Winners and losers

[Librarian]

Dear Cugel,

As my reply to your post on the Cycling UK forum has today been disappeared by a moderator, I guess you win. Here's an archived copy.

Incorrigibly yours,
sussex cyclist





The "anti-trans bigotry" link rendering the entire post verboten is pasted below.

Please can someone explain like I’m 5
Hi OP. Many many of us have been where you are.

The whole trans movement is heavily branded as 'progressive' and piggybacks on legitimate Civil Rights movements - especially the gay and lesbian rights movement, but also feminism, disability rights and racial justice.

For this reason people like me (and from the sounds of it, you) who see themselves as being on the 'progressive' side of the political divide initially swallow it all whole and fall in line with 'trans rights!' without thinking critically about what it actually means to shift the cultural and legal definitions of womanhood and femaleness (as well as manhood and maleness) away from biological, material reality, and toward belief in an innate, gendered 'identity.'

Eventually something happens that just feels off - it might be witnessing blatantly misogynist abuse from TRAs toward women asking reasonable questions; or reading an 'inspirational' human interest story about a little boy who is being prevented from going through puberty because his love of fairy wings made it clear to his parents that he wasn't a proper boy after all; or recognising the obvious unfairness of the inclusion of males in women's sports; or coming across language that is objectifying or dehumanising toward women - or which erases the concept of womanhood all together - in the name 'inclusion' or 'intersectionality', as if women aren't ourselves still fighting for inclusion at all levels of public life, and as if being born female isn't itself an axis of oppression that is as old as time.

And that thing that first made you feel that something's 'off' about this movement niggles at you, until you start to think... "hang on. What do they mean by 'thinking like a woman' or 'living like a woman'? Isn't that a rather sexist and outdated concept?" And you might think, "what do they mean when they want me to describe myself as 'cis'...? That I'm female-born and also happy to live within the gender roles and expectations of women in our society? Because I'm not happy with all of that at all - that's why I'm a feminist - yet I still know I'm a woman."

And you start to look at all these people you've been told are awful and 'transphobic', but now you don't see them as 'privileged' 'cis' people with the audacity to have a view on 'trans rights'... you recognise that mostly, they are women who have a view on what it means to be a woman and who are being told to shut up, sit down, choke on a dick, and die in a fire for daring to talk about it.

You realise that all the progress of the feminist movement - to which you and your sisters and daughters owe so much - was based on asserting the fact that what a woman is, is a human being with a female body and any personality, any interests and aptitudes, any role she damn well chooses and is able for.

And now along has come this regressive backlash, disguised as a progressive Civil Rights movement, which says the opposite: that a woman is someone with a 'woman' personality (now rebranded as 'gender identity'), and that the body - penis or vagina, XX or XY - is irrelevant to any claim to womanhood. And we are all supposed to be just fine with the idea that 'female' itself is now a type of personality, not a type of body. Womanhood is to be erased as a concept, or else redefined as being a roleplay; an expression in clothing and makeup; an adoptable and disposable identity. And any discussion about the implications of having female biology - such as how people with female bodies might be impacted by changes to abortion law - must refer to this half of humanity by their body parts and functions, because there is now no word with which to describe the formerly-known-as-female half of humanity as a distinct class of their own.

And as all this becomes clear to you, it's infuriating, and frustrating, and also disorienting and upsetting, because so much culturally and politically is divided as if between two teams, and you've always been team 'progressive' but now that you see how wrong they have got this particular issue, you can't unsee it. If you're very financially secure and/or very brave, you might publicly challenge what you now recognise as misogynist ultra-individualism in progressive clothing. But if you can't face the risks of being 'cancelled', you just wait in hope for more people to see it for what it is, and you are enormously heartened when you see progress in that direction, whether it's ordinary women like Maya, Kiera and Allison mounting legal challenges; famous people like Glinner, Jo and Bette putting their heads above the proverbial parapet; or new posters to the Feminism board saying 'this feels off to me... can you help me understand why?'

[Librarian]

The following are archived pages of my now infamous gender critical thread. Unfortunately these aren't complete page saves. Bold = contains long posts of mine.

page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8

I had hope for the moderator ncutler, after this post (since deleted), and the previous. So the one that locked the thread, temporarily or not, came as a shock. I still can't quite believe he doesn't recognise actual trolls attempting to shut down debate, or have the slightest appreciation for what I was trying to do. Then again if you assume he's captured by the ideology, like Vorpal, it makes sense.

