Online activists use Wikibomb to give greater recognition to work of female scientists on Wikipedia

The organisers of Australia’s first Wikibomb to give greater recognition to the work of female scientists say there is a gender imbalance in Wikipedia, and the work of women in the industry is going unrecognised.

To counter this a group of online activists have bombarded the online encyclopaedia with new entries about Australian women scientists, past and present.

more…

What about transgender, gay and lesbian scientists, who’s speaking up for them?

Peak Warming Man said:

What about transgender, gay and lesbian scientists, who’s speaking up for them?

You?

An aboriginal and first nation scientists? who’s speaking up for them?

Peak Warming Man said:

An aboriginal and first nation scientists? who’s speaking up for them?

You?

The organisers of Australia’s first Wikibomb to give greater recognition to the work of female scientists say there is a gender imbalance in Wikipedia, and the work of women in the industry is going unrecognised.

To counter this a group of online activists have bombarded the online encyclopaedia with new entries about Australian women scientists, past and present.

More than 140 people from around the country took part, contributing remotely from locations like Melbourne, Sydney and Perth.

The central event was held in Canberra at the Australian National University Shine Dome, as part of National Science Week.

Emma Johnston is a University of New South Wales (UNSW) Professor and a marine ecologist with the Sydney Institute of Marine Science.

“We’ve got 144 women joining us for the day, and men, who are writing Wikipedia pages about women in science so we’re going to have at least 144 excellent entries,” she said.
Audio: Listen to Sarah Sedghi’s report (The World Today)

She said the Wikibomb initiative was important for all women.

“If your role models aren’t there, it’s really difficult to envisage yourself in that role and it’s hard to imagine that you might become a scientist,” she said.

“Nine out of 10 Wikipedia contributors are male so inevitably we’ve got a bit of bias with who is being represented online.

“So we are going to bomb Wikipedia with pages about Australian women in science, both dead and alive”.
From marine ecology to quantum physics

Professor Johnson herself has had a profile created for her work in the field of marine ecology, although she admited to feeling a little shy about it.

Her research examines the impact of human activities and the effects of pollutants on marine life, and she is the inaugural director of the Sydney Harbour Research Program.
Wikibomb set up Photo: The wikibomb was coordinated from the Australian National University’s Shine Dome in Canberra, where about 30 contributors set up shop. (ABC News: Holly Rourke)

Other women scientists to be recognised included quantum physicist Professor Michelle Simmons from UNSW, who is a pioneer in quantum computing, and marine scientist Leanne Armand.

According to her new Wikipedia page, Ms Armand is known “for her contributions to the understanding of how the Southern Ocean dynamics and sea ice are linked to climate”.

Dr Marguerite Evans-Galea from the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute also took part.

“I’ve actually really gotten very excited about the Wikibomb and I really wanted to focus on women across the spectrum,” she said.

By building the confidence in women to imagine themselves as scientists and to understand that they can be just as good at maths and science and technology and computers as any man, I think we stand to gain a lot in society. University of New South Wales Professor Emma Johnston

Dr Evans-Galea made four entries.

“One researcher I’ve selected is Associate Professor Amanda Fosang. Mandy is one of our leading cartilage researchers,” she said.

“She has a lot of accolades that I’m hoping to highlight on her page and I encourage everyone to read it, but when I first approached Mandy she was like, ‘oh, I don’t think that’s necessary’, and I think that’s a classic female response. We don’t promote ourselves.”

Those involved said they wanted the online world to better reflect reality.

“When you do a Google search for famous scientists, you come up with all these pictures of old white men in glasses with lab coats and holding beakers of fuzzy green liquid that look nothing like any experiment that I’ve ever done,” said Dr Krystal Evans, CEO of the BioMelbourne Network.
Documents used in the wikibomb Photo: Contributors in Canberra brought along newspaper clippings, photos and books on influential Australian women scientists. (ABC News: Holly Rourke)

“And so the Australian Academy of Science initiative wants to correct that by profiling women who’ve made outstanding contributions.”

She said it was important that women’s work be reflected where most people are sourcing information about science.

