradation of terms; we can only speak in values of ‘more’ and ‘less’, ie. a child stealing candy is behaving less unethically than a dictator using chemical weapons, or, TF’s eavesdropping on the FTB listserv is more unethical than FTB’s complaining about the Payton tweet.

          • N Says:

            -”The analogy you used was of a husband (TF) catching his wife (FTB, presumably) cheating on him.”

            No, i didn’t mean TF and FTB were married and making children together… The important part of that analogy was of you, a third party, focusing on a mundane detail on the part of the husband which you consider “unethical” and are calling on all the neighbors to focus on it with you and oust the husband out of the community for it.

            You’re focusing on this mundane detail because it is the only straw you have to grasp at. Hence the relentless effort to inflate the detail into a serious issue ; “its not eavesdropping, its wiretapping fraud!!!”. Seriously, common.

            -”Firstly, married couples’ property is owned jointly”

            You’re not married, are you? :)

            -” The way a truly free-thinking community would determine the proper response to the actions of a member is to rationally discuss the severity of the actions, and to discuss the range of responses available to individuals in the community. ”

            Sounds like mob rule to me… and it sounds like you don’t trust individuals to make up their own minds (to align with your ideologies, of course). That’s the whole point to censorship: guide the opinion of the masses by controlling their available choices. I don’t know how you can consider this to be even near the notion of free thought.
            Free thought is you on this forum, saying things i don’t agree with, and that’s OK. And if tomorrow you say something else and i suddenly *do* agree with you, that’s OK too!

            What i wont do is get a little gang together and form a committee of self-appointed “community leaders” to decide if you should be banned from the internets forever because one of my feathers got ruffled.

            - [...] fantasizing about internets mass rejecting TF [...]

            Its great that you vented all that out. But my senses tell me that this is your preconceived desire which you wish to validate by any means necessary at the closest opportunity. You’re trying very desperately to “make this fit”.

            Lets say this all pans out. TF is gone. You realize this is a slippery slope, yes? There’s a long list of people waiting to be ostracized if you want to go down that path. PZ is on that list.

          • N Says:

            -”overuse of the words “ethical” and “moral”, unfortunately the English language gives us no gradation of terms; we can only speak in values of ‘more’ and ‘less’”

            That’s what qualifiers are for, but you don’t want to say “slightly unethical” or “a bit unfair” because it (rightfully) minimizes your stance and takes the steam out of your outrage train.

          • stakkalee Says:

            You introduced the analogy; if you’d wanted to say I was focusing on a mundane detail you could have done so without using the analogy at all. I think you used the analogy you did to play down the severity of TF’s actions and play up the severity of FTB’s actions.

            There are many details we can focus on. If you don’t want to talk about the relative ethics of TF’s breach of the listserv, we can discuss the fact that TF still hasn’t confirmed whether the backchannel emails contained calls to “do a knife job on” Mr. Payton, or if in fact they only contain “bitching” as you and I both believe. We can discuss why TF still can’t confirm how many other people he sent the emails to. We can talk about whether claims about FTB’s behavior in any way justifies TF’s actions. Do you have another topic you’d like to discuss? A topic related to the discussion at hand? If so, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

            I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn’t suggesting community discussion to determine a unified course of action, I was suggesting community discussion to hash out an acceptable range of responses. No one has suggested TF be “banned from the internets forever” except you; I think you did so to imply I ‘fantasize’ about an outsized, impossible response to TF’s behavior. As I mentioned before, I will continue to condemn TF for his unauthorized access of a private mail server. I will urge atheist and skeptical groups to exclude TF from any potential leadership positions. And if I hear of another blogging group that is thinking of bringing TF on I’ll urge them to reconsider. I suspect I don’t have much to worry about on that last score.

            So I guess we disagree on fundamental points. You don’t see a problem with TF’s vain, petty, unethical behavior, and I do. If it makes you happy, I’ll say that I find TF’s behavior very unethical, but less unethical than a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people.

          • N Says:

            -”I think you used the analogy you did to play down the severity of TF’s actions and play up the severity of FTB’s actions.”

            I did actually! How very insightful of you. I wasn’t trying to be subtle though, i think I’ve been pretty outspoken that i think TF’s eavesdropping is being blown way out of proportion. You’d think he broke into the CIA and is selling to the Russians.

            -”If you don’t want to talk about the relative ethics of TF’s breach of the listserv”

            Thats funny i thought thats what we’ve been talking about this whole time. I think what you mean is “i don’t want to agree with you”.

            -”No one has suggested TF be “banned from the internets forever” except you”

            I see sarcasm is lost on you. Do you know what a pariah is?

            -”I ‘fantasize’ about an outsized, impossible response to TF’s behavior”

            you forgot to add “disproportionate”

            -”I will urge atheist and skeptical groups to exclude TF from any potential leadership positions. And if I hear of another blogging group that is thinking of bringing TF on I’ll urge them to reconsider.”

            Because they couldn’t possibly be trusted to make up their own minds. Are you sure you’re not a scientologist?

          • stakkalee Says:

            If you disagree, why do you continue to engage? If you think I’m not putting TF’s actions at the right place on your “candy-stealing-child” to “civilian-murdering-dictator” scale, where would you put it? Please, be as descriptive as you like – you seem like the creative type.

            But you’re absolutely right, I don’t think anyone will have any trouble assessing TF’s character, with or without my help. But then, I suspect you’re familiar with the feeling of being absolutely right. I suspect you’ve lived your whole life secure in the knowledge you’re right about everything. What’s that like? I bet it’s neat.

          • N Says:

            -”If you disagree, why do you continue to engage?”

            You could ask stakkalee that very question! We disagreed from the start and had a discussion about it. Discussions usually go back-and-forth like this.

            -”If you think I’m not putting TF’s actions at the right place on your “candy-stealing-child” to “civilian-murdering-dictator” scale, where would you put it?”

            I think somewhere between “eavesdropping” and um… “eavesdropping”. Seriously, that you have to ask that question means you have not been reading very carefully or you are being purposely obtuse.

            -”I suspect you’ve lived your whole life secure in the knowledge you’re right about everything.”

            Is that the only possibility you see as to why i may not agree with you? Are you so sure of your “ethical” superiority that disagreeing with you can only be the result of a character deficiency in others? That’s sad.

            You’re right that this is going in circles now. Ill be nice and let you have the last word. You know you want it!

          • stakkalee Says:

            Since you continue to respond to my posts I’ll assume you want the conversation to continue. I must say though, ‘eavesdropping’ isn’t very creative at all. No, I’d expect the N Scale of Ethical Turpitude would probably have values like “car-stealing-teenager” or “admin-privilege-abuse”, you know, something punchy like that. You need to step up your game. But seriously, how unethical do you think eavesdropping is? I mean, we’re not talking about someone listening in at the next booth over in a restaurant; TF went somewhere he knew he wasn’t wanted, and all because he felt PZ Myers had betrayed him, that unfaithful hussy (that was your analogy, right?)

            Unfortunately I need to call it a night, but I look forward to continuing our conversation tomorrow. Remember, we can talk as long as you want.

  81. Namefag Says:

    Epic TF. You are awesome. PZ responds with yes we discussed weather it was OK to steal TFs money but decided not to so we are still OK right guys… um guys… anybody there…
    No PZ we are not there, the fact that you even had the discussion tells us all we need to know, you can take your steaming pile of ‘movement’ and eat it.

    Compared to PZ when he did that whiny little piece of shit blog crying about Sam Harris, then calling for Harris to donate. Harris totally ignored PZ and his pathetic bleatings I doubt Harris even read what P(athetic)Z wrote.

