Skepchick Quickies, 11.11


Jen is a writer and web designer/developer in Columbus, Ohio. She spends too much time on Twitter at @antiheroine.

Related Articles


  1. Sometimes I wish cell phones DID cause cancer. Then maybe people would put the damn things down and drive straight -or maybe just pay attention to the people with whom they are actually supposed to be interacting. Darn kids and their gadgets…

    I’m SO buying the action figures for my kids-in-law! Bonus: Darwin doubles as Randi, right? Right?

  2. How about 3 more scientists and 8 skeptics, then we can have skeptical chess. Hmm….Hubbel, Miescher, and Wegener.

    Rebecca, Randi, Bernstein, Hrab, Shermer, Grothe, Swoopy, and Savage could be the pawns. The “named” pieces would be classified according to their field. Astronomy (king/queen), biology (knight), Physics (bishop), and Geology (rook).

  3. Thanks for posting about the “backwards-walking” cheerleader, Jen. I had seen the Youtube video of her when her bizarre story started circulating around the web recently, and, despite my ordinarily ferocious skepticism, I have to admit I was slightly unnerved by it. It’s nice to know the skeptical community has done its job once again.

  4. @marilove: No, I just don’t care for what I’ve seen of his photography in the past. I looked at the link you posted, and his more recent work is way better than his older work, so thanks for pointing me toward that.

    But have you seen the stuff he was putting out several years ago, when he was inexplicably getting more attention for his photography? The Helmut Newton satire was great, but a lot of what got everyone talking were mostly just random clusters of people standing about or sitting about under boring Photography 101 softbox lighting. Bleccch.

    The subjects weren’t the problem

  5. @marilove: More seriously, the earlier and most widely publicized fat-nudes photography came under some criticism that was deeper than “ewww fat!” Specifically, some asked whether his use of fat models became a gimmick, with not much substance offered beyond the gimmick. You’re not exactly celebrating or thoughtfully exploring a particular group if you’re using them as gimmicks. But in fairness to Nimoy, there are probably as many critics rejecting that criticism as there are are critics making it.

  6. @ekimbrough: From what I’ve seen, and from what I’ve read from him, it doesn’t seem to be a gimmick, but an honest appreciation of the form, and a desire to do something a lot of photography artists are afraid to do. But that’s definitely a fair question to ask/criticism to bring up, and not in the same line as “ewww naked fat women!”

    He doesn’t seem much like the gimmicky type, though.

  7. Any person who would argue over whether the Prez (or any other person) is a geek or nerd must, themselves, be a geek or nerd.

    Sheldon’s Law
    (of Big Bang Theory, plus that’s my dad’s name, and he’s a geek of the highest level)

    Re: Science action figures: I like that on the blurb it says: “Carry this century’s most notable scientific minds in your pocket.”

    None of these scientists are from “this century.”


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button