Another crrrrrazy week has come to an end, dear skeptical friends! A lot has happened here on Skepchick — some lulz, some spats, a closed thread — but the single most important event was this: I totally added a rad new plug-in that lets you reply to comments quickly and easily! Just click the little arrow by the post number. I know, totally rad.
Seriously, though, commenters. You know we love you to pieces, but perhaps it’s a good time to review the Code of Conduct I posted not long ago. There are a lot of n00bs, and a lot more commenting than in the past, so I understand how things can get a bit out of hand. I’ll post the relevant bit of the Code below, and then I’ll get on to the business at hand: Comment o’ the Week!
- We don’t all agree about everything. Not only will you the reader sometimes disagree with a Skepchick writer, but quite often we writers disagree amongst ourselves. I never wanted a bunch of writers who had the same outlook and experience as me — I wanted people who can think critically, and who make me think about things in a different way.
- We disagree in constructive ways. When a fellow writer posts something that makes me think, ‘WTF?’, I try to figure out how she got to that conclusion. I often find that the rationale behind her thinking is sounder than I first thought. A recent example is when Sam posted in support of the FLDS parents in Texas who had their children removed. At first I thought he was nuts, but when I examined the evidence and his thought process, I came to see that the point wasn’t as outrageous as I had thought. I didn’t get angry because he had a different outlook than me, even though it’s a hot-button issue. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Sam is my friend, which is why I’d like you to
- Think of us like your friends. Even though we sometimes disagree, I hope we make you laugh and think and occasionally party. I want you to think of your fellow commenters as friends, too — since you’re all on Skepchick, you probably all share a similar mode of thinking, a similar frustration about Oprah, and maybe a similar sense of humor. So get along and give each other the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you should still
- Tell us when we’re wrong. Giving us the benefit of the doubt doesn’t mean letting us unknowingly get facts wrong or slip up on fallacious reasoning. We’re human, and that’s how we learn.
I think that about covers it. Mostly, I just want you guys to not be jerks, because I want everyone here to have fun. Except on the day that Kevin Trudeau registers to post, at which point I want you all to become the jerkiest jerks that ever, um, jerked. Okay, on to the Comment o’ the Week!
Okay, on to the Comment o’ the Week! (I know I already said that, but that was months ago.)
Thanks again to those of you who let us know your favorite posts by using the initialism “COTW.” That helps a lot, especially now that we can have literally a thousand comments a week. I carefully examined each nomination, including additional nominations from the Skepchicks themselves, and have decided to award this prestigious prize to (DRUMROLL) Gerg!
Gerg // Aug 29, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I understand your skepticism about Dr Cornelius Cockinâ€™s work with Dr Angus Butt. Even if it is one of his more controversial collaborations, you cannot discount the fine work Dr. Cockin has done with others:
Dr. Dampen Vag
Dr. Hans Cleevage
Dr. Sheeraz Handjb
Dr. Lucy Mouthe
When my fiancee had two back surgeries in one year virtually all those techniques helped greatly in her recovery. Then again if youâ€™re not interested in any of those couplings of medical professionals, you might have to remind your husband of the work of Dr. Frank-Lee Justgoawayandhaveawank.
Gerg may not know how to spell his name (I’m guessing) but he’s got a great Gravatar and knows how to work the funny.
To those of you who will try to say that that comment was posted last week, you should know that the start and end of each week is determined solely by myself and is in accordance with the grander method of time measurement known as Rebecca Time (RT). All of Skepchick is run based on RT, and so my fellow writers know that when I say “1pm,” I mean “1pm RT.” And, if I happen to show up at what you think is 1:15pm, it does not mean that I am late, it only means that your watch is out of synch with Rebecca Time. Scientists at MIT are currently working on developing a machine that keeps perfect Rebecca Time. It shall be called the Atomic Rawk.
Anyway, congrats to Gerg! Your prize is a watch that automatically synchs to the Atomic Rawk, expected to be available starting in late 2009. RT.