    FraudulentThievingBasterds are slipping on their own pile of ‘movement’ and landing in it on their face.

  82. Support Says:

    great blog u got please check out my blog http://healthmagzin.com/

  83. Support Says:

    great piece of blog u got please check out my blog http://healthmagzin.com/

  84. Quawonk Says:

    >>> He ‘HACKED’ a phone system by ‘stealing’ a passcode and using it to ‘break in’!! ‘He’s dishonest! Unspeakable, it’s a unconscionably horrific breach of trust… he should be drummed out of the community as a pariah etc etc’ /sarcasm

    Rebecca Watson did something even worse. She used administrative privileges that she was mistakenly given at Randi.org to delete the user accounts of people who had the gumtion to disagree with her. http://tinyurl.com/8lcodah No outrage. I guess it’s OK if one is batting for the ‘right’ team.

    • stakkalee Says:

      I agree, Rebecca Watson behaved unethically by abusing her admin privileges. Do you believe her unethical behavior excuses TF’s unethical access of a private mail system without authorization? Do you believe that the FTB admins failure to adequately understand the software they were running excuses TF’s unethical behavior? As I understand it, Rebecca Watson is not a member of the backchannel listserv. Perhaps TF can confirm that for us, seeing as he has access to a full month’s worth of backchannel emails that he obtained through unethical means? I’m not asking him to reveal any specific info from the messages, just to confirm whether or not Rebecca Watson is a member of the listserv. Will you join me in asking TF to confirm or deny Ms. Watson’s presence on the listserv? And if she isn’t present on the listserv, what value do you think it adds to the discussion to mention her past failings in the context of TF’s unauthorized access of a private mail system?

      • Quawonk Says:

        >>> I agree, Rebecca Watson behaved unethically by abusing her admin privileges. Do you believe her unethical behavior excuses TF’s unethical access of a private mail system without authorization?

        Not excusing either one of them, but at least TF exposed some slimy behavior/discussions with his actions. What did Watson do besides get revenge on forum rivals? I’d say that puts TF in a little bit better position than Watson.

        >>>what value do you think it adds to the discussion to mention her past failings in the context of TF’s unauthorized access of a private mail system?

        I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of the people on the skepchick/FTB side in all this nonsense for getting pissed about unauthorized access from the guy they hate and not from the girl they love. I’m giving them a chance to condemn Watson for her behavior, to show that they can be consistent, however I seriously doubt that’ll happen.

        • stakkalee Says:

          But what exactly did TF’s slimy behavior expose? Some people were complaining about Michael Payton and his ill-considered tweet, but no one was calling for any larger response than a blog post, which they eventually posted. And I’ll absolutely agree that speculating on whether to keep the revenue from TF’s blog is slimy as well, but I’ll point out that they haven’t done anything yet, and as long as the community applies pressure I’m sure Ed Brayton will do the right thing and donate the money to MSF; I believe TF and Ed have already hashed that out. I don’t see that TF exposed anything important, and in doing so he severely damaged his own reputation, at least in my eyes.

          So I guess I’ll say, I agree with your point, but my personal ethical calculus puts TF in at least the same category as what Ms. Watson did. I might even argue that what TF did was worse, since I believe the only thing Watson did was to temporarily ban certain commenters, although my knowledge on the subject is limited, and frankly I’m not interested in debating her behavior in this context.

          Thank you very much for the reply, by the way.

          • Quawonk Says:

            >>> I don’t see that TF exposed anything important

            I think that someone suggesting that they could keep TF’s money for themselves is an indictment on that person’s character, and says something important about at least a couple of people over at FTB. I don’t know if that person was punished in any way for that suggestion. If not, I believe the whole group is somewhat complicit. Wasn’t it Brayton himself who said he might tell TF to ‘go fuck himself’? I don’t think he’ll do that now that his slimy behavior has been exposed.

            >>>but my personal ethical calculus puts TF in at least the same category as what Ms. Watson did.

            Read The Devil’s Towelboy’s comment below.

            >>>and frankly I’m not interested in debating her behavior in this context.

            Why not? Are you like the others who seem to turn a blind eye to the bad behavior of someone on the ‘right’ side in all this? Afraid to say anything bad about a feminist lest you paint a target on yourself like TF has?

          • stakkalee Says:

            First off, I’m not going to address what Watson did because this isn’t her blog. I’ve already said I think she acted unethically. If I wanted to say something bad about a feminist I’d just say, “Boy, I’m such a shitbag.” Beyond that, here, at TF’s blog, we should focus on TF’s actions. And I agree, speculating about keeping the money is also unethical, but again, it hasn’t happened yet, and it probably won’t happen, so I don’t think it says as much about their character as you do – as I said, I’m prepared to accept an argument “we all would” feel that temptation, but actions matter more than thoughts.

            But you still haven’t answered my question. You introduced “But Rebecca Watson did it!” to apparently justify TF’s behavior. Do you think it justifies TF’s behavior? How unethically do you think he behaved?

      • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

        stakkalee Says: I agree, Rebecca Watson behaved unethically by abusing her admin privileges. Do you believe her unethical behavior excuses TF’s unethical access of a private mail system without authorization?

        Do not compare apples and oranges. Watson’s activities went way beyond “unethical”. She tampered with and deleted data, deleted user accounts, changed passwords and sent messages impersonating others using their credentials and fuck knows what else. It was malicious criminal vandalism – which is not comparable to simply reading something you probably shouldn’t have.

        To give you some perspective, Patricia Marie Fowler in Florida did essentially the same things as Watson. In her case, she earned 18 months in federal prison and was ordered to pay over $17,000 restitution + supervised release for three years after serving her sentence -


        • stakkalee Says:

          Quawonk introduced the comparison, take it up with him. You want to call Watson’s acts illegal, have at it. I try not to engage in legal speculation online, which is why I keep the discussion to ethics. And how about you? Quawonk won’t answer my question, some asshole ‘N’ below continues to characterize TF’s actions as simple eavesdropping, hell, that idiot Ken has decided I’m just a big meanie who isn’t allowed to talk to him anymore, so I’m asking you – do you think any of the actions TF uncovered justify TF’s initial behavior? What information did TF actually uncover?

          • oolon Says:

            I’m in awe of your staying power – I was too bored trying to argue the toss with Spence and Pinecone. Have you read Carriers latest missive on the subject? http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2147/

          • stakkalee Says:

            @oolon Yeah, I read that earlier. Like I said, I don’t like to speculate about legal issues, but whew!, he apparently sees no problem doing so. Good for him; I think he’s spot on in his analysis of TF’s actions, and Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan, too. I don’t know much about the David Barton issue, but from what I see it’s another case of some religionist nutbag putting his foot in his mouth.

            It’s also interesting how much no one here wants to talk about TF’s ethics. I understand there’s a lot of ill-will towards FTB here, but shit, you don’t just abandon your scruples because someone was mean to you. Even if they were really, really, really mean.

  85. True Colors Says:

    These rationalizations by TF are just pathetic.

    We’ve reached the point, as we have in politics, where at least one thing is clear: you don’t have to be a Democrat, but holy fuck, you CANNOT be a Republican.

    Here, you don’t have to like PZ Myers and FTB, but holy fuck, you CANNOT be on the side of this man-child putting himself up on a cross.

    This is just sad.

    • Palpatine Says:

      Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.

      • True Colors Says:

        Yeah, much better to tie yourself in knots trying to rationalize this childish nonsense.

