In my last response to you I said I would look into and did. Since then I have tried to adjust the font under the old theme as per your suggestion and could not get it to work, my sincerest apologies for not writing to you.

This is a new theme, and one I intend to build on as the theme designer works the kinks out. I am not entirely happy with the interface yet including the font.

Since you are publishing a forum for the application of truth, why not come to grips with the fact that in the field of graphic presentation, there are things to learn -- or are you and others being as stubborn as the Christians who believe that they don't need to learn the truth.

I like your style Anton, no holding back. Self assured cockiness. I'd tell you to politely go fuck yourself if a) If I thought it would work and b) I didn't already know what a cantankerous old fart you can be.

You make one huge assumption that I can't come to grips the fact that I might have something to learn in the field of graphical presentation. Can you conceive of the possibility that I may not have a) the expertise b) time c) or that other things might be more pressing

And what's this crap about being as stubborn as a christian? You trying to get under my skin? Ah you trying to throw you qualifications around and when that doesn't work, bully a person who doesn't agree with you or jump up and say yes masser.

I love it when people are honest :)

I have a blog writer plugin that announces the post the first time(works 80% of the time. The rest is su.pr.

My reckoning was that if the wording was the same when searching back over you would quickly screen it out. I would be worried that if I reworded the tweet that people might get suckered into the same link and get annoyed.

How did @inthehotspot indicate it was a previous post? Did she promote frequently (like once a day) or was it more a weekly thing and specific posts (ie her best work).

Off to alter tweets <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: 0pt 0pt;"><span>:)</span></span></span>

To be fair, may be I should have taken POI out as well :/. I love skeptically speaking too though :)

Yeah I could haveincluded Desiree but I rule her out on being a radio show first and podcast second :)

You seem to be really flogging this selfish idea hey :)

Then you construct a straw man from Darkwulfe's response. Darkwulfe is saying effectively that all things being equal he will support the charity whose cause he agrees with. You then start talking about how its selfish to support a charity that passes on 80 % of its donations, when another group whose cause you don't agree with passes on 85%.

In the end charity, like "unconditional" love is a bit of a paradox. Christian charity often amounts to score keeping with the invisible referee in the sky. Secular charity often involves people giving so they can validate themselves as "good" people.

Unsubstantiated opinion. For example my charitable habits have not changed from being a christian to being an atheist. I won't deny that I don't get some pleasure out of giving to others, but I don't to it to validate myself as a good person, nor as a christian did I do it because I thought it would earn me brownie points

Yep I snarfed that one good and proper, rushing again.

Subscriber count should not be used to judge the worth of a particular "brand" - popular does not necessarily mean effective.

I was saying that subscriber count was not really credible(sufficient?) evidence for judging a site as successful -p opularity is not necessarily an indicator of effectiveness (unless of course one of you goals is to be popular) it might indicate that you are reaching more people, but it is incredibly hard without some measurable outcomes, to determine whether you are successful. That being said I don't know what Skepchicks goals are. A cursory examination of the blog does not state any aims or outcomes. Indeed what are the goals of the skeptical movement and how do we measure success at achieving these goals. As such I think its hard to judge Skepchicks success because their goals for skepticism may differ from mine, yours, the movements.

You'd have to judge it purely subjectively, by looking at the intellectual traits of the people involved in those groups and deciding for yourself if you find those traits desirable in the skeptical movement. Obviously there are some that everyone would agree on, but we need to have discussions to figure out the tighter details of what is or not acceptable for each other.

Sure we can look at Skepchick and the image they portray and make a decision as to whether or not we feel comfortable with their direction. We all do this anyway. What would be good is if we had solid measurable goals and some objective evidence on which to base an opinion. To say well okay they are raising the profile of skepticism but is their brand good for women in skepticism.

I don't know that the Skeptcal Movement has yet defined really what its goals are and how we might measure success. I do note that DJ Grote seems to have made some adjustments at JREF towards better non profit management (mentioned in FRG).

Lol. Phil you should listen to Kylie's latest Token Skeptic as well - linked further up

Podblack,

Just finished listening. Michael made some really good points. I also can't fault him really on what he had to say. I must say that I was viewing this skeptical of skepticism from a narrower angle.

It seems that it comes down to a bias that we think we are are good communicators/educators and those fields of expertise somehow don't require the same level of due diligence that we demand of others.

I do think though that presenter like yourself are making headway in that area.

I also got the impression that Jack was angling for the cult of personality as opposed to methods of outreach/communication.