“If you went on Wikipedia and you could only find male scientists, then that’s the impression that young children in schools would get, that scientists are all men, but this way we’re providing a diversity,” she said.

Today was just the beginning, as volunteers around the country will continue to update and create Wikipedia pages.
Change still slow for women in science

But while there are some initiatives to help women stay in science, change has been slow.

For instance, taking time away from work to care for children can make it more difficult to get back into a competitive industry.

Professor Johnston said it was not because women did not want to be scientists, and hoped more women would be encouraged to pursue and stay in science careers.

“By building the confidence in women to imagine themselves as scientists and to understand that they can be just as good at maths and science and technology and computers as any man, I think we stand to gain a lot in society,” she said.

And handicapped or blind scientists, who’s speaking up for them?

Are you allowed to create your own Wikipedia page if notable or is that considered egotistical

Cymek said:

Are you allowed to create your own Wikipedia page if notable or is that considered egotistical

All you need is proper references.

australian+women+scientists

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Are you allowed to create your own Wikipedia page if notable or is that considered egotistical

All you need is proper references.

So female scientists could self promote but choose not to.

I see PWM is detracting from the article

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Are you allowed to create your own Wikipedia page if notable or is that considered egotistical

All you need is proper references.

So female scientists could self promote but choose not to.

Maybe. I doubt most scientists really care what is written on Wikipedia about them. Self promotion is more the tool in trade of those in entertainment.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

All you need is proper references.

So female scientists could self promote but choose not to.

Maybe. I doubt most scientists really care what is written on Wikipedia about them. Self promotion is more the tool in trade of those in entertainment.

And Male Scientists?

are you detracting also Witty?

my sexism detecting meter is moving upwards

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

So female scientists could self promote but choose not to.

Maybe. I doubt most scientists really care what is written on Wikipedia about them. Self promotion is more the tool in trade of those in entertainment.

And Male Scientists?

are you detracting also Witty?

No. I agree it is a good initiative.

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Maybe. I doubt most scientists really care what is written on Wikipedia about them. Self promotion is more the tool in trade of those in entertainment.

And Male Scientists?

are you detracting also Witty?

No. I agree it is a good initiative.

I think PWM makes a valid point. Why focus on one particular under-represented group, when there are other groups that are far more under-represented?

Surely the focus should be on the how the leaders of research teams are selected, rather than proportion of a particular sub-group on Wikipedia.

it isn’t valid. if you support one charity why don’t you support them all? the reason is that people choose which fight to fight. you can’t possibly support all and it is daft to think so. imo.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think PWM makes a valid point. Why focus on one particular under-represented group, when there are other groups that are far more under-represented?

Why shouldn’t one group of activists be entitled to focus on the under-represented group of their choice? Nobody’s stopping you or PWM from focusing on other groups.

Some people have to start somewhere

Why not take it globally

Aboriginal and lesbian scientists would fall under the category of women scientists anyway, being lesbian is irrelevant I’d had thought anyway.

ChrispenEvan said:

it isn’t valid. if you support one charity why don’t you support them all? the reason is that people choose which fight to fight. you can’t possibly support all and it is daft to think so. imo.

But supporting a charity is fundamentally different. Each individual has a limited amount of money and time, so if they wish to donate money or time to some specific cause, they have to choose one (or a few) out of many. Drawing attention to a discrimination issue is different. It is just as easy (in fact easier) to draw attention to an issue that affects a large group as it is for a specific (gender-based) sub-set of that group.

The only reason for choosing the sub-group on the basis of sex is that the people doing the choosing are sexist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only reason for choosing the sub-group on the basis of sex is that the people doing the choosing are sexist.

???

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think PWM makes a valid point. Why focus on one particular under-represented group, when there are other groups that are far more under-represented?

Why shouldn’t one group of activists be entitled to focus on the under-represented group of their choice? Nobody’s stopping you or PWM from focusing on other groups.

For the reason that I just explained.

It would be more effective, and of benefit to more people, to focus on the whole group, rather than an arbitrary sub-group.