        • Palpatine Says:

          Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

          • True Colors Says:

            I always thought that was the weakest part of Star Wars. Some go with the Ewoks, but that silly deal where Luke can’t kill space Hitler and thereby save countless lives because…dark side…never really made much sense.

            Don’t think the guy that put the bullet between Bin Laden’s eyes suddenly started murdering the younglings.

          • Palpatine Says:

            And i would have ruled the universe if only those blasted carebears hadn’t defeated my vastly technologically superior imperial forces!

            You have to understand; Death Stars are NOT cheap. Have you seen the metal market lately? I had to build two of them! TWO! I had to cut costs somewhere!
            Inbred clones would make fine stormtroopers, they said… Their aiming skills are good enough, they said…

          • Steersman Says:

            Palpatine said:

            And I would have ruled the universe if only those blasted carebears …

            Sad. An “Emperor of the Universe”’s lot is not a happy one … ;-)

    • Thomas J. Webb Says:

      This is right. Saying that TF is wrong and despicable for what he did doesn’t make you a PZ fanboy. People commit the fallacy of false dichotomy, know that they don’t like most of the writers at FtB and proceed from there. It’s pretty stupid.

      • PJLandis Says:

        Wrong, perhaps, but despicable? I’d say underhanded, but not despicable.

      • Vic Says:

        This is so true for both sides.

        Not everyone who cares about men’s rights is a ticking rapist-bomb.

        Just as not every feminist is a totalitarian man-hater.

        Yet both sides act as if that were the case. I suspect if the exchange would not take place online, the result would be much less hostility and/or misunderstandings.

        But now everybody is fighting teeth and nail for what he believes is “right”.

        I can still disagree with TF on certain issues, while not being a FtB drone, and, vice-versa, not be a “always agree with skepchic”-idiot while still promoting women’s rights (women’s rights, not gender-equality, that’s two different things.)

  86. bismarket Says:

    It looks as if he suspected something was going on & that may have been the reason he went back? If i’m right, it was a pretty shrewd move on TF’s part because they were indeed conspiring against him & doing what they could to negatively affect his life because they didn’t agree with his views, which i personally don’t think are nearly as radical as theirs. It’s a smokescreen they’re putting up, because they’ve been caught out. I’ll be really happy now if we can move on from this to more important things, let’s hope PZ & the Skepchick crowd see it the same way? I somehow doubt it, the threat to their junkets & self importance cannot go unpunished.☮

  87. Ben Says:

    Hey Thunderf00t. You probably won’t read this because it will be buried in the sea of comments here, but I tried to send this to you as a message on Youtube and that didn’t work for some reason.

    This whole issue has really brought out the worst in everyone from the secular community. Regardless of who’s side one’s on, it is pretty clear how religious most of us actually still are.

    When stepping back and looking at things skeptically, I have little choice but to take Thunderf00t’s side(as opposed to FTB and Skepliar). The hypocrisy of FTB banning Thunderf00t for his opinions is a sheer fact. I haven’t heard anyone from FTB actually deny this; rather they simply walk around the issue. It’s really too bad when people are so hurt inside by a differing opinion that it makes them all weepy inside and decide that if they don’t want to read it then nobody can. If you can’t deal with thoughts that you don’t like, then the words “free thought” shouldn’t be in the name of your website. Period. It’s just so stupid. I really don’t give a damn about how “wrong” Thunderf00t’s assessment of that Rebecca chick’s claims. FTB are established hypocrites.

    As far as the whole privacy breach thing goes, well, given that FTB has already proven to be fairly dishonest, and the fact that none of us have actual evidence beyond mere claims, there is no way for me to take anyone’s side other than Thunderf00t’s. This whole thing about Thunderf00t using a loophole to get “secret emails” and post them on his site seems rather suspect. Put it simply, I have a hard time believing what anyone says on the internet.

    This is a subject that everyone needs to move on from. This should be a lesson to everyone about just how backwards the secular community is. We should learn from these mistakes. FTB should either change its name or review their practices of who they let blog. Whether he is in the right or the wrong, if I were Thunderf00t, I would try to apologize for any sort of wrong doing and try to make amends with everyone. That’s easy for me to say because I am not sure that he actually has anything to apologize for. I do hope he continues to make videos because even if he is a dishonest person, his videos are very accurate and valuable.

    By the way, you’re all a bunch of fucking babies for getting offended about most of this shit in the first place. How the hell did atheists get so wrapped up in dogmatic feminism in the first place? It’s my opinion that in this age with the amount of rights women have, you’d have to be an idiot to want to continue to support radical feminism in the western world(notice how I qualified that). We should be striving for EQUALITY; not for treating women as if they’re nothing but weak little children, and treating men as if they are a pack of ravenous wolves with constant erections.

    • N Says:

      “Regardless of who’s side one’s on, it is pretty clear how religious most of us actually still are.”

      Not religious ; Tribal. We’re social primates, and tribalism long precedes religion. It has some down sides, but it’s also one of the primary reasons our species has survived and triumphed.

    • Acathode Says:

      “I have little choice but to take Thunderf00t’s side”

      You don’t actually need to pick a side. This silly notion of having to be either this or that side part of why this fighting got going in the first place.

      It’s perfectly fine to look at the actions of Myers and FTB and be disgusted and speak out against them, and at the same time looking at TFs action of sneaking back into the listserv and saying “dude, that’s not cool either”.

  88. IHateFTB Says:

    OMFG!!! That nude pic needs a massive trigger warning for making your boner run away and hide for a week.

    On topic: FTB sucks more than fundie Christians. Hope their blog network is destroyed.

  89. Thomas J. Webb Says:

    I see a lot of the golden mean fallacy here. Yes, I didn’t like how FtB treated Thunder while he was a blogger there and I do think there’s a cliquish aspect to it, but you know what? They’re still in the right and TF is still in the wrong. Pretty much everything they did do wrong PZ already admitted to and even *apologized* for. The truth isn’t in between. It’s lopsidedly on Ed, PZ, et al.’s side.

    • Ellt Says:

      “TF is still in the wrong”


      “They’re still in the right”


      “The truth isn’t in between. It’s lopsidedly on Ed, PZ, et al.’s side.”

      Fallacy of the false dilemma. TF’s criticisms of FTB are mostly true. FTB’s criticisms of TF are substantially true.

      At any given moment, the truth is usually on whichever side is criticizing the other.

    • PJLandis Says:

      I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but this mailing list obviously covered business details and you could argue that ThunderFoot had good reason to seek access in order to protect the content still hosted on FtB and the profits they were generating. The messages he just posted certainly support that point.

  90. annon-y-dave Says:

    Thunderfoot – please take down these wankers at FTB.

    Their behavior is sickening, and I’m getting angry just thinking about it….

    I was almost convinced to abandon my religious beliefs, but I’ll be forever embarrassed to call myself an atheist while FTB are still claiming to represent rationalists.
    Please take them down, all of them. Every single one of them until none remain. Please demonstrate your grade A pwnage skills, with an extra long video-video execution of FTB.
    Chuck them to the lions, feed them to a dog or cover them in sugar and feed them to some angry wasps….. Just PLEASE complete the task before ‘drawing a line’.

    All the best (UK)

    • Anonymous Says:

      This has got to be some ones idea of a joke? So you can hold onto your religious beliefs while WBC chant ‘god hates fags’ but FtB are soooo evil you could countenance becoming one with us while they exist…. If you are even vaguely sincere then please stay religious.

    • N Says:

      “I was almost convinced to abandon my religious beliefs, but I’ll be forever embarrassed to call myself an atheist while FTB are still claiming to represent rationalists.”

