100% of the world’s most famous atheists recommend this site

A new tweet from Richard Dawkins:

There’s just one minor problem with this lovely recommendation; can you spot it?  But believe me, I’ll accept it with alacrity.

h/t: abrotherhoodofman for the alert

84 Comments

  1. Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Richard Dawkins :-)

  2. J.J. Emerson
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    He called your website a “blog”! The nerve…

    • gruebait
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

      Oh, that’s just Dawkins’ typical stridency.

      So shrill…

  3. Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Because this is not a blog; it’s a web site!

    • Claimthehighground
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:56 am | Permalink

      but…but…if it looks like a cat, and it meows like a cat, it must be a cat.

  4. Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Ceci n’est pas un bleargh.

    b&

    • thh1859
      Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

      Nice, Ben.
      Peter Sellers out of Magritte.

    • Diane G.
      Posted November 28, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

      ROFL!!

    • papalinton
      Posted November 28, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

      Thees ees nyert er blerg, yew murngkee.

    • Desnes Diev
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:37 am | Permalink

      Alors, c’est un chat? (Not a cat, a “tchatte”.)

      Desnes Diev

  5. marycanada FCD
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Sub

  6. Haris H.
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    That tweet is accurate, kind, and lacking a comma.

  7. Haris H.
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    That tweet is accurate, kind, and missing a comma.

    • Don
      Posted November 28, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

      In the UK, many tend to frown on the serial comma.

      • bric
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:32 am | Permalink

        Yes, it is perfectly correct; the ‘and’ replaces a second comma: it is otiose to have both.

        • peter
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

          It is otiose to use the word “otiose”.

          • bric
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

            You prefer supererogatory?

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

              If there was a comma there, it would be for emphasis (in conjunction with the ‘and’)

              Otherwise, it is superfluous.
              (The comma in the last sentence was optional, and not necessarily optimal).

      • Draken
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:11 am | Permalink

        In the UK, serial commas are convicted, and put on death row.

        • gravelinspector
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

          That’s “deaf” row. You might get a trial, but you sure won’t get a hearing!

    • Posted November 29, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      I remain a firm believer in the Oxford comma, which is much more logical than believing in a deity.

    • Dave
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

      You are correct. It’s missing a comma. There are some absolutes – get over it. Mrs Saunders said so!

  8. Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    It should say: read it daily, which is what I do.

    • Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      Only daily?

      b&

    • Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      Oh, and he failed to mention cats.

      • suwise3
        Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        That too.

        • Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

          And boots!

          b&

          • abrotherhoodofman
            Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

            Embedding a video, brother Ben?

            My, my… will the rule transgressions on Jerry’s blog never cease?

            (Ooops…)

          • Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

            So can we assume that Puss in Boots is a favorite film? Seems to have it all.

            • RFW
              Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink

              Now there’s an idea: establish an alias for WEIT “Puss’n’Boots” and lure in hapless young fundies, thereby exposing them to satanic pro-evolution propaganda.

              “Pusses’n’Bootses” perhaps, for a somewhat hobbitoid flavor?

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

              These days, that would have to be the title of a porn flick.

          • Achrachno
            Posted November 28, 2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

            I assume the cowboy boots are what Dr. Dawkins had in mind when he said idiosyncratic. Otherwise, this place seems quite normal.

            • Posted November 28, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

              Most normal, yes. Indeed, I’d say this is the very abbey of normal, if you will.

              Cheers,

              b&

  9. Aldo Cassola
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Clearly, if Jerry wants the acceptance of the “websiteness” of WEIT he needs to make the statemanly concession that this is a blog. There is no other way.

    • Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Zing B)

  10. StewedPrune
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    But how does it describe itself? The side panel says “Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog…” And how is a website distinguished from a mere blog?

    Whatever, I agree with Prof Dawkins. It has been a revelation to me and I wish I’d discovered it sooner than this summer!

    • RFW
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      WEIT is an example of cybernetic mimicry, a website that disguises itself as a blog.

      With a tip of the hat to the frogfish.

  11. abrotherhoodofman
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    blog /blôg/

    Acronym: Biologist Lectures On Gastronomy

    • still learning
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      Bingo!