So if people point out that a certain race is under-represented in this or that encyclopedia, that means they’re racist?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only reason for choosing the sub-group on the basis of sex is that the people doing the choosing are sexist.

???

??????

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it isn’t valid. if you support one charity why don’t you support them all? the reason is that people choose which fight to fight. you can’t possibly support all and it is daft to think so. imo.

But supporting a charity is fundamentally different. Each individual has a limited amount of money and time, so if they wish to donate money or time to some specific cause, they have to choose one (or a few) out of many. Drawing attention to a discrimination issue is different. It is just as easy (in fact easier) to draw attention to an issue that affects a large group as it is for a specific (gender-based) sub-set of that group.

The only reason for choosing the sub-group on the basis of sex is that the people doing the choosing are sexist.

>>>The only reason for choosing the sub-group on the basis of sex is that the people doing the choosing are sexist.

and males choosing male scientists is sexist as well?

The Rev Dodgson said:

For the reason that I just explained.

It would be more effective, and of benefit to more people, to focus on the whole group, rather than an arbitrary sub-group.

But clearly the activists involved have a particular and perfectly legitimate interest in the sub-group they’re seeking to champion. It’s not “arbitrary”.

This all sounds like a load of jerk off to me but good on them for making themselves more relevant

Emma Johnston is a University of New South Wales (UNSW) Professor and a marine ecologist with the Sydney Institute of Marine Science.

“We’ve got 144 women joining us for the day, and men, who are writing Wikipedia pages about women in science so we’re going to have at least 144 excellent entries,” she said.

She said the Wikibomb initiative was important for all women.

“If your role models aren’t there, it’s really difficult to envisage yourself in that role and it’s hard to imagine that you might become a scientist,” she said.

“Nine out of 10 Wikipedia contributors are male so inevitably we’ve got a bit of bias with who is being represented online.

“So we are going to bomb Wikipedia with pages about Australian women in science, both dead and alive”.

Bubblecar said:

So if people point out that a certain race is under-represented in this or that encyclopedia, that means they’re racist?

Could be.

If the discrimination was more general, but they chose to focus on the one particular group that they happened to be part of, to the disadvantage of other under-represented groups, then yes, that would be racist.

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it isn’t valid. if you support one charity why don’t you support them all? the reason is that people choose which fight to fight. you can’t possibly support all and it is daft to think so. imo.

But supporting a charity is fundamentally different. Each individual has a limited amount of money and time, so if they wish to donate money or time to some specific cause, they have to choose one (or a few) out of many. Drawing attention to a discrimination issue is different. It is just as easy (in fact easier) to draw attention to an issue that affects a large group as it is for a specific (gender-based) sub-set of that group.

The only reason for choosing the sub-group on the basis of sex is that the people doing the choosing are sexist.

>>>The only reason for choosing the sub-group on the basis of sex is that the people doing the choosing are sexist.

and males choosing male scientists is sexist as well?

Yes, why wouldn’t it be?

Maybe it would be better to a Wikipedia for women as well to tell their story of the world if knowledge ?

I hope Wikipedia wasn’t started by a man

That goes for google too

Bloody men

>If the discrimination was more general, but they chose to focus on the one particular group that they happened to be part of, to the disadvantage of other under-represented groups, then yes, that would be racist.

Huh? Maybe they’d just be expecting other groups to lobby on their own behalf.

You’re being very silly indeed.

Missy higgins that turn coat decided she wasn’t a lesbian after all and married some bloke

wookiemeister said:

Missy higgins that turn coat decided she wasn’t a lesbian after all and married some bloke

She’s preggers too.

Bubblecar said:

>If the discrimination was more general, but they chose to focus on the one particular group that they happened to be part of, to the disadvantage of other under-represented groups, then yes, that would be racist.

Huh? Maybe they’d just be expecting other groups to lobby on their own behalf.

You’re being very silly indeed.

On the contrary, I’m being sensible.

Divine Angel said:

wookiemeister said:

Missy higgins that turn coat decided she wasn’t a lesbian after all and married some bloke

She’s preggers too.

