na·ive·té
noun
2. a naive action, remark, etc.
Darren points to a rather amusing Rationally Speaking blog entry from waaaaaay back in 2005 –
Monday, November 21, 2005
No, this isn’t a sexist post on my part. There really is a group of women who call themselves Skepchics, Intl., and they are really cool. The word “chick” is demeaning, of course, only if used by a man (and even then, it depends on the context), and these women are most certainly not into politically correct nonsense […]
Haw, haw. People once thought radium was pretty and harmless too. Massimo Pigliucci, who penned the above, can perhaps be forgiven considering how long ago it was1. Back then, Watson and her other she-spider sidekicks were only beginning to weave their webs, having not yet assembled and trained their coterie of toilet slaves. Perhaps Skepchick even appeared to be a journal devoted to skepticism and not the reincarnation of off our backs it is now with token skeptical filler.
Of course, Pigliucci is quick to note that from the point of its inception, Becky and co. were already busy sexualising themselves with shrewd marketing for the sake of targeted insinuation into the community (hello Gollum). Not exactly an easy fit with the affronted nun routine we get now is it?
1 – But not for the preemptive “I am not sexist” apology / disclaimer. Shows exactly how deeply the fear of pussy has been instilled into academia. Now the same terror is being used to intimidate female academics too. Thanks Becky. You make the world brighter every day. Cunt.
grey lining 
September 8, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I wonder if the “chicks” were enticed by the idea that women skeptics were truly undeserved when they started their blog in 2005. Perhaps at the outset they thought they could be part of a ground-swell of woman entering the ranks of the non-believers. When this was not realized they went on a mission to figure out why there are so few women in their “movement.”
“Sexism” was the conclusion they reached. Surely, they thought, it could not be that women had little interest in political activities in the free-thought and atheist organizations that already existed. They must have decided at some point that it was the menz that were the cause of the “problem”.
Why do so many women still attend churches where they are treated as second class? Why do so many women lead the way in trying to ban contraception? Why are women so active in trying to ban teaching evolution? The conclusion of the “chicks”: “It is the menz!!!!”
September 9, 2011 at 3:14 am
I think women still attend churches because they are NOT treated as second class there, quite the contrary, they have a specified, valued and unviolable niche there due solely to their accident of gender, while all along they are widely believed to be treated as second class. (Men might be regarded as treated lessly in religion too, if you consider they are always by default forced into vanguard positions there, and those are always more dangerous roles.) People are quite capable of believing 2 opposite concepts at the very same time, in religion such contradictory thinking is especially encouraged–it’s often referred to as the leap of faith–and it affords them a sort of hide-out conclave, or a kind of camouflage. Religion has long been a powerbase for women, though of course men use it too. The reason women persist in trying to ban contraception and evolution is because their religion (that they cling to instinctively for reasons of personal and sisterhood leverage) has confused (more than confused, it’s fucked their stupid brains up past all remedy) them that contraception and evolution are counterindicated, whereas any of just a few very simple reality-checks would apprise them that they’re not. No, it’s not the ‘menz’ doing this to them, largely the women are doing it to themselves, and against their own better interests, from purely selfish, willfully ignorant, narrowminded powermongering.
September 9, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Thanks for the hat-tip. It is quite amusing to search back through the timeless archive of information the internet has become. Granted, we are all allowed to change our minds, and Rebecca has recently stated on SGU that feminism wasn’t a big thing of hers when she launched Skepchick Industries.
The place where I take issue, however, is the sheer exploitation of sexually charged innuendo with which she built up the Skepchick empire. I didn’t like it then, and I like it even less now that she is railing against the same.
Perhaps the most sage (and prophetic) advice comes from old-time JREF poster “Athon”, who has now left the forum – ironically – due to the antics of Skepchick, way back in 2004 – before the launch of Skepchick – when Rebecca had her first article published in a real-life newspaper:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=958613&postcount=2
“Well, congratulations! Don’t think that just because you’re paid for your opinions, though, they are any more valid.
Athon”
It is a shame that honest and fair-minded people like Athon are being pushed away from the community because of the siege-mentality which occurs whenever someone dares question the empress. The perfect example of this occurs in Rebecca’s last thread on JREF: “How I Spent My JREF Vacation”:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3747467
WARNING – Lots of photos in the thread, so avoid if bandwidth-limited.
In this thread Rebecca posts a photo-journal of her time away from the JREF forum – like anyone gives a shit about what she does in her private life – followed by an admission (boast?) that she abused moderator privileges (ha! there’s that word again!) she had been accidentally bestowed with… by deleting the accounts of people she didn’t like!
This, of course, was greeted with cheers of “welcome back!” and “oh, gee – you’re so funny, Rebecca!”, with only a handful of posters calling her on her bullshit. Unavoidably, given the forum rules, she got banned.
If you care to dig further, there is a thread where people protest her banning, insisting that she be given special privilege (and I thought privilege was only a male thing) because of her (unwarranted) status in the community.
Congratulations if you read this far. I wasn’t intending for this post to be so long. I just needed a good vent, I guess.
September 9, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Yes, I captured much of her abuse on Randi.org here. The woman is a pig and an amoral psychopath. As I have said before, deliberately destroying another person’s identity and data is the online equivalent of murder. For any non-sociopathic ‘net user, this behaviour falls into the “never do under any circumstances” category. Yet she does things like this without blinking. What she did is also a criminal act of the kind that other people do jail time for – if anyone actually wanted to push the issue and charge her. IMHO squandered opportunity. Some hard time, being some bull lesbians bitch, is probably one of the few things that would have any chance of waking the spoiled brat up.