      You know FTB and PZMyers don’t actually represent anything but themselves. If they claim to be leaders, they are self-appointed. Nobody “owns” atheism and rationalism. Your becoming an atheist should not have anything to do with them or TF or this debacle.

      I could claim right now to own your house, that doesn’t mean you should start packing.

  91. Van Says:

    Wow, Thunderf00t is obsessed. It’s sickly entertaining, it reminds me of George Rekers (the “pray the gay away” guy who was caught with a male prostitute he hired on a gay escort website). Rekers had two explanations: he needed a muscular handsome boy to “lift his luggage” (which is now an euphemism) and he wanted to save him from going to hell and preach the gospel in his hotel room. Coincidentally, that’s when he was at the peak of his fame too.

    I wonder why, since this is the only topic Thunderf00t writes about since it happened, he still hasn’t answered any questions raised. He just received the private messages without doing anything. Are you saying that what Jason Thibault wrote was fabricated? (his evidence showing that you tried to access the network several times from Europe (he later found out that’s where you were). Is this true or not? You are being vague about whether you actually went back on the list after you were kicked out. This is misleading to your readers, as they clearly all have different information about the turn of events.

    It’s a pretty interesting study on denial. I don’t know the details (because although you keep writing about it, you haven’t written anything about what you did). One thing that is clear is that, if your depiction of why they are irrational for not trusting you is what you actually think, you are delusional about yourself. Let me try to explain it: you are clearly obsessively butthurt about your canning from FtB. Currently, you do not sound mentally sound. You’re rationalizing this whole situation as a free speech issue (PZ might have said you were free to write what he wants, but clearly most people understand that this is a private network where if you write “niggers are a cross between gorillas and squirrels”, you probably won’t last long. In your case, the post you wrote wasn’t hateful, it was just a post showing how you were talking about situations that don’t exist, arguments that hadn’t been made about harassment. You weren’t going to get canned for that. You were fired because you write like a 12 year old who just discovered caplocks. Seriously, you sound like a parody of yourself. And clearly, truth sucks, so it easier to cry victimization and totalitarian speech repression. So guy who is completely obsessed to the point of accessing data every 2 minutes (that’s what the log says, if it weren’t true I assume you would bring it up, as it would be the first argument of substance against FtB), is dishonest, and uses way too much caplocks!!!!! paranoid rhetoric, access private information on purpose, posts it without context (not mentioning the “pariah” thing was after they found out you hacked), that guy, according to you, should have a medal for trustworthiness.

    Anyway, the posts where you talk about how much you laugh sounds like you’re trying a bit too hard to look easy going. Particularly with your “you’re not firing me, I quit!” comments. You sound like Greg Laden.

    [because some people have difficulties with subtleties in text sometimes, I want to clear up that the analogy about Rekers is only about how he's trying to bullshit people to show how in fact he was virtuous in this whole story. There are no other similarities between the 2, and Thunderf00t is a much better human being than Rekers. Thunderf00t seems to have a really strong blindspot though, and inability to accept criticism from fellow atheists. Also, for those who didn't get it, what Rekers did was fucked because of the hypocrisy, he was one of the highest gay bashers in the US. Not because there's a problem with hiring a male escort and/or gay sex. Glad that's clear.]

    • Ellt Says:

      “PZ might have said you were free to write what he wants”

      Freudian slip?

    • fttt Says:

      Thunderf00t is obsessed? Um, have you read anh of the FailThoughtBlogs lately? Now THAT’S obsession!

    • PJLandis Says:

      You should read John Loftus as DebunkingChristianity. He left Ftb voluntarily over very similar concerns, and has said as much when commenting on the ThunderFoot issue and FtB in general.

      Regardless of why they removed TF, the complaints he has made are not new and have been made by many others, one of whom actually blogged for FtB.

      And your typo is telling..”PZ might have said you were free to write what he wants”

    • PJLandis Says:

      Oh, and the 2-minute thing was apparently his attempt to re-access the list. It was a mailing list, so you don’t access it more than once because the messages then come to your inbox.

      And because FtB has discussed legal action, which is lame over such a minor breach, ThunderFoot would do best not to address the specifics of how, when, or why he accessed any e-mail lists.

      Looking over the 18USC 2701, there isn’t much of a claim criminally and in a civil court there aren’t really any cognizable damages (at least not that the court can or will compensate), so any legal action is likely to be more about harassment which is all the more reason to avoid providing fodder.

  92. HR Says:

    Sounds to me like like FTB were dumb enough not to unsubscribe him from their mailing list when they kicked him out. Easy mistake to make, and much more likely than TF using his scary hacking powers to break into an email server.

    • Chris Ho-Stuart Says:

      The details are available and clear. They DID unsubscribe him. But the the system was such that Thunderf00t was able to use the original invitation to subscribe again after having been unsubscribed.

      Huge security flaw; since fixed. Unclear whether you can blame the software or the admins or the choice of system that had been used; but a nasty surprise when this aspect of the system was revealed.

      There’s no great “hack” powers involved, it’s a break-in in the sense of walking into a door left open. This doesn’t change the ethics of the situation (no matter whether you think TF is a douche or a justified whistleblower) but the fact is he was unsubscribed and the “hack” was simply to add himself back into the list; without telling the admins or letting anyone else know of the defect in the system..

      • scordova Says:

        “it’s a break-in in the sense of walking into a door left open.”


        However, FTB’s conduct seems to have problems with ethics, and if not with ethics, at least problems with reasoned disagreement. They are free to invite and kick people out of their community, but there ought to be some expectation they honor the promises they keep. If PZ Myers guarantees no censorship, there should be no censorship. Afterall the blog advetises itself as FREETHOUGHT not groupthink!

        And this leads to the issue of money. It’s a bit appalling that not only was there a breech of agreement in terms of freethought, but also some at FtB contemplating revenge on Thunderf00t by possibly breeching a financial agreement.

        A publisher might decide not to publish an author’s future writings, but as long as they profiting from the publication of an author’s writings, the author has rights to a proportion of the profit that as agreed upon in advance. As a matter of principle and due process, Brayton can’t just short change Thunderf00t because Thuderf00t broke into the listserve or Thunderf00t said something Brayton didn’t like.

        If Brayton wants some sort of punitive damage for Thunderf00t’s listserve intrusion, that’s a separate matter, but it doesn’t give FTB license to short change Thunderf00t. If they want to punish Thunderf00t or extract revenge on him, they’ll have to do it ethically and legally, and not by shortchanging him.

        • stakkalee Says:

          Please tell me how FTB censored TF. I can still go to his page and read what he wrote. TF wrote several posts disagreeing with the general consensus at FTB that skeptical conferences need anti-harrassment policies. I believe TF actually agrees with most of what PZ and others wrote about the policies, so I don’t understand why he felt the need to continue writing posts. His last post there, dissecting the SkeptiCON anti-harrassment policy, is simply mean-spirited sniping and “slippery slope”-style arguments. At that point the FTB members decided they’d had enough, and kicked him to the curb. That isn’t censorship.

          I agree, Ed Brayton needs to honor TF’s wishes and donate the advertising proceeds to MSF. TF should have honored Ed’s wishes and stayed off the listserv, but he didn’t.

          • hannanibal Says:

            “Please tell me how FTB censored TF. I can still go to his page and read what he wrote. ”
            He was still banned for what he said regardless of the fact the posts are still there to read.
            If a government locks a person up for distributing “anti-soviet pamphlets” then the pamphlets are still there to read. The fact that they have been censored still remains.