If you're staying silent about what's been going on in the battle over women's rights – because that's what trans activists are actively eroding – you should seriously reconsider your approach.

[Librarian]

Blessed relief.


Thank you sir may I have another


Hurts so good

It appears my transparent honesty is what cooked my goose.

Too disgusted to continue after the thread had been locked, I'd actually asked the moderator to delete my account. I guess he figured it would be more of a lesson to me if he shot me than if I shot myself (considering mouthy Mel, excuse the gruesome mixed metaphor).

[Librarian]

Click for recap

I started a topic called ‘Gender Critical’ on the Cycling UK forum. It was trolled, but the moderators were either too blind to see that, or had sympathy with those who feel women’s rights are subservient to trans women’s rights. Or both. (Probably both.)

The thread was locked, then removed. I was banned. I've archived some of the material above. Anyone sensible who reads my posts will see that I wasn't the problem.

Another thread was started about the first one. This was also removed. The last time I looked, a third thread had started. What are the odds this will be the charm?

[close]

You're spoilt for recaps

Towards the end my 'motives' for posting were rapidly achieving dominance in the conversation, as if I hadn't made it clear from the start why I was worried about the sorts of things I was.

I think my approach flummoxed them all. I wasn't just dry and factual (although there were plenty of facts and links). I didn't want to be dragged into countless little arguments. Clearly, I talked about things they didn't want to talk about, like empathy, and what makes for respectful debate. I also don't think they liked me poking fun.

One thing I found particularly striking is they weren't at all keen to discuss women.

In the end, they provided a textbook example of why these debates often go the way they do. Their replies were lousy with rope to hang themselves. (I feel ridiculous saying this, but I don't want anybody to hang themselves.) But after my banning, everything I said is retroactively suspect, and the thread is gone, so people will only refer to their memories.

[close]

I see there's an aftermath thread.



I haven't visited it, but my wife has, proclaiming it bemusing and amusing in equal measure.

– Apparently I'm doing this to get rich. Sounds great! Could someone please tell me what my business plan for that is?

– I was unaware I’d started this same thread on four different forums. Even if this were true, I struggle to see how it would be a crime. Different sites have different sensibilities, so it would make sense to canvass opinion widely. In any event, my OP was posted on one forum, YACF, where it was locked before any replies were allowed. That's it. I also saved a copy of it in my personalised bunker.

If you want to know what trans activist trolling looks like, there you are.



Looks like the thread reviewing my original thread has also disappeared. Whole lot of reviewing going on. Somehow I don't expect much in the way of quality introspection.



You could get yourself banned, but even that doesn't guarantee you’ll actually quit.

Merry little elves, this one's for you.

[Librarian]

Re: Gender critical

The thread I started has been retrieved from the mod's workshop and put back on display. An unfair amount of material has been cut, including this long post with an intro about respectful debate. Which it's clear they aren't interested in.

And, as in uffish thought she stood,
      The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
      And burbled as it came!

This thread has been restored for the discussion within it. However, it will remain locked.

In general, excluding trans folks, refusing to accept their preferred gender, or promoting so called gender critical information is considered bigotry and will not be tolerated on the forum.

Most of the discussion on the thread is reasonable & robust and has therefore been left in place, but a few posts have been removed.

Resources and information about trans inclusion are available from:
https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/
[Fixed those links for you]

The main issue is reconciling the demands of trans activists with the rights of women

There is not any reconciliation needed. Women's rights are aligned with trans rights, with the exception of the minority who call themselves gender crititcal. Trans women have been using women's spaces for generations, and will continue to do so.

The arguments in use are the same as those that were used to oppose gay & lesbian rights, women's sufferage, and other issues of rights.

Looks like someone didn't get the memo that the era of #NoDebate is over.

I wonder how many people will realise that with the cuts went some of the evidence of the tactics used by those afraid of freedom of speech, now given leave to continue to question my motives and myself. @CampagKid, for one, continues to pull facts out of his... well, the place you use Sudocrem. This is how the other side operates: lie. Over and over. Simple.

Obvs video embed is obvs. Anyway, if I'm going to play Nicholson I'd prefer Five Easy Pieces.

What is posted by Vorpal on the other thread is, frankly, appalling

There is not any reconciliation needed. Women's rights are aligned with trans rights, with the exception of the minority who call themselves gender crititcal. Trans women have been using women's spaces for generations, and will continue to do so.

The arguments in use are the same as those that were used to oppose gay & lesbian rights, women's sufferage, and other issues of rights.

There are female academics who do not support this point of view. To lay it down as some type of inalienable fact is obscene. For the first time ever this makes me think that an unmoderated section is a better solution.

In the extremely unlikely event they open a board specifically for adult, unmoderated debate, it's too late for me. Feeling a little like Moses here.

I do remember watching an imbedded youtube clip of some fellow with a beard, wearing a skirt and make-up purporting to be a woman. The woman narrating the clip spoke rather bluntly and literally by stating that it was a just a bloke who liked dressing up in skirts.

That would be the one deleted by the moderator (click here to watch it). Scroll up on that archived page and you'll see Vorpal didn't approve of a trans person, either.

This really does need to be locked, shut, buried, and concreted over. Fast.

Would views like the following have anything to do with this, I wonder?

…But I will say one thing, it is a concern to my wife and her friends, and they are big supporters of JK Rowling, so whatever JK Rowling has to say then that will more than likey be my view point too.

You can kill the messenger... If debate doesn't happen on the Cycling UK forum, it'll happen in the private lives of its users.

I have three daughters aged between 39 and 50, and three granddaughters aged between 15 and 31 who I'll have a chat with when I get the chance, about the issues raised in this thread. Thanks for posting and raising awareness.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

The bandwidth of acceptable thoughts is seemingly narrowing.

Not sure how long I'm going to keep up with the debunking. It's bizarrely compelling. They probably know I've been banned; they certainly know I'm not around. So they're going to town.

It's far too politicalised and has become yet another gaslighting tool for the powerful, wealthy and elite rightwing to promote chaos and to enforce the promotions of free hate speech. Whilst they get away with not paying their fare share of taxes, and hoarding their ill-gotten loot in the off-shore accounts they expertly rabble rouse on easy targets, usually boat people refugees or transpeople, read all about it in the Daily Smell and Torygraph.

This is the sort of person you back away slowly from. The apposite quote, still in the thread, is

We now live in broad settled ideological tribes. We no longer need to have real discussions because our positions are already assumed, based on our tribal affiliation. Our tribes demand from us a devotion to orthodoxy and they abide not reason, but faith.

So whoooosh.

The op who instigated the (Quite rightly) closed thread gave clues of belonging to the Catholic Church,

<SIGH>

Aside from the question of how being a Catholic would be relevant even if it were true, that was dropped in Vorpal's edit, so nobody can check on the veracity of it. One of many examples of why you don't go fucking around with people's posts unless you know what you're doing. Unless Vorpal knows exactly what zir is doing.

gave a very odd video of a bearded circus woman with gender critical over commentary,

Presumably the "bearded circus woman" Debs is referring to is Alex Drummond, which video I've already linked to, but here it is again:

and perhaps the biggest red flag of all a youtube link with shock-jock ridden GBNews.

The interview with Debbie Hayton.

Also mentioned in passing was the extreme right wing hidden agenda phrase 'Gender Ideology'... Here's some interesting reading for those who may need help in the understanding of this faux terminology:

https://www.media-diversity.org/there-is-no-such-thing-as-transgender-ideology/

Make of that, and MDI, what you will. There's a fair amount to be made combating "misinformation" these days. Pity I'm not seeing any of that dosh.

[Librarian]

A Cycling UK moderator,^[1] not satisfied with doubling down, has now tripled down. Let’s examine the latest effort, shall we?

Many of you will recently have followed the discussion on the Gender Critical thread started by Sussex Cyclist, and the subsequent threads about the discussion and moderation of the thread, and about moderation policy and practice generally.

On the original thread some members questioned the motivation of Sussex Cyclist in starting the thread, and some posters noted that he had recently started the same thread on another cycling forum, which had been locked by moderators, and that he had posted about what he was doing on his own website, a website set up to appear like a cycling forum but all the posts are his.

Observe someone so disdainful of free speech he doesn't even like to see it on other sites.

Looks like I’ve been caught red-handed. By myself. I would’ve thought members like Jesus posting on Christmas, not to mention the name on the tin, would’ve been clues that this isn’t your average ‘forum’. It is essentially a blog.^[3]

That thread was locked and removed, and subsequently returned to the open forum still locked, but with various comments removed and a statement by Vorpal…

Yes, the thread was edited by Vorpal in ways which proved to be detrimental, as detailed upthread.

I want members to be aware - before posting any further on the subject - of what Sussex Cyclist has been and is currently doing elsewhere online to draw attention to this forum and to individuals' posts. Whatever you post may be used by him as material for his own website and elsewhere online.

I can confirm that you may be quoted.^[2]

For the same reason I will lock this thread immediately after posting for the time being, to give as many members as possible time to read the links below before people start to reply to this thread. In the meantime please do not post on this issue in another thread. I will unlock this thread in an hour or so.

We're on the same page. I want people to be aware, too.

The following are a couple of links to posts on Sussex Cyclist's website referring to the Gender Critical thread he started. There may be others, since much of the website is concerned with his posting on cycling forums.

https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=6295.0
https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=5572.msg16295#msg16295

There’s a board called Lurk, which you can access via Free For All, which has a collection of threads devoted to a few cycling forums (mostly CycleChat). There are also some other posts scattered around, for example here in SMIDSY. Most of NACF is not, however, concerned with what goes on elsewhere.

The first link includes a poll where guests are welcome to vote. The other link is going to be a bit recursive.

His latest post on the Mumsnet thread is a link to a Twitter post he has made, tagging CUK. The full tweet thead is here:

https://twitter.com/jollygoodthen/status/1607304486246137856

Ah, my most viewed tweet ever – more likely because I tagged Maya Forstater.

Not much I can say about the Mumsnet links except thank you for drawing people's attention to that board, which has been an oasis of sanity.

It’s a rare pleasure to have someone help spread the word.

Excellent bit of detective work, which I’m afraid confirms my suspicions.

I'm not sure when following easy-to-find links became "detective work".

This guy is so good at this stuff that two possibilities occur to me, one being that he is a professional mischief maker (I wonder how that will be selectively edited and reproduced to maximise the disturbance it causes).

A professional gets paid. Amateur troublemakers must survive on crumbs of appreciation from people having their eyes opened



about the harms of gender ideology. It's a pity my desire to open a discussion about all this led to a sloppy demolition job, but others have suffered much worse.

I don't know if this hysteria about me is TRA-led or honest stupidity. (TRA = Trans Rights Activist. The most active of them are a nasty bunch who aren't doing those who suffer from gender dysphoria any favours.)

I will at some point post more information about Sussex Cyclist's posting on this forum.

This is genuinely intriguing. Will slowster uncover the nefarious purposes behind my topic about my rabbit?^[4]

Will the real motive of my invitation to give people a tour of my neck of the woods be unveiled as the master plan it was – a session of brainwashing inside the Brightling pyramid to form an elite cadre of singlespeeders intent on preaching the evils of gears?

Was my Replace head tube? thread, wherein a certain newly minted mod helped me make an important decision which eventually led to my obtaining a bike I’m completely smitten with (thanks!), in actuality an elaborate ploy so convoluted that even I can’t work it out?

My god, even my surrealist poll will be found out for what it really was: a chipping away at the very fabric of reality, which many Cycling UK members presumably inhabit.

He/she/it has made life so hard for you moderators. Thank you for doing the job you do. You are being attacked, nastily, for undertaking a necessary task voluntarily. We could discuss the minutiae of what SC is writing, but is it worth it? It won’t change his mind, or indeed ours.

Here’s your homework: look up DARVO. After you've removed your fingers from your ears.

I think there are a number of things going on here:
• Transgender ideology makes your brain soft.
• The Cycling UK forum moderators feel under attack by little ol’ me. At the risk of descending to the playground, you started it. Reader, ask yourself: who is attacking whom "nastily"? And why?
• Some people really don't want to talk about how women are being affected and children endangered, and don't want anybody else to talk about it either. These tend to be the same people who love to start rumours about and impugn the motives of those who do want to talk about it.
• These people may want to look into the Streisand effect.