Exactly , when she could have been a nice single sex relationship with some PE teacher or someone with a short haircut and tatts in the army

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>If the discrimination was more general, but they chose to focus on the one particular group that they happened to be part of, to the disadvantage of other under-represented groups, then yes, that would be racist.

Huh? Maybe they’d just be expecting other groups to lobby on their own behalf.

You’re being very silly indeed.

On the contrary, I’m being sensible.

Captain sensible

So according to Rev, no particular interest groups (representing particular under-represented groups) should be entitled to be lobby on behalf of their own interest group, unless they lobby on behalf of all other under-represented interest groups. If they do so, they’re being sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

Whereas the majority group of white heterosexual males like the Rev, are being very fair by discriminating against ALL other types, without fear or favour.

Ohhhhhhh talk about the thingsss you’d like to dooooo

Bubblecar said:

So according to Rev, no particular interest groups (representing particular under-represented groups) should be entitled to be lobby on behalf of their own interest group, unless they lobby on behalf of all other under-represented interest groups. If they do so, they’re being sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

Whereas the majority group of white heterosexual males like the Rev, are being very fair by discriminating against ALL other types, without fear or favour.

See I neither said, nor implied that it was OK for the particular group that I’m part of to discriminate against other groups. In fact I very clearly stated and implied that it was not OK.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

So according to Rev, no particular interest groups (representing particular under-represented groups) should be entitled to be lobby on behalf of their own interest group, unless they lobby on behalf of all other under-represented interest groups. If they do so, they’re being sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

Whereas the majority group of white heterosexual males like the Rev, are being very fair by discriminating against ALL other types, without fear or favour.

See I neither said, nor implied that it was OK for the particular group that I’m part of to discriminate against other groups. In fact I very clearly stated and implied that it was not OK.

Yes, but you’re not allowing other groups to challenge the discrimination they face, unless they also lobby on behalf of other groups that they don’t feel entitled to represent.

You really are just being monumentally silly.

How about something crazy like no discrimination, people are evaluated for their ability to job on effective they are in that job and how they get in with other people in the workplace ???

A roster system of under-represented groups would work

Women
Gay/Lesbian people
Aboriginals
Whales
Gay aboriginal whales
And so on

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

So according to Rev, no particular interest groups (representing particular under-represented groups) should be entitled to be lobby on behalf of their own interest group, unless they lobby on behalf of all other under-represented interest groups. If they do so, they’re being sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

Whereas the majority group of white heterosexual males like the Rev, are being very fair by discriminating against ALL other types, without fear or favour.

See I neither said, nor implied that it was OK for the particular group that I’m part of to discriminate against other groups. In fact I very clearly stated and implied that it was not OK.

Yes, but you’re not allowing other groups to challenge the discrimination they face, unless they also lobby on behalf of other groups that they don’t feel entitled to represent.

You really are just being monumentally silly.

No, I’m saying they should work on behalf of the whole group that they are part of, not just an arbitrarily selected part of it.

Dividing a group of people (those people who deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but are not) into male and female, and only supporting the majority female part of the group, is a sexist approach. No question about it.

Cymek said:

A roster system of under-represented groups would work

Women
Gay/Lesbian people
Aboriginals
Whales
Gay aboriginal whales
And so on

Gay/ lesbian whales with wheat and peanut intolerances

I tend to ignore all the crap about discrimination these days

Anyone who is giving someone a hard time at work is always an arsehole to everyone else

After listening to this ongoing abuse at work whilst an apprentice ( being directed at some Italian bloke). I rang up the anti discrimination mob and told them to make a flying visit to the workplace and put everyone through the anti discrimination talk we had when we first started

It’s draining listening to people putting shit on people through no fault of their own

Cymek said:

A roster system of under-represented groups would work

Women
Gay/Lesbian people
Aboriginals
Whales
Gay aboriginal whales
And so on

Gay/ lesbian whales with wheat and peanut intolerances

I tend to ignore all the crap about discrimination these days

Anyone who is giving someone a hard time at work is always an arsehole to everyone else

After listening to this ongoing abuse at work whilst an apprentice ( being directed at some Italian bloke). I rang up the anti discrimination mob and told them to make a flying visit to the workplace and put everyone through the anti discrimination talk we had when we first started

It’s draining listening to people putting shit on people through no fault of their own

So challenging sexism is: “a sexist approach, no question about it”.

Madness.

wookiemeister said:

It’s draining listening to people putting shit on people through no fault of their own

Some people are just arseholes. Look at the morons who trolled Zelda Williams this week on social media.

Divine Angel said:

wookiemeister said:

It’s draining listening to people putting shit on people through no fault of their own

Some people are just arseholes. Look at the morons who trolled Zelda Williams this week on social media.

Yes

Maybe anonymous can find out who he is?

Bubblecar said:

So challenging sexism is: “a sexist approach, no question about it”.

Madness.

No, embracing sexism in challenging more wide-ranging discrimination is a sexist approach.

But the probability of us reaching agreement on this is 1/almost infinity, so I will wish you good evening.

In the public service discrimination claims have got to point were everyone is afraid to complain about a work colleague doing a poor job as they will be branded a racist,sexist,etc so complete numpties continue being incompetent

>No, embracing sexism in challenging more wide-ranging discrimination is a sexist approach.

They are specifically challenging sexism, as is their prerogative. I repeat, nobody is stopping you or anyone else from challenging other forms of discrimination.

Going by your logic, no particular interest groups who face discrimination have any right to challenge that discrimination without being accused of discrimination. That is indeed a monumentally foolish barrow to be pushing.

I agree with The Rev Dodgson: all this obsession with scientists of one minority or another, is rather detracting from the important thing: they’r’ all scientists.

My daughter is a scientist. good enough?

roughbarked said:

My daughter is a scientist. good enough?

That’s her in yellow.

SCIENCE said:

I agree with The Rev Dodgson: all this obsession with scientists of one minority or another, is rather detracting from the important thing: they’r’ all scientists.

Jolly good, so you’re all in favour of more Australian women scientists having entries in Wikipedia. I imagine the Rev is too, but he couldn’t resist being a bit silly about it, and not surprisingly, neither can you.

can’t escape from the common rule
if you hate something, don’t you do it too

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

I agree with The Rev Dodgson: all this obsession with scientists of one minority or another, is rather detracting from the important thing: they’r’ all scientists.

Jolly good, so you’re all in favour of more Australian women scientists having entries in Wikipedia. I imagine the Rev is too, but he couldn’t resist being a bit silly about it, and not surprisingly, neither can you.

Actually, unlike Bubblecar, I don’t come here to insult people, and I’m not all in favour of any of that. The SCIENCE is the important thing, and that’s all.