  12. Notagod
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Another important tweeter from Richard:

    Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins

    Vote Malala, fighter for girls education in Pakistan. Competition is Kim Jong Ugh & Morsi (Muslim Brotherhood ugh) http://ti.me/UAVLuy

    The voting so far:
    Name Definitely No Way
    Mohamed Morsi 253,684 269,520
    Kim Jong Un 178,740 70,797
    Malala Yousafzai 121,793 32,059

    Voting closes at 11:59 PM on December 12th.

    • Hempenstein
      Posted November 28, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

      Done. At least, %age-wise, Malala’s on top. But who are all these N Koreans with internet access?

      • Notagod
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

        Unfortunately, it appears that the vote is being manipulated, here are Un’s totals now:

        Kim Jong Un 546,011 80,425

        The manipulation isn’t surprising but sad given the seriousness of Malala’s position.

  13. Cor Haagsma
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    As former sailing people, now living in Costa Rica, WEIT is our navigation, every day. We also follow a nice course “Genetic and Evolution” given by jour colleague prof. Noor.

    Willy and Cor.

  14. rodgerma
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Well deserved!

  15. Posted November 28, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Too bad, I really liked this site. I had no idea it was a blog. Good bye.

  16. Posted November 28, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    I thought it was a beer and food site, although I didn’t much like the look of those worms in the last post.

  17. Posted November 28, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Oh come on, get over it. You have a blog ;)

    • bacopa
      Posted November 28, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

      Ceiling Cat knows that’s true. I always figured the whole “this is not a blog” thing was similar to a Usenet Shibboleth.

      As for the possible missing comma, I am comfortable with the UK custom of leaving it out except when the sentence is misleading without it.

      “I invited the strippers, Hitler and Stalin.”

      vs.

      I invited the strippers, Hitler, and Stalin.”

      Is the usual way to explain it.

      • Posted November 28, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

        In situations where such ambiguity might present itself, it’s best to avoid that type of a formulation in the first place.

        “In addition to the strippers, I also invited Hitler and Stalin.”

        Cheers,

        b&

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

          I cannot imagine any scenario in which that would be credible. ;)

          • Achrachno
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

            Are they dead strippers?

          • Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink

            Stage names?

            b*

  18. kelskye
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    just because you want your index finger to be identified as a thumb doesn’t mean that everyone else is obliged to address it as such.

  19. jose
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    This is a born blog who identifies as a website. This is a trans website.

    Don’t let cis websites tell you what you are, WEIT.

    • jose
      Posted November 28, 2012 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

      Anyway, about the mistake, didn’t you say recently that there weren’t any atheism in the book?

  20. Paul Rose
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Wrong book?

  21. Strider
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    It’s not a sodding blog, Richard!!!11!

  22. krzysztof1
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    If Dawkins calls it a blog, you just have to take it, I guess! But he didn’t mention the food posts and that is unforgivable!

    • JBlilie
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:57 am | Permalink

      Or boots!

    • Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      Of course I mentioned the food and the boots. That should be obvious to anyone blessed with discerning sensitivity. What else do you think I could have meant by “idiosyncratic charm”?

      • krzysztof1
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        Point taken! Charm includes, but is not limited to, food and boots.

      • JBlilie
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

        Agreed, we’re just having a laugh.

  23. Beachscriber
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    I have a theory about your hangup about calling your blog a blog:-
    Blog rhymes with dog, dog spells god backwards, and that’s all just a little too close for comfort. ;-)

  24. Matt Flor
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    I just noticed that on the “About the author” page there’s clearly a link to Jerry’s blog (sic!) in the red side column. What’s going on here, has the web site been hacked?

  25. Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    This poor site, so misunderstood in its time. I’m just grateful it’s around. It’s become part of my morning routine now – coffee, stumble out of bed, get attacked by toddler daughter, and check out new posts on WEIT. Perfect way to start the day!

  26. bric
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:51 am | Permalink

    Blog < WEBLOG: Draft entry March 2003

    weblog, n. Computing.
    . . .
    2.2 A frequently updated web site consisting of personal observations, excerpts from other sources, etc., typically run by a single person, and usually with hyperlinks to other sites; an online journal or diary.

       1997J. Barger Lively New Webpage in alt.culture.www (Usenet newsgroup) 23 Dec. I decided to start my own webpage logging the best stuff I find as I surf, on a daily basis:‥www.mcs.net/∼jorn/html/weblog.html. This will cover any and everything that interests me, from net culture to politics to literature etc.    1998 Village Voice (N.Y.) 8 Sept. 33/3 Jorn Barger's Robot Wisdom WebLog‥might not be pretty, but it's one of the best collections of news and musings culled from the Web—and updated daily.    2000 Independent 23 Oct. ii. 9/1 A weblog is simply a site where you post your thoughts whenever the muse strikes.    2002 Times (Electronic ed.) 14 Jan. There is a way to be stupendously well informed.‥ Scour the highlights in‥weblogs.