September 10, 2011 at 5:58 am
Pigs are highly intelligent and caring animals, now an amoral psychopath suits RW just fine.
September 22, 2011 at 12:27 am
The OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Rebecca actually did. She did not, according to the information available, delete any data. She didn’t destroy any online identities. She issued what appears to have been an unauthorized ban. This did not delete the user’s identity but denied them access to their account until such time as the ban was lifted. While still an abuse of her access, it is not the erasure the OP melodramatically claimed.
September 22, 2011 at 12:58 am
Not relevant. Her intent was criminal. That is what’s relevant.
“Unauthorized access” entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks.
State by state –
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494
September 22, 2011 at 3:58 am
“Her intent was criminal.”
You don’t have the information needed to make that statement.
September 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Matthew Miller: “Her intent was criminal.”
You don’t have the information needed to make that statement.
Oh bingo. Here’s a challenge – can anyone think of a reason for destroying another user’s data and identity other than criminal malice?
This is Voltaire’s Pangloss embodied, and typical critique from Watsonistas – our shit doesn’t smell, how dare you imply it does.
Unless of course they are discussing those that dissent – then the inner Goebbels manifests.
September 10, 2011 at 5:56 am
the road to hell is paved with good intentions: http://theotheratheists.net/forums/?page=post&id=7C44CEB4-AAEE-459F-8583-D9DDCA6B36DC&fid=38FFA609-8466-4621-B06D-1CC35D6BF909
September 10, 2011 at 6:10 am
“Then today at last my suspension was up, and I logged back on to the forum. I was pleased to see that my good behavior during my suspension was rewarded with a promotion to moderator. Yay! So I logged on to the mod section to see if anyone was talking about me:
(IMAGE DELETED by Jeff Wagg)
And then I went about banning people I don’t like:
(IMAGE DELETED by Jeff Wagg)
Then I did a few other things just for laughs, and then I got all tuckered out and took a nap. I had a pretty great month, and I hope all you did, too. It’s nice to be back!
Love,
Rebecca “
September 22, 2011 at 12:22 am
Criminal?
Clearly you kids don’t know much about the law surrounding computer access. If the information in the article is accurate, she made unauthorized use of access that she had been granted. While foolish, abusive and no doubt a violation of trust, legally that isn’t criminal.
When you get a job in the real world you’ll no doubt access business computer systems. When you log into the company computer you’ll most likely see a message warning you that the computer is for company use only. From a computer security perspective this seems a bit silly. It is a legal defense. If I were to use my work computer to browse porn sites it would not be illegal, but it would be grounds for suspension or dismissal.
From a legal perspective, abusing access privileges you’ve been granted is not necessarily a crime.
Ironically, calling Watson a criminal for the acts described above probably constitutes libel. On the bright side it’s not criminal at this point. Watson would have to pursue the matter in civil court.
September 22, 2011 at 12:32 am
You really should read articles completely prior to responding to them. The crime is data destruction and unauthorised access – pretty much anywhere in the world. How you got to the point of being able to destroy it is not relevant. You are saying if you see a house on a street with its door open, your entitled to go in and shred their personal paperwork. Why don’t you try it sometime? Like the title of this post says, your naivety is charming.
September 22, 2011 at 4:30 am
“The crime is data destruction and unauthorised access”
She didn’t actually delete anything and as far as she knew her access was not unauthorized. Assuming the events occurred as you describe, she abused her access and deserved to be banned, but that does not make it a criminal act.
Comparing her actions to walking in an unlocked front door is a flawed analogy. This is a “building” to which she had legal access. She “hacked” nothing. She deleted nothing.
You are the one who fails to comprehend the difference, both in technical and legal terms, between locking a door (What Watson did) and emptying the room of it’s content.(What you claim she did).
September 22, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I know you don’t read, you just convenience browse, so I’ll repost this here too –
State by state criminal codes –
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494
It is a crime. Miss Piggy is a criminal.
September 22, 2011 at 3:24 am
Matthew Miller says: “I am not a lawyer, but I pretend to be one on the internet!”
September 22, 2011 at 4:22 am
No, I’m not a lawyer. I have however discussed this sort of topic with lawyers at various companies to work out the strategies for legal insulation from computer attacks. I’m used to databases containing things like the social security numbers, addresses and names of customers. I’m sorry my 13 years of professional experience with computer systems housing confidential consumer data isn’t as relevant as the melodrama of the OP. We’re talking about an OP that claimed Watson had deleted data when she’d actually baned a user from logging in. If this thread is anything to go by, honesty, competence and integrity aren’t exactly franc hoggle’s strong suits.
September 22, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Matthew Miller: If this thread is anything to go by, honesty, competence and integrity aren’t exactly franc hoggle’s strong suits.
See above knucklehead.
Again, if you have anything to say that is a) intelligent, and, b) has substance, please continue. Otherwise, piss off back to your baboon board.
September 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Oh, and this is just laughable –
MM: I’m sorry my 13 years of professional experience with computer systems
“I once sharpened a pencil for our IT guy, I know what I’m talking about…”
Beyond slapstick.