IlIII’|IIlIIIlIII’|lI’|lI’|IIlIIIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|II’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|lI’|lI’|lI’|lI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|l||’‘I’|II’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’IlIlIII’|II’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’|II’|lIlIII’|I|‘l|||’‘I’|lI’|lI’|lI’IlI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’|lI’IlI’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|II’|lI’|lI’|II’IlI’IlI’Il|‘l|||’‘I’IlI’IlI’|lI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’|lIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lIlIII’|II’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|I||’‘IlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lIlIIIlIIIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’|lIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’IlIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’IlI’|l||’‘I’|II’|lI’|II’|IIlIIIlIIIlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’|lIlIII’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’IlI’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’|II’|lIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’IlI’|lI’|lIlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’|II’IlI’|IIlII||’‘|‘lI|‘lI||’‘I’|IIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’|lIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|lI’|lIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’|II’|lIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|I||’‘I’|II’|II’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’|lI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lIlIII’|II’|lIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’|IIlIII’|lI’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’|lI’|IIlII||’‘I’IlI’IlI’IlI’IlI’|lIlIIIlIII’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|lI’|lI’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’IlI’|II’|lI’|lI’|IIlIII’|lI’|I||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|lI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|II’|lIlIII’IlIlIIIlII||’‘IlIII’|lIlIII’|II’|lI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlI’IlI’IlI’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’|lIlIII’|lI’|lI’|II’|I||’‘I’|II’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’IlI’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’|lI’|lI’|II’IlI’IlI’|I||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’|II’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’IlIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’|lI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’|II’|IIlII||’‘I’|II’|lI’IlI’|IIlIII’|II’|lI’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’|lIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lI’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|II’|II’|II’|lI’|II’IlIlII|‘l|||’‘IlIII’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|II’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|lIlIII’|lIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’|lI’|lIlIIIlIIIlIII’|II’|lI’Il|‘IlIlIII’|IIlIII’|lI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’IlIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lIlIII’IlI’IlIlIII’|II’|lI’|lI’|lI’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|lI’IlI’Il||’‘IlIIIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’|lIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’IlI’|II’Il||’‘I’IlI’|lIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|II’IlIlIII’|lI’|II’|lIlIIIlIIIlIII’|lI’|lIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’|lI’|lI’|II’|lIlIII’Il||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lI’|lI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|lIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’Il||’‘IlIIIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’|lI’|lI’IlI’IlIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’|I||’‘IlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’IlI’|lI’IlI’IlIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|II’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlI’|II’|lI’|l||’‘I’|II’|lI’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|lIlIIIlIIIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|lI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’|II’|II’|II’|l||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’|II’|II’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’IlI’|II’|l||’‘IlIII’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’|lI’IlI’|lIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’|II’IlI’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’|lI’|lI’Il||’‘I’|II’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|II’|lI’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’|lIlIIIlIII’|lIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’|lI’|lI’|IIlII||’‘IlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’|II’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lI’|II’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’|lI’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|lIlIII’|II’|II’|II’IlIlII||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|I||’‘IlIIIlIIIlIII’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|lI’|lIlIIIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’IlI’IlI’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’|IIlII||’‘IlIIIlIII’|II’|II’IlIlIIIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’|II’|II’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|lI’|II’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|II’|II’|II’IlI’|I||’‘|‘lI|‘lI||’‘I’|lI’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lI’IlI’IlIlIII’|lI’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’|II’|II’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’|lI’|lI’|IIlIII’|lI’|lIlIII’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’IlI’|lI’|I||’‘IlIII’|lI’|II’IlIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’|II’IlI’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’IlI’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’|lIlIII’|l||’‘IlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’|II’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’IlI’IlI’|II’|lI’|lI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|II’|l||’‘I’|lI’IlI’|II’|II’|lI’|lI’|lIlIII’|lI’IlI’|II’|lI’|lI’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’|lI’|lI’|II’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’|II’|lI’|lI’|lI’|I||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlI’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’|lIlIII’IlIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’|II’|lI’|lI’|II’|II’|lI’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’IlI’|II’|II’IlI’IlI’IlI’IlI’|II’|lI’|I||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|lIlIIIlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lIlIII’|II’IlI’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’|lI’IlI’|l||’‘|’‘|I’IlI’|lI’|II’|II’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|lI’IlI’IlI’IlI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’|lIlIII’|II’IlI’|lI’IlI’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’IlIlII||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’|IIlIII’|lI’|lIlIII’|II’IlIlIII’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|lI’|IIlIIIlIII’|lI’IlI’|lIlIII’|I||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|II’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|lIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlI’IlI’|II’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’|lI’|II’|II’|lI’|l||’‘IlIII’IlI’|II’|lIlIII’|lIlIII’|II’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|lI’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlIlIIIlIIIlIIIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’|IIlIII’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|lIlIIIlII||’‘I’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’|lIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlI’|II’|lI’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’|lI’|lIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’|lIlIII’|II’|II’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’|II’|l||’‘IlIIIlIII’|lI’|lI’|lI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lIlIIIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lIlIII’|lIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’IlIlIII’|lIlIII’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’IlI’|I||’‘I’|II’|lI’|II’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’|lI’|II’|II’IlI’|lIlIIIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’|lIlIII’|lI’IlI’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’Il|’‘I||’‘I’|lI’|lI’IlIlIIIlIII’|lI’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|II’|lIlIII’|II’|II’|II’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’|lIlIII’IlI’IlIlIII’|lI’Il||’‘I’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’|lIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’IlI’IlI’|lI’Il||’‘|’‘|IlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’IlI’|lI’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lIlIII’|lI’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’|lI’|II’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lIlIII’|II’|II’|lI’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’IlI’IlI’|lI’Il||’‘IlIIIlIII’IlI’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’|II’|II’IlI’|lI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’|II’|II’|lIlIII’|lI’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’|II’|II’IlI’|II’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’|II’|lI’|l||’‘IlIII’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’|lI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’|lI’|lI’|lI’|lI’|II’|II’IlI’IlI’IlI’|II’|II’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’|l||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlIlIII’|lI’|lI’|lIlIII’|lI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’|II’|lIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlI’IlI’|II’|II’|IIlIII’|lI’IlI’|I|’‘I||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIIIlIII’IlI’IlIlIII’|II’|II’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|II’|lI’IlI’IlI’IlI’IlI’IlIlII||’‘I’|II’|II’|II’|II’IlI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|lI’|II’|lIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’|lI’IlI’|II’|lIlIII’|IIlIII’|lI’|lIlIIIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’|II’|lI’|lIlIII’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’IlIlII||’‘IlIII’|lI’IlIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’|IIlIII’|II’IlIlIII’|lIlIII’|lI’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’IlI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|lI’|II’|lI’|IIlIII’|II’|II’IlIlIIIlIIIlIII’IlI’|l||’‘IlIII’|lI’IlI’|lI’|lI’|lIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|IIlIII’|lI’|II’IlI’|lI’IlI’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’|l||’‘I’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|lI’|II’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’|lI’IlI’|lI’|II’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’|II’|II’|IIlIII’|II’|lI’IlIlIII’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’Il||’‘IlIII’|lI’IlI’|IIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|lIlIIIlIIIlIIIlIII’|II’IlI’|lI’|IIlIII’IlI’|lIlIII’|II’IlI’|II’IlI’|lI’|II’|lI’|II’IlIlIII’|lI’|IIlIIIlIII’IlI’IlI’|II’|II’|lI’|IIlII||’‘I’IlI’IlI’|IIlIIIlIII’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’IlIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’|IIlIII’|lI’IlI’|II’IlI’|II’|IIlIIIlIII’IlIlIII’IlI’|II’IlIlIII’|II’IlI’IlIlIII’|lI’|II’|IIlIII’IlI’|II’Il|‘l’

Fine, post some science. But you never do, do you? You just troll-lol-lol, like the troll you are.

I disagree, this is not a SCIENCE forum, and most of ‘u don’t recognise SCIENCE when you see any, so of course it never looks like anyone posts any SCIENCE.

So why not go away and post on a science forum? Why did you end up crawling back here, when you knew this place was chosen by those who preferred the more sociable side of SSSF, which you couldn’t stand and which you’re still belittling? Surely you have friends somewhere and can go and interact with them.

Maybe I do post on a SCIENCE forum, and ‘u’r’ the one crawling back here, because this is the place where you like to be able to put down any advancement of SCIENCE.

Now you’re just gibbering. I’m not going to waste further time on you but I will be contacting the administrator if you continue to troll the place.

Now you’re just continuing to be offensive. See how drunk on power people get when they have a direct line the administrator? I can’t possibly continue to troll the place, because I never trolled the place to begin with.

The SCIENCE is the important thing, and that’s all.

i don’t understand most of what you write but i understand this and agree with it. but my point made earlier still stands.

still here.

A post full of lines and dots, possibly matrix source code, screws up the view whole thread dealie…

Might be best to have this thread removed, it could be toxic.

furious said:

A post full of lines and dots, possibly matrix source code, screws up the view whole thread dealie…

ever tried creating a thread with no title?

• ever tried creating a thread with no title?

No. No, I have not.

furious said:

• ever tried creating a thread with no title?