    OED

    • Dominic
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:08 am | Permalink

      Now do the same for “web site” – let’s be scientific & present all the evidence!

      • bric
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:32 am | Permalink

        My point was that (according to the OED) while all blogs are websites not all websites are blogs; and as a former library cataloguer I was taught to always prefer the specific to the general.
        Anyway –

        [Draft entry June 2001]

        web site, n. Computing.

        Brit. /ˈwɛb sʌɪt/, U.S. /ˈwɛb ˌsaɪt/

        Forms: 19– web site, 19– web-site, 19– website [Also with capital initial.]

        [‹ web n. + site n.2]

        Originally: a computer system that runs a web server (rare). Now: a document or a set of linked documents, usually associated with a particular person, organization, or topic, that is held on such a computer system and can be accessed as part of the World Wide Web.

           1993 Computer Shopper (Nexis) Mar. 724 Alas, the web has just begun its development. When we checked, we found that there’s not even a single web site in North America, although there is a very good chance that one will exist by the time this goes to print.    1994 Macworld (Electronic ed.) Sept. 34 Netscape has announced a package of Web-site management and content-development tools titled LiveWire.    1994 .net Dec. 13/4 Pore over fascinating trivia on The Death of Rock ‘n’ Roll, a‥Web site that provides detailed information on rigamortis [sic] rockers who are prematurely pushing up the daisies.    1997 J. Seabrook Deeper vii. 230 About sixty hits deep into the search, at the Web site of Jay Kinney,‥I came across an article called ‘The Return of Baal’.    2000 Sunday Times 23 July i. 15 (advt.) European billers are currently grappling with e-commerce strategies, asking: ‘How do I get my customers to my web site?’

  27. gravityfly
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    Congratulations. You deserve it Jerry.

    And I agree—ceci n’est pas un blog!

  28. Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:24 am | Permalink

    Isn’t it 2 problems? Competition and blogs.

    But if it is about “blog”:

    Early websites have evolved to blogs.

    So maybe it comes down to whether convergent evolution is applicable or not.

    Or perhaps there is an environmental factor that is prohibitive. (Eg Jerry.)

  29. Ray Moscow
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:33 am | Permalink

    Could it be both a floor polish and a dessert topping?

  30. peter
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    People agreeing with what I said, perhaps thinking it is even ‘true’, would have less appeal if they did it for the wrong reason. But I don’t suppose it is Dawkins’ use of the word “charm” to which you object!

    I do agree with him of course, and not because he is either charming or militant (the exclusive “or”).

  31. Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Now now Richard, it isn’t a blog. Its a wordpress account dedicated to providing organized thoughts on the subject of biology and atheism. Don’t you know the difference? Blogs aren’t organized.

  32. bric
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Ah no. It’s clear that either is true, and while it wouldn’t be my or your preference, preference is all it is: and of course the author is king.

  33. NoAstronomer
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Jerry, why didn’t you say you had a blog! Do you have a link?

    Mike.

  34. Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Blog, blog, blog, blog,
    Blog, blog, blog, blog… (etc., in background)

    BLOGGITY-BLOG, Wonderful BLOG…
    BLOGGITY-BLOG, Wonderful BLOG…

    BLOGGITY-BLOG, Splendiferous BLOG…
    BLOGGITY-BLOG, Splendiferous BLOG…

    Blog, blog, blog, blog,
    Bloggity, blog, blog, blog…

    SHUDDUPP! SHUDDUPP! (I don’t like blogs!)

  35. R.W.
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Cats and boots, huh?

    I’ve come to suspect that the deeper symbolism behind it is Jerry’s mission to demonstrate how religious apologists are constantly pussyfooting around the real issues.

  36. JBlilie
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    “Blog” IS an ugly (and abbreviated!) neologism.

  37. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    But a very infectious meme…

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

      Oops! That was a reply to JBlilie

      (damn WP for tricking my fingers…)

  38. Dave
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Until you change this “Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog …” at the top left, you should stop complaining if people call it a blog.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29,407 other followers

%d bloggers like this: