Ah, well that makes it better, but still a pretty clumsy payoff.

No, you're lying again.

Stop zherking us around.

OK, sure, maybe Perrotta meant jocks in the high-school movie villain sense of the word. But the viewpoint character here is a single mother with a son at college — how many jocks are left in her acquaintance circle?

I'm not dismissing the work. But that's a pretty bad pull-quote.

Seconded on Premium Rush. It's a solid little action/suspense movie with an innovative setting and a great performance by Michael Shannon. Its IMDB rating is mediocre, but I think that's because modern action audiences need everything to blow up to be satisfied.

I have given you a reference which proved you wrong. You've shifted the goalposts again, but you're still wrong. In nursing more men are joining so the proportion of women is going down. Source: http://healthcaretraveler.m… Which flatly contradicts your assertion.

Jeez, that blockquote is pretty uninspiring. It's neither ironic nor hypocritical to be politically liberal and attracted to athletic men.

1. You brought up the med school application trends saying "Why are female doctors becoming a minority in most countries?" In actual fact, in most countries the proportion of female doctors has been increasing. It's not intellectual cowardice to point out your errors. Source: http://www.oecd.org/gender/…

Rejecting a bad metaphor does not imply accepting an even worse epistemology. Look at it this way:

BB, your reply shows exactly what is wrong with your thinking. I never said psychology was ideologically poisoned. I said your understanding of biology was. I never said there were no differences between men and women — nobody in the history of science has ever claimed that. And much as I would love to share my…

I never used to understand why biscuits were so bad nutritionally until I tried making them. Now I see that the baking and the flour exist only to bind the fat and sugar together.

I always thought the "marketplace of ideas" was the stupidest metaphor of all time.

Yeah, but it's about time the academic libertarians abandoned that term.

By modern standards, Google is a wonderfully ethical company. But that's because the bar was moved so low by Milton Friedman that anything that doesn't drop your share price is considered ethical.

Speaking as a medical clinician with an interest in genetics and evolutionary theory and who has taught hundreds of medical students, I can confidently tell you that your understanding of biology, education, and the processes of workplace exclusion is pure bullshit collected from ideologically poisoned sources.

I would be pretty confident a lot of people at Google know exactly who wrote this even without any identifiers in the email headers or attachments.

There's an unfortunate strain of liberalism that only applies itself to other people's situations. Gay marriage? Sure, that won't hurt me. Electric car? Sure, I can afford it on my IT executive salary and I live in a high-density city. Gender equity? Hell no! Not if it means I have to stop harassing female employees…

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being sarcastic…but in case you aren't, I'd love your so-called objective scientific rationale for why women can't code due to a lack of testosterone to explain why the first ever programmer was Ada Lovelace.

As I've said above, even Wyman concedes the ranking is an arbitrary mess and uses it as an excuse to talk at length about the band, so I don't mind it at all. Unfortunately, about half of his asides are wrong or ignorant.