No. No, I have not.

try it

• try it

I would not, could not, in a box.
I could not, would not, with a fox.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2726389/Misogynistic-depressingly-crude-box-office-gold-Yes-parts-laugh-But-BRIAN-VINER-says-summers-hit-teen-movie-The-Inbetweeners-2-makes-heart-sink-And-daughter-agrees.html

we’s got misogyny here tonight

wookiemeister said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2726389/Misogynistic-depressingly-crude-box-office-gold-Yes-parts-laugh-But-BRIAN-VINER-says-summers-hit-teen-movie-The-Inbetweeners-2-makes-heart-sink-And-daughter-agrees.html

we’s got misogyny here tonight

I Wonder how they would really feel if all women stayed away from them?

For, with every instance of words such as ‘gash’ and ‘clunge’ (used to describe women or their genitalia), with every homophobic jibe, every misogynistic suggestion that all girls are either easy conquests or appalling harpies, and with every fresh burst of appreciative audience laughter, I sank lower and lower in my seat.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2726389/Misogynistic-depressingly-crude-box-office-gold-Yes-parts-laugh-But-BRIAN-VINER-says-summers-hit-teen-movie-The-Inbetweeners-2-makes-heart-sink-And-daughter-agrees.html#ixzz3AXmiONSR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

CrazyNeutrino said:

wookiemeister said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2726389/Misogynistic-depressingly-crude-box-office-gold-Yes-parts-laugh-But-BRIAN-VINER-says-summers-hit-teen-movie-The-Inbetweeners-2-makes-heart-sink-And-daughter-agrees.html

we’s got misogyny here tonight

I Wonder how they would really feel if all women stayed away from them?

unlikely

from what I seem to understand its fairly easy for some arsehole to get a female partner.

the arseholes are very good talkers/ manipulators , they can even get away with giving them a good slap

women hate verbal violence more than physical violence and that’s why they will normally stay with an abusive partner

• from what I seem to understand its fairly easy for some arsehole to get a female partner.

Girl meets douche on a “dating app” ends up plunging to her death…

furious said:

• from what I seem to understand its fairly easy for some arsehole to get a female partner.

Girl meets douche on a “dating app” ends up plunging to her death…

it goes on all the time

if women were more selective about their partner then the arseholes of the world would die of their own accord, it would reduce their breeding opportunities

if you support women, make them independent of male patronage then they will be less likely to endure stupid men

wookiemeister said:

furious said:

• from what I seem to understand its fairly easy for some arsehole to get a female partner.

Girl meets douche on a “dating app” ends up plunging to her death…

it goes on all the time

if women were more selective about their partner then the arseholes of the world would die of their own accord, it would reduce their breeding opportunities

if you support women, make them independent of male patronage then they will be less likely to endure stupid men

Wookie, you are behind the 8 ball

it has been slam dunked way before you got there.

• 8 ball … it has been slam dunked

Very mixed metaphor…

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

furious said:

• from what I seem to understand its fairly easy for some arsehole to get a female partner.

Girl meets douche on a “dating app” ends up plunging to her death…

it goes on all the time

if women were more selective about their partner then the arseholes of the world would die of their own accord, it would reduce their breeding opportunities

if you support women, make them independent of male patronage then they will be less likely to endure stupid men

Wookie, you are behind the 8 ball

it has been slam dunked way before you got there.

that’s my opinion, I don’t know what other have thought in the past

at any rate, its not going to happen any time soon is it? womens liberation or not

womens liberation was just about some women getting rich, germain greer lives in a nice big house

furious said:

• 8 ball … it has been slam dunked

Very mixed metaphor…

You get that sort of stuff from me.. I can explain it no better than you can.

roughbarked said:

You get that sort of stuff from me.. I can explain it no better than you can.

Do you sink the basketball in the corner pocket too, rb? ;)

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

You get that sort of stuff from me.. I can explain it no better than you can.

Do you sink the basketball in the corner pocket too, rb? ;)

Only using a hockey stick

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

You get that sort of stuff from me.. I can explain it no better than you can.

Do you sink the basketball in the corner pocket too, rb? ;)

Have been known to if you see my obtuseness.

Divine Angel said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

You get that sort of stuff from me.. I can explain it no better than you can.

Do you sink the basketball in the corner pocket too, rb? ;)

Only using a hockey stick

You’ve been watching me. ;)