Email Catastrophe Free Fire Zone

We haven’t been very active today. Oh, we’ve searched for creationism news, and there isn’t any — but we’ve had bigger problems. We’re locked out of our email account, and no amount of diddling with the sign-in procedures does any good.

AT&T’s help sites haven’t been very helpful. Each time we have an online chat with them, they tell us the problem is fixed and everything should be okay — but it’s not. So we struggle on.

You’ll have to entertain yourselves during your Curmudgeon’s problem, so we’re declaring another Intellectual Free-Fire Zone. You know how it is. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Email Catastrophe Free Fire Zone

  1. Knock, knock . . . . .

  2. Reggie Rolltide

    Why do the media refer to mass murderers as “shooters?” Sometimes they say “gunman.” In my opinion they should refer to Stephen Paddock as “the killer” or “the murderer.” It’s not a crime to be a “shooter” or a “gunman,” nor does that fact get you into the news. No, he’s in the news because he killed, he murdered. And that is how he should be referred to.

  3. Did you hear what Kent Hovind had to say about my visit to his compound last week?

    How about the exchange today that I had with Kent’s handler Ernie Land regarding that?


  4. > Why do the media refer to mass murderers as
    > “shooters?”
    For the same reason that most of the media refuses to call terrorists “terrorists”. In politics, this sort of thing is called “spin”. Frustrating that.


    At Colorado Christian, where chapel attendance is compulsory. But nothing to do with religion

  6. Abstract
    “Motivated by the dual-process model of the mind, recent research has tested the relationship between cognitive variables and sociopolitical attitudes. There are reasons to believe that religiosity and conservatism may be differentially predicted by analytic cognitive style (ACS) and cognitive ability (CA), respectively. We collected data with three ACS measures, two CA measures, and separate measures of social and economic conservatism. ACS uniquely predicted religiosity and CA uniquely predicted social and general, but not economic, conservatism, controlling for demographic variables. Further research and theorizing are needed to establish the potentially closer coupling between ACS and religiosity and CA and conservatism.”

    In other words, “We have been doing research on how certain cognitive (thinking) styles (i.e., tendency to think analytically vs. intuitively) may be associated with or even lead to different social attitudes for a couple of years,” explained the study’s corresponding author, S. Adil Saribay of Boğaziçi University. “This research is partly motivated by the observation that the growing religiosity, anti-secularism, and anti-science sentiment across the world seemed to go along with the spread of simple ideas about the world that have intuitive appeal.

    “Empirical findings generally suggest that an intuitive thinking style and a lower IQ level (cognitive ability) are associated with both religiosity and conservatism. Thinking style and cognitive ability are positively associated; and so are religiosity and conservatism. We noticed that there are reasons to believe that religiosity and social conservatism may be differentially predicted by cognitive style and cognitive ability, respectively.”

    “We would like to warn readers to resist the temptation to draw conclusions that suit their ideological worldviews,” Saribay told PsyPost. “One must not think in terms of profiles or categories of people and also not draw simple causal conclusions as our data do not speak to causality. Instead, it’s better to focus on how certain ideological tendencies may serve psychological needs, such as the need to simplify the world and conserve cognitive energy.”

    “Our findings suggest that intuitive thinking serves the upholding of religious beliefs and by extension, growing less religious has more to do with overcoming one’s intuitions, if one has received religious upbringing. On the other hand, adopting socially progressive ideas may have more to do with intelligence compared to cognitive style. Note that these relations are not so clear cut and effect sizes are small.”

  7. I might blog about that one.

  8. My email seems to be working this morning. The problem solved itself as mysteriously as it created itself. Just one of life’s mysteries.

  9. Curmudg, solved your problem, man. AT&T … really? There’s your problem. Proceed to the nearest exit and get a decent ISP.

    On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:54 PM, The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

    > The Curmudgeon posted: “We haven’t been very active today. Oh, we’ve > searched for creationism news, and there isn’t any — but we’ve had bigger > problems. We’re locked out of our email account, and no amount of diddling > with the sign-in procedures does any good. AT&T’s h” >

  10. I’ve dealt with AT&T before. Their user support is dreadful. I have the opinion that they fill their staff with a bunch of high turnover no-nothing thralls. They only time I got competent help is when I called to quit, and even then I was lied to.

  11. Yippee Jay!
    Today Dutch creacrap site made my day!

    A couple of times I have linked to them and even praised them for allowing comments. Well, they have cut that option. And who is to blame! For a huge part me of coursre.

    “Dan heb je ook nog de zogenoemde internet-trollen: mensen die een reactie plaatsen puur om anderen te sarren. In Trouw stond in 2006 een kort interview met iemand die ook regelmatig op onze site reageerde:”

    “Then there are the so called internet trolls: people who react just to bully others. Trouw (a Dutch newspaper – MNb) had in 2006 a short interview with someone who also regularly reacted on our site:”

    “Vooral wanneer ik me erger aan artikelen dan typ ik spontaan wat me invalt. Het is ook wel een beetje een spel. Het is prettig om de dag te eindigen met een welgemeende belediging. Het is natuurlijk wel een kunst om die netjes en mooi te verpakken.”

    “Ëspecially when articles annoy me I type spontaneously what pops up in my brain. It’s a bit of a game. It’s pleasant to end the day with a well-meaning insult. Of course it’s the trick to wrap it up neatly.”

    Yup, that’s mine. Of course creacrapper excel at quotemining. Still it’s remarkable that they let so much of my trolling quote pass. The harshest words I used were “not credible” when they misrepresented Evolution Theory.

    “Deze “trollen” zorgen voor een oppervlakkige discussie, waardoor anderen die serieus zijn geïnteresseerd, de behoefte niet meer voelen te reageren.”

    These “trolls” make discussions superficial, so that others, who are seriously interested, don’t feel the need anymore to react.”
    Yeah. Never mind all the times I became the receiving end of creationist sarcasm and neglected it. Not that I mind; I just decided to neglect it to avoid derailed discussions. To go down towards bottom end is not something any creationist needs me for.

    They claim to keep the discussion “open” by means of private email. As if they ever intend to answer me.
    Now after MNb’s First Law “Creationists are lying until demonstrated otherwise” I introduce MNb’s Second Law: “Whenever a creationist tries to insult you it actually is a compliment”.

  12. @Michael Frugate
    Irony alert:
    “Have you ever lied, stolen, or taken the Lord’s name in vain?”

  13. It suddenly occurred to me that my post may be taken to refer to Michael Frugate. Excuse me. I most certainly did not mean that. I was referring to the citation that he gave.

  14. As to why mass killers are called “shooters” or “gunmen” rather than “murderers” — the word “murder” assumes premeditation. Since we cannot determine what is inside a person’s mind, it is more accurate to call the perpetrator a shooter, because there is no doubt that shots were fired.