          • stakkalee Says:

            Come on man, you know better than that. Sure, if a government locks up a citizen for spreading propaganda that’s censorship; FTB isn’t the government, and they haven’t imprisoned TF. Sure, he was dismissed for what he wrote. No one forced him to change it, no one edited his posts, no one interfered with what he was saying; once it became apparent he didn’t want to toe the company line, AND that he was going to continue to bitch about it, they cut him loose. I fail to see the problem. I mean, I understand why he might feel frustrated, but this isn’t censorship, and it still doesn’t justify what he did.

            Thanks for Astlifying my brain with that last post BTW. Asshole (/sarcasm). Well, mostly sarcasm.

          • scordova Says:

            “Please tell me how FTB censored TF.”

            They kicked him off as an author. They have the right to do so, but if PZ Myers said Thunderf00t is free to write about anything, there is some ethical responsibility for PZ to keep his word and not use “trolling” as an excuse to rescind PZ’s “guarantee” of freedom. Perhaps FTB should stop billing itself as FTB but rather GTB-NDI (Group Think Blog, No Dissent Invited). And maybe PZ shouldn’t make such offers in the future but make it clear that certain kinds of dissent will not be tolerated — but then that sort of violates the spirit of freethought.

            When Harriet Hall (who is a highly respected skeptic) wore that T-shirt at TAM, that signaled to the rest of the world there is reason for reasoned dissent about the influence of Skepchicks.

            But let me offer this. All this drama hopefully will keep the webtraffic flowing. Drama is good if web traffic is the main aim. Reasoned discussion is boring by comparison. I must admit, this mudslinging is some of the best entertainment I’ve seen in a while…

            But this fight is rooted imho between the extreme left leaning skeptics and all the rest. Paul Gross’s book was most enlightening on the conflict that radical feminism will bring to science, and perhaps by way of extension, the skeptic community since, according to Gross radical feminism is anti-rational and anti-science. Whether Gross is right or not, his book was prophetic regarding the current internecine schism in the skeptic community. It will continue, and FTB will only be FTB-in-name-only because of their left leaning skepticism and willingness to marginalize those that make reasoned disagreement into pariahs. The listserve thing I think is only an excuse to try to turn Thunderf00t into a Pariah. It think it was unfortunate and wrong that Thunderf00t did this, but I also think Ed and PZ want to make pariahs of many that disagree with them. Hence they will attempt to censor not just by kicking authors of FTB but attempting to make dissenters into pariahs.

            Bottomline, this drama will continue for a long time.

          • stakkalee Says:

            @scordova So you agree that characterizing what FTB did to TF as ‘censorship’ is wrong? Hint – all you need to do is say yes or no. You don’t need to tie in the coming Armageddon at the hands of the radical, misandrist, gynocratic Stasifascists. Don’t call something censorship if it’s not censorship. And yes, I get it, you’re personally offended that some group is calling themselves ‘FreeThoughBlogs’ when they aren’t even doing freethought correctly, dammit! My lack of interest, let me show it to you.

            I’m glad you think what TF did is wrong. Do you think people should take that into account when they listen to him in the future? If you were looking to hire someone, and they admitted to what TF has admitted to, would you be more or less likely to hire them?

            I’ll agree with you on one point – the schism isn’t going anywhere. And that’s a good thing.

          • hannanibal Says:

            “FTB is not the government” well no shit Sherlock. Banning him from writing his blog when they specifically stated he could write whatever he wanted is censorship and the analogy is still sound. Try harder.

          • stakkalee Says:

            They didn’t ban him from writing his blog, dumbass. Here’s a hint – take a look up at the top of your screen. Y’see, up there, right above all the shortcuts to donkey-torture-porn? It’s an address. It says “thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com.” Holy shit! How did that happen!? How did you get onto this blog when we all know TF has been “banned from the internets forever”!?! What kooky thing is happening now?

            You shouldn’t call things censorship if they’re not censorship.

          • stakkalee Says:

            Crap, I’m sorry about the “donkey-torture-porn” thing. It was uncalled for; you’re engaging with me honestly, and I appreciate it. I stand by the rest of it, however.

          • xtog42 Says:

            You are both correct. They have censored him from their blog, but no they haven’t censored him from the world.

            Given the strict definition of the word ‘censored’ TF was most definitely that. Censored can just mean being condemned by authority — like they do in congress.

            So because the term implies no absolute suppression of thought, nor does it necessarily imply total restraint of public expression everywhere as opposed to limiting the term to refer to FTB viewers only and because of statements admitting to conspiracyto do as much from the primary authorities at FTB as revealed by TF himself,….How can someone really seriously complain about a TF sympathizer using the term ‘censored’ and expect anyone who knows about the issue to any depth to do anything but either yawn, or laugh?

          • stakkalee Says:

            @xtog42 Fair enough, I’ll concede the point. However, I think hannanibal’s analogy to state-sanctioned imprisonment doesn’t really aid in understanding the situation.

  93. Anonymous Says:

    If you read this message you owe me a $100….wait a sec….Oh, I’ve been advised I’m not allowed to create enforceable rules all my own much less create rights and institute privacy rights out of thin air by claiming them in a post. Never mind.

  94. Devnull Says:

    Yep, looks like FTB have completely lost the plot. Melodrama much? Seriously, these people need jobs or something.

    Put it all behind you TF and get back to what you do best.

    • PJLandis Says:

      I encourage you to leave that message on Pharyngula, and then read some of the responses.

      Nothing to do with TF, but I’m confident it would be enlightening.

  95. hannanibal Says:

    I have made a video addressing the main points of contention with both sides of this divide. Please leave a comment if you agree or disagree with the arguments I make.

  96. Jan K. Says:

    This debate reminds me of George Bernard Shaw. ‘ I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it.’
    Although I tend to agree with TF on many if not most points, I think the question that he initially raised when he joined FTB still holds true. Is it worth the time/effort for such a ‘small’ problem.
    To summarise, stop wrestling with pigs, and do science ;)

  97. Sally's conscience Says:

    Dear Mr. Foot,

    Perhaps you’d like to compare IPs in these comments? Especially since they are accusing you of being tolerant of people making threats here.


  98. debaser71 Says:

    I just want to point out that yeah maybe it’s sort of sad to have all this back and forth with fellow atheists but I see a bigger issue here. One of radical gynocentric feminism. It’s very much like a religion and IMO skeptics should be acting as skeptics towards this stuff.

    So IMO enough with the petty bickering about FTB and on with the tearing down of radical feminism and so called feminist theory.

    • PJLandis Says:

      I don’t think radical feminism is the problem per se, but rather those who hold certain positions on the issue stifling debate and assuming the worst whenever makes a comment that isn’t supportive or questions those positions.

      “tearing down of radical feminism and so called feminist theory.”
      This kind of realizes all of their worst fears and does everything that TF and others have complained about in the first place when they were on the other side.

      • True Colors Says:

        Haha, this episode has lead you to complain about debate being stifled?

        I don’t even know what to say about that.

        Half the tards say: SO MUCH ARGUING, you’re making the “movement look bad.”

        The other half say, DEBATE IS BEING STIFLED.

        You guys need to have a dumbass pow-wow and sort that out.

  99. Privileged Male Pig Says:

    Does anyone else find this ironic? Remember when PZ sat in on the Expelled conference call and how we all laughed when they accused him of invading their privacy? Isn’t it funny that he’s accusing Thunderfoot of basically doing the same thing and then getting butthurt about it?