Make up your own minds about trans rights and forum wrongs.



To quote the late great Magdalen Berns: I’d rather be rude than a fucking liar. Except I haven’t been rude. Unless you count that brain remark, and technically they're all soft. Oh, and the swear word.

Tl;dw: Swearing is frakking good for you.


1. I had thought to call this thread 'slowster’s slander', and not just for the alliteration, but decided to play it safe.

2. Feel free to quote or screenshot me. I do edit, for clarity or to fix typos or just because I love editing, so can't guarantee that what ends up here will be exactly the same as what you read wherever.

3. Registration is turned on. If you have a genuine interest in debating these issues, or just have an aversion to the new progressive censorship, you may run the gauntlet and I may approve your registration so that dialogue may commence in a less cumbersome fashion. If you’re going that route, allow me to once again direct your attention to what I had to say in my now deleted post on the Gender critical thread; though if you didn't catch it the first three times, it's unlikely you're NACF material.

4. Incidentally also crossposted; quite widely, too. Details on application.

on edit
I assume investigations into my posting history by the crack CUK forensics team continue apace. Meanwhile I come bearing gifts: books from my personal stash. I spent years working in bookstores, helping countless people find something just right. Enjoy.

Spoilers

Trolls
I don't actually care for the word, such an easy one to throw around. I use it as accepted shorthand for unfortunate behaviours.

There were a number of them on my original and now bastardised thread, their tracks since partially covered by a helpful mod.

The most persistent is Nearholmer, the TRA I was referring to in my Mumsnet post, who is a variety of concern troll.

The action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.

In his case, the "concern" expressed was about yours truly, the desired effect to shut down debate by deflecting attention from that which must not be discussed.

This really does need to be locked, shut, buried, and concreted over. Fast.

Trolls are best fed with their own words.

When it comes to ignoring my fairly obvious reasoning for what I posted – my "motives", if you will – Nearholmer is a serial offender. The object is to wear the enemy down by constant repetition and questions which would appear to show a genuine lack of reading comprehension, though I doubt that's the case. Note that like the mods, he cannot let me go: it's like watching a dog with a bone it can't quite bury. He's also recently started adding 'Kevin' to his replies, in a bid to flesh out his good guy credentials by offering a bit of faux transparency.

Concern trollers usually sound quite reasonable to the unwary and to those who haven't taken the trouble to read the source material. Once you've established what they are, they're usually best ignored except in aid of a larger point.

You know, people see a lot of trouble, look at the guy in the middle of it, and assume he's the troublemaker. I suppose ipso facto I am; but then, so is anyone swimming against the tide.

In the same way you can't truly judge a company until you've had a problem with their product, you can't judge a moderator until you see how they act under pressure. Failing marks all around.

The asymmetry of our exchange should stand out to anyone who cares about fairness. They can say whatever they like about me, confident that few will follow links to what I'm actually saying. I am meanwhile reduced to a caricature. Most people rely on interpreters they trust. A mod is usually trustworthy; even if they're not, most people want a quiet life.

[close]

1. For the CUK lending library. I am become Goldstein.



(To be fair, at this point I don't think a lot of people are buying what my detractors are trying to sell - to the extent they're even paying attention to the finer details of this affair, or can keep the cast of characters in order. For example, I note that reohn2 is confusing me with Vorpal, bless him.)

2. This is for anyone who added nothing of value to the conversation, like Psamathe. (Still.) Don't fight over it.
3. Cugel
4. Queen Obvious Plant, a representative from the most oppressed minority ever
5. The lending library
6. As above
7. Nearholmer, aka Kevin
8. This one's about Brexit. It's for those keen to paint anyone showing concern as a right winger or at least in bed with the right.
9. Oh you lucky people: that's a rarity, Vol. 9 from The National Encyclopædia: A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge, circa the late 19th century. Includes this section on the nervous system, which I think you’ll have to agree has some scholarly bearing on the matter of moderation:

In all the phenomena hitherto considered the mind takes a part ; but in some circumstances an impression passes along a sensitive nerve to the nervous centre, and although no sensation may have been produced, an influence is in return conveyed back from the centre through a motor nerve, and motion is produced, either in the muscles adjacent to the part first impressed, or in those of some other part of the body.  The phenomena of this class are those of what is called the reflex function, a term which is derived from the idea that the impression, passing centripetally, is reflected from the centre as soon as it arrives there, and made to pass from it centrifugally.

10. Jonathan
11. On reflection, this three volume set of Notable American Women would be wasted here, as most wouldn't even be interested in homegrown notables.
12. The mod squad. I'll admit I had to grab a screenshot to include it, as lamentably I haven't a copy. In addition, I'd like to gift Vorpal The Handmaiden's Tale, ncutler Melville's classic Biggus Dickus, and slowster an autographed copy of my autobiography.

Has Sussex cyclist been banned for this 'trolling'?
I've been looking through his website/forum and I'm no wiser as to his intentions.

His intention is to draw more people into his 'debate' in the hope that they become radicalised in the way he has. This is why he has been posting the same content across several hobbyist fora. Naturally, he doesn't realise he has become radicalised (they never do) but one glance at his monobore obsession and it is clear that he has lost his mind. It is very far from the parameters of normal behaviour, and ultimately the best thing for everybody, including him, is to ignore him.

Evidence to the contrary that you can help yourselves; and interesting notion that my views are radical, about which more later. Meanwhile, more books for me to give away.

I had thought to gift multitool with zombie fiction, but the only such title I have is in overstock [THE LOFT], and I'd rather not send up a search party right now. So I offer this instead, from my shelf of irony+:



This means I’ve just outed myself as someone who eats more than he should. Thank god for cycling, or I’d be considerably larger.



Incidentally or not, MT has a remarkably restrained post rate, which I only mention because the subject has come up before. Perhaps I should be honoured to have roused him or her.

Dear Zoo is for simonineaston.

I've been looking through his website/forum and I'm no wiser as to his intentions.

Ditto... however am intent on applying the ABC Leaf this year - ie is it ABout Cycling? If no, not so interested... I joined this forum about a decade ago and have been so used to reading posts from seemingly sane and, if I may say so, ordinary, people. What's been extraordinary is the knowledge of and enthusiasm for, cycles. This episode has been a gentle reminder to me not to take such things for granted.

For the record: my intention is to inform, educate, and entertain. Anyone who considers that a triple fail is obvs. not in my demographic, but I shall carry on regardless (cue The Beautiful South again).

I love cycling too – I’ve been at it long enough. But I’m also interested in a great many other things, including free speech, women’s rights, and safeguarding. So there. And here:




The sibilant S (Sam the Sussex Cyclist - all the more torturous because I have a lisp), combined with the snake's reputation as a purveyor of forbidden knowledge, rather fits the bill, don't you think?

on edit
This one's for Horizon:



For pwa:

Are you not bothered that he appears to be running a campaign and drew you in on the pretext that he was just initiating a conversation? To me that is manipulation. I don't care whether I agree with his points, or not. I do care that he didn't declare his well prepared position up front.

Odd that I should be catching flak for being "well prepared". Is shooting from the hip to be preferred, I wonder? Hot takes? Was calling the thread 'Gender critical', with a definition of that in the OP, followed closely by my decrying of the treatment of Rachel Rooney and JK Rowling, not sufficient notice of my position? And finally, if I'm asking questions in an empty forest, is it still the Socratic method?

For multitool:

His intention is to draw more people into his 'debate' in the hope that they become radicalised in the way he has. This is why he has been posting the same content across several hobbyist fora. Naturally, he doesn't realise he has become radicalised

Unless you're an infant,



well within living memory men couldn't sign up to women's sports, waltz into women's toilets and changing rooms, shame women into accepting them in rape crisis centres, or be locked up with them in prison. Children and teenagers weren't put on puberty blockers to address psychological issues, young women binding their breasts or even having having them cut off, activists routinely threatening women who object to all this with the vilest language and threats.

All these things and more are happening now because gender ideology, i.e., the idea that one's gender presentation is more important than one's sex, has been in the ascendent. Not calling men women or women men isn't radical. Pretending they are, is.

. . .

Oh, and for Chompsky:

(There are good vipers and bad vipers. It's called nuance.)