    • stakkalee Says:

      Talk about walking around blind! Even if those situations were equivalent, which they’re not, how does one person’s bad behavior justify someone else’s bad behavior? Tell me, what’s you’re understanding of what TF uncovered on the listserv? What exactly did he find that was so damning? Just how cheaply did he sell his virtue?

  100. Andyjk Says:

    Just remember that religion deserves no respect but the people in FTB do…….oh wait!

  101. Anonymous Says:

    I’ve been an atheist all my life, but after seeing this mess, I’m considering conversion. Clearly god looked at this tower of bullshit and sent down his spirit to confuse you all. Get a grip and focus on the important.

  102. adamwho Says:

    It looks like the FtB are doing some harassing of another dissenter GirlWritesWhat

    • Vic Says:

      The chronological order described by gww is indeed suspicious.

      Also, youtuber omgitzcriss is apparently harrassing her via twitter.

      gww is a mother of three. That someone might want to get her address, harrass her at home… potentially disturbing her children… tells a lot how far radical feminists are willing to go (mothers first, indeed).

  103. John D Says:

    GirlWritesWhat is awesome. It should not be a surprise to us that some deranged fembot is trying to harass her by exposing her name and address. Fembot zombie scum…. you will be defeated!

  104. Suzy Condra (@MoogChick) Says:

    TF, no more drama please. Ignore the attention whores who feign offense at every opportunity. Looking forward to some good videos.

  105. brainfromarous Says:

    Stakk (and anyone else who cares to jump in),

    Stakk wrote to me:

    “So, how unethical do you think TF’s actions were? Do you think he should suffer any professional consequences? Richard Carrier has said TF deserves jail time – what do you think? Would you ever hire a person who admitted to the actions TF has admitted to?”

    My response:

    1) FOCUS
    I am going to deal with this separately from the larger (though related) issues of FtB, Myers and what we do or don’t all think of all that. In fact, I will not mention them again. This is about Tf00t and what he did.

    I am not a lawyer or legal scholar. I admit to not knowing, beyond general legal concepts and a reasonably-informed Man on the Street level, exactly what laws, definitions and standards are in play here.

    From my admittedly non-legal eagleship, I will say that Carrier’s call for jail time strikes me as hyperbolic. Tf00t is not some kind of atheist Kevin Mitnick. His deeds would have to be judged by a court of law, with mitigating factors taken into account – such as his motives in accessing the emails and lack of previous criminality.

    This is not special pleading for Tf00t, either. Everyone gets these factors taken into account.

    For example, suppose that you, enraged by my preference for stuffing over potatoes, punch me in the face at the next SkeptiCon before a roomful of witnesses.

    You admit guilt to the first cop on the scene and also to the judge later on.

    The chances that you’ll spend even one month in a state prison for such a first offense are vanishingly small. The fact that you don’t go around doing this sort of thing would work in your favor and result in a lesser punishment. That’s just how the cookie crumbles.

    (You might face one whopper of a civil lawsuit, but that’s another discussion.)

    If Tf00t was directly told, knew or reasonably should have known that his was not welcome on the email list and that his presence there and access to the emails therein would be taken as an intrusion, he should not have accessed them.

    The exact mechanism (Hacking? Sloppy security? Automated key-authorization?) by which he did this is less important to me than him knowing he was secretly reading emails against the expressed wishes of their authors and intended recipients.

    Now, if there there were no such expressed wishes or if emails on a distribution list do not enjoy the same privacy considerations as personal mail… things get murkier. Also, we’re veering back into the Law Thing again.

    Some people have raised the ‘Whistleblower’ angle, but as I understand it you can’t help yourself to other people’s correspondence and then retroactively proclaim yourself Whistle-blowing if you find something untoward.

    Again, if Tf00t had grounds to suspect shenanigans and sneaked back onto the email list to – successfully – confirm this, that needs to be taken into account. If not, and he was just fishing, it looks much the worse for him.

    I cannot get a clear picture of the Natalie Reed situation so I won’t address that until I know more.

    Ok, that’s a long enough post for now. I yield the floor to Stakk or anyone else who cares to respond…

    • stakkalee Says:

      Well fuck, I typed a whole long comment and WordPress eated it. Let me try again.

      First off, apologies for getting hot under the collar up above, and thanks for the thoughtful comments. Second, TF definitely knew he was kicked from the mailing list (Richard Carrier confirms in the comments of his blog post.) Also, I’m pretty sure Carrier is sincere in wanting to see TF do some jail time. As to the privacy considerations of private email, they’re the same as regular mail. A private server is private property, full-stop. No ethical difference between physical and electronic tresspass, and the only legal difference is who gets jurisdiction (since hacking can cross many different borders.)

      Now, justifications. TF hasn’t offered one since the initial claim of “whistleblowing.” He claims he was helping Michael Payton, but the timeline absolutely doesn’t support that. If TF thought he would find shenanigans, what did he think he was going to find? Did he already have some inkling, or was he just fishing? He still hasn’t said. What did he actually find? In my mind, he didn’t find shit, or at least, nothing that would be worth the damage he did to his own reputation. On Payton, he uncovered that some FTB bloggers could be petty and vindictive. Oh shit! Call the atheism police! On the advertising proceeds, yeah, Ed Brayton thinking about telling TF to go screw is slimy, but he hasn’t done that yet and he obviously won’t now the messages are public, but we can’t say he wouldn’t have simply considered and discarded the idea on his own, regardless of the email leak. So again, what’s TF blowing the whistle on?

      On Natalie Reed, as I discussed with Acathode above, TF seems to think his treatment at the hands of FTB justifies him releasing personal info from a third party, Natalie, who wasn’t really involved in the initial TF/PZ feud. If he thinks that, he’s wrong.

      But what about my last question? Would you hire someone who proudly admitted to doing the things TF has done? I sure as shit wouldn’t. I think TF is going to suffer some serious professional consequences from this, and I think he’ll deserve every bit of it.

      • Andgh Says:

        Errr no most people would merely laugh at a bunch of mongo atheist on the net.

      • PJLandis Says:

        I don’t know about privacy considerations, but e-mail is very different in that it isn’t carried by the post office and isn’t covered by the extensive laws that prevent mail tampering or interception.

        18 U.S.C. § 2701 is probably the relevant criminal staute, as far as I can tell without spending my whole night on WestLaw,
        “This provision is intended to address “computer hackers” and corporate spies. The provision is not intended to criminalize access to “electronic bulletin boards,” which are generally open to the public” http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01061.htm

        That’s not a rock solid defense, but there also isn’t much likelihood that 1) the FBI would investigate or 2) the Attorney General would prosecute, especially since there isn’t any harm that the court is likely to recognize (at this point).

        The harm issue also puts a huge damper on any civil case, because the courts can either award money damages or an injunction, neither of which is applicable here.

        • stakkalee Says:

          Oh, I definitely agree FTB’s legal recourse is limited. I’d point out that the backchannel FTB list isn’t open to the public, but is by invitation only, but on the harm issue I agree 100%. And getting someone in authority to care, even if they can find the relevant jurisdiction, is unlikely. I mean, some of the access came from an Eastern European country, so I can only imagine what sort of bureaucracy nightmare pursuing that avenue would lead to.

          But what about my final question? Would you hire someone who admitted to doing what TF has done?

          • brainfromarous Says:

            Stakk & PJ,

            I also owe Stakk an answer to that one, since I skipped it earlier.

            This question is very germane to me, since I work in the physical and electronic security field. We take confidentiality and privacy VERY seriously.

            In this job, in addition to compliance with myriad laws and regulatory statutes, your firm’s reputation means everything. Whether it’s “bodywork” or audio/video surveillance, your clients must be able to trust you because there’s not much of their daily lives you’re not going to see.

            Based on my knowledge of this – which I admit is limited – my company would not hire someone who admitted to doing what Tf00t has unless we had additional information which cast the events in a new light or, as stated previously, a genuine case of “Whistleblowing” could be shown.

            As stated above, I am not a lawyer but I don’t think i need a JD in order to understand the ethics involved.

            Were I a member of a restricted, invite-only BBS (I am dating myself, I know) or email list and then got kicked off – even for the lamest reason – my anger would not entitle me to disregard the group’s wishes for privacy and surreptitiously regain access to their communications.

            That strikes me as a Red Light ethical breach unless I have grounds to suspect and seek to discover and stop imminent, harmful wrongdoing.

            It does not appear that any such exculpatory factors exist here. Unless I am missing something, Tf00t’s reasons come down to a feeling of being slighted and that’s just not good enough.

          • PJLandis Says:

            I wouldn’t say it would immediately disqualify him, and depending on how you feel about FtB it could be taken as a plus, but all things being equal it would go in the ‘con’ column. If this is the end of everything, I would say it’s a minor incident as far as his overall trustworthiness (though I see that others could see it more seriously) but what he does from here on out could change that drastically.

          • PJLandis Says:

            And personally, yes; he clicked an old link and found he had access to emails of interest to him not only personally but that also had bearing on money, and content, that was owed to him. And I’m not a trusting person by nature, hence I would be more chagrined at leaving such an gaping hole in security.

            Personal opinion though, I noted above I think it could go both ways depending on the employer. I bet the guy at CFI wouldn’t mind hiring him after the heads-up.

  106. Tissue Says:

    Now pulling the “I would have left anyway” card. Obviously it hurts you that you got kicked, otherwise you wouldnt still be whining about it. Respect was lost, you got kicked, get the fuck over it… Need some tissues?

  107. Bedlin88 Says:

    They really don’t have a legal case, it’s negligence on FTB end, pure and simple, that he got back on, although we also haven’t really seen evidence that he was kicked off the listsvr in the first place just transcribed logs that could very well have been made up. But the fault would still lay with FTB even if he was kicked and got back on and it definitely wouldn’t be called hacking. As for reading private email, email does not hold the same expectation of privacy as a regular letter would, so unless TF signed a nondisclosure agreement there is no real case there either. And unless someone can prove that TF doc dropped, then that is only an unsubstantiated claim be folks at FTB. Just cause it seems to be what some over there would have done does not mean TF did. Now ethically TF is on shaky ground with everything but FTB has some ethical problems in this whole mess as well. Seems like there is plenty of blame to go around. Anyway that’s my take on everything.

    Tune in, Turn on, and Wise up!

    • PJLandis Says:

      Plus, we don’t have any harm; at least not any harm the courts recognize or can remedy.

      • True Colors Says:

        The legal claims in both the initial post and the follow up comment are really wrong.

        Courts have long (since the first computer-specific federal statute was passed in 1984) recognized the unauthorized access itself was a wrong with both civil and criminal sanctions (depending on the statute).

        Of course, what one does with the information obtained in an unauthorized manner can increase the penalties, but it is just incorrect to say that the courts do not recognize a wrong in this situation. Scroll up and read through the Am. Jur. article I linked in reply to one of your other misguided legal statements.

  108. Neil Says:

    You know, Thunderf00t, for all of the derision you express for the humanities, your recent debacle at FTB says a lot about how much it might have helped, if only you had taken your college composition courses a bit more seriously.

  109. Bedlin88 Says:

    ” Some things in life are bad
    They can really make you mad
    Other things just make you swear and curse.
    When you’re chewing on life’s gristle
    Don’t grumble, give a whistle
    And this’ll help things turn out for the best…

    And…always look on the bright side of life…
    Always look on the light side of life…

    If life seems jolly rotten
    There’s something you’ve forgotten
    And that’s to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
    When you’re feeling in the dumps
    Don’t be silly chumps
    Just purse your lips and whistle – that’s the thing.

    And…always look on the bright side of life…
    Always look on the light side of life…

    For life is quite absurd
    And death’s the final word
    You must always face the curtain with a bow.
    Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
    Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow.

    So always look on the bright side of death
    Just before you draw your terminal breath

    Life’s a piece of shit
    When you look at it
    Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
    You’ll see it’s all a show
    Keep ‘em laughing as you go
    Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

    And always look on the bright side of life…
    Always look on the right side of life…
    (Come on guys, cheer up!)
    Always look on the bright side of life…
    Always look on the bright side of life…
    (Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
    Always look on the bright side of life…
    (I mean – what have you got to lose?)
    (You know, you come from nothing – you’re going back to nothing.
    What have you lost? Nothing!)
    Always look on the right side of life…”

    Just cause I know this will make someone smile.

  110. Jeroen Visser Says:

    Thank you for the lulz. Nice thing that it is made up of pwnsauce and at the same time shows FTB for the incestual asses they seem to be. I haven’t seen a coherent reply from them to any of the critisism put forward, and it’s sortof amusing to see them circle jerking and telling themselves how gooed they are (pun intended).

    For what it’s worth, don’t overdo it, they do a great job burrying themselves into the irrelevant part of the interwebz .. it still kinda amazes me that PZ is as thick as a donkeys ass and not able to see his own stupidity, or own up to it.

  111. openlyatheist Says:

    So Richard Carrier says that TF can never be trusted by anyone ever again due to his actions. I wonder if he has applied the same rigorous standards to PZ or Watson.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      openlyatheist Says:

      So Richard Carrier says that TF can never be trusted by anyone ever again due to his actions. I wonder if he has applied the same rigorous standards to PZ or Watson.

      Why are you asking that question here?
      Why not do the adult thing and ask Carrier personally?

  112. Naomi Gutierrez Says:

  113. Anonymous Says:

    blah blah blan

  114. gaytality Says:

    That Sally Strange fella is some kinda alpha-Jedi-troll.

  115. gaytality Says:

    It seems that FtB has a history of hostility towards differing opinions.


    Assuming any of that is true of course. But I’ve noticed a lot of leeway handed to people stating transphobic / homophobic things in the skeptic / atheist community, particularly from FtB/Skepchicks. Usually under the assumption that transphobia / homophobia is something that can only happen in religious circles.

    • oolon Says:

      “It seems that FtB has a history of hostility towards differing opinions.”

      You are definitely on message but presenting that as something you just ‘discovered’ makes you seem disingenuous.

      Why link to a post that you say yourself could well be not true – even if it is true what does it prove? Same as your anecdotal evidence – people are idiots on FtBs comments section. Care to have a look on TFs blog and see how many homophobic comments are made compared to a FtBs average post? I’d say an order of magnitude — stop the presses Thunderf00t is a homophobe! [In case you miss the sarcasm he isn't and you shouldn't conflate comments with bloggers opinions]

      In terms of transphobia why not ask Zinnia and Natalie on FtBs how much there is on FtBs, bloggers and commenters, and how prevalent it is on sceptic-atheist sites? I doubt they’d say none and probably have a more interesting take on it than your linked blogger who seems to have been miffed by her reception on Pharyngula.

      • gatality Says:

        hmm. well, I meant no offense by anything. As someone who has tried breach the subject of hostility and mockery towards LGBT people in various skeptics groups, I’ve repeatedly been told that it’s not a problem worth discussion and that I should shut up about it. I thought (wrongly, apparently) that the blog I posted to was an interesting example of where that might be happening.

        My apologies, I didn’t mean to.insult your blog.

        • oolon Says:

          Hehe I cannot help but see you as disingenuous… Please insult and criticise away… When and if you have some valid points – just seemed bizarre to me that the only atheist-sceptic blog network I’ve found that actively seeks diversity from the LGBT community is criticised by one bit of anecdotal evidence. But then you may have noticed there are a lot of people on here who hate FtBs sans reason so you may be making an honest point and I’ve misinterpreted you ;-)

          Try breaching your subject on Zinnia/Natalies comment section or indeed any of the blogs, even Pharyngula and see if you get dismissed?

          • gaytality Says:

            I’ll be sure to seek your validation next time I have a complaint, massa. ;)

            I don’t have any specific reason to hate FtB. The only blog I’ve any real familiarity with is Reasonable Doubts, largely because I’m a fan of their podcast. The blog where I felt my points were shut down was Skepchick, where I was politely asked to take my points to the gay blog, since. I found it a little off-putting since I feel that there’s some common ground between homophobia and misogyny, but I was informed by a friend of mine (just today actually) that linking the two is in itself horribly misogynistic.

            I’m still learning I guess.

  116. JamieD Says:

    From what I’m gathering.. Thunderf00t was removed from a mailing list, only to put himself back on it by clicking the same invite link he originally received? That is truly astonishing.. the fact that the same link would work twice really is astonishing.

    Unfortunately for FTB, no crime was committed, they sent him an invite link that remained valid. There was a comparison earlier to somebody picking up a phone receiver and listening to a conversation on the same line, but there’s no comparison, in the latter case the person was not invited to join the conversation. The invite should have been revoked.

    As for the ethical argument, I don’t really know where to stand on it. It’s a difficult one because Thunderf00t knew nobody else had a clue he could see what they were writing, but in a lot of it they were writing about him specifically. The information he released from it could be deemed worthy of whistleblowing, but I didn’t see any doc dropping (which to be fair, he had no newer information than he previously had before someone removed him from the mailing list). I’m sure some people over at FTB were probably embarrassed by it, but nobody has been put in harm as a result.

    One thing for sure though, tf00t is no hacker. Clicking on a link does not make you a hacker. Clicking on an invite link to join a mailing list more than once is not a computer crime. We can debate whether it was the wrong thing to do, but ask yourself if you had thought of trying the invite link, and you were in his shoes, would you have? If I felt I had been mistreated by a certain group of people, I’d certainly like to know what they were saying about me. I wouldn’t hack them, or bug them (I wouldn’t know how anyway…) but if they had sent me an invite link a while back to a mailing list.. I don’t know what I’d do. Not illegal, would I feel any moral obligation toward these people anymore? Difficult one.

    Anyway, time to move on from this sideshow.

  117. Dee KO Says:

    Thunderfoot, why must you poison your own arguments? You found info of FTB wanting to take your profits and proceed to talk about how popular your are compared to 10 unidentified bloggers. You make a generous donation to a charity but want to use it as a slight against PZ “…make sure you let people know where the money came from”. The problem is this: you were in the right but acted like a child and continue to act like a child. The other side isn’t much better – but that give you no excuse…

    Dee KO – peace

    • True Colors Says:

      Well, he has e-mails where people are discussing what to do with the money. This sort of conversation is common. I regularly get e-mails from my colleagues who, in frustration, say some version of, “screw that, they can go fuck themselves.”

      Ultimately the payment gets made, so just because there’s an e-mail that suggests not paying him, that doesn’t mean they’ve made an institutional decision.

      TF has some e-mails evincing that the people he tried to piss off were, in fact, pissed off. That anyone finds this remarkable is remarkable.

  118. Deborah Says:

    Today PZ Myers has posted how it is okay to wear a t-shirt that makes others uncomfortable.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      Deborah Says:
      August 22, 2012 at 10:57 am | Reply
      Today PZ Myers has posted how it is okay to wear a t-shirt that makes others uncomfortable.

      The fucking HYPO-FUCKING-CRITE!!
      Remember the kerfuffle at the Discovery Institute Mocking Tour?
      The one where the staff made a Pharyngudrone reverse their t-shirt, as the message on it was considered to be offensive?
      Well, PZ went off the deep-end about how wrong that was, and bitched and moaned about it.

      O! Hypocrisy, thy name is Myers!

      • True Colors Says:

        Try to articulate the hypocrisy. I am 1) curious why you think this qualifies as hypocrisy and 2) will inevitably be entertained by your answer.

        I literally cannot wait to see how completely misguided your understanding of the debate is.

  119. Micheal49 Says:

    Why does all this make me want to drag out all of the old Gilbert & Sullivan DVDs?

  120. Ryan Porter (@FetchQuesting) Says:

    I can’t see how PZ and FTB can be defended here honestly. If I had access to, (legitimately or otherwise) documents that exposed the awful behavior of people like PZ I would have no qualms “doc dropping” it. Frankly that’s just good journalism to me (isn’t that how we saw Nixon for who he was?). Exposing people for who they really are, there’s nothing wrong with that at all. Like TF says, he has nothing to hide, but clearly PZ and his gang do or they wouldn’t be so upset about it. Oh no…they found out I’m actually an ass hole! Yes we did PZ, yes we did.

  121. Copyleft Says:

    So, it looks like atheism now has its very own Tea Party, called “Atheism+.” They are the owners and arbiters of all that is Right and Good (because they SAY they are)… and anyone who disagrees with them is necessarily Wrong and Bad (because they’re disagreeing with what is Right and Good, get it?).


    This approach will work SO well with self-identified rationalists and skeptics…. “agree with us and sign this loyalty oath because We Are Right.”

  122. Theresa Says:

    The topically applied medication is waterproof and easy to
    apply. The flea is considered to be one of the most common parasites that
    affect pets. Use of this medicine should be avoided on pregnant and nursing animals.

  123. A Year in Review: The Three Stooges of Atheism | Christopher's Blog Says:

    [...] in the atheist community’ on skepchick and Freefromthoughtblogs, which involved a ‘hack’ into the FfTB backbiting channel (that was some scary cyberpunk shit: all the hacker had to do was [...]

  124. buy pinterest followers Says:

    This is a very good tip particularly to those
    new to the blogosphere. Short but very precise information… Appreciate your sharing this
    one. A must read post!

  125. making love Says:

    Greate article. Keep writing such kind of info on your page.
    Im really impressed by it.
    Hi there, You have done an excellent job. I will definitely
    digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I am confident they’ll be benefited from this site.

  126. rifaximin ibs cure Says:

    There’s definately a lot to know about this subject.
    I like all the points you made.

  127. Brianne Says:

    I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your website.
    It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes
    it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more
    often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme?
    Excellent work!

  128. Randal Says:

    Hi! I could have sworn I’ve visited your blog before but after
    looking at a few of the posts I realized it’s
    new to me. Anyhow, I’m definitely pleased I came across it and
    I’ll be bookmarking it and checking back regularly!

  129. Thunderf00t Says:

    Where did you get that picture from?

  130. aceofsevens Says:

    She posted it on her own blog. I highly doubt she’ll be embarrassed by its distribution.

  131. John K. Says:

    Probably here: http://embruns.net/logbook/2012/03/08.html

  132. Anonymous Says:

    Thunder wants moar sauce.

  133. John K. Says:

    Hmm… thundersauce, what do you eat it with?

  134. Steph Says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 18,850 other followers

%d bloggers like this: