Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

Old subthreads
Really?
.
.
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17821

Post by Really? »

James Caruthers wrote:
Really? wrote:
Beta Neckbeard wrote:It would be a laugh if Trollznow's funding page is found to be libellous.
No, I am not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that it's a good thing that Indiegogo is going along with this.

Think about it. Should you really be able to start a fundraiser by stating,

"Look, Madeupname raped me and sexually harassed me--not that he's been convicted in court of either of these crimes--and now, if you can believe it, he's suing me to get me to stop shouting, 'Madeupname raped me, thereby committing a felony that carries with it a massive social stigma!' I need money so I can keep telling people that he's guilty of a crime, even though he hasn't been convicted. kthxbye."
Interesting point. She could have worded the fundraising more neutrally so as to avoid the problem of potentially committing the very act for which she is being taking to court.

Unless Shermer, who was attempting to defend his good name, she is going to court to fight to sully Radford's name. If she is right, of course, her cause is just. But even so, she may lose, and the wording of her fundraising efforts may violate Indiegogo rules and count as libelous on their own.
Let's take a look at her statement on Indiegogo. Now, she doesn't use Radford's name, but it's clear to all who she is talking about; after all, the litigation in question is public information. I don't want to be sued (nor should the 'Pit) be sued for such language, so I'm using a long-dead public figure as an example.
My name is Mary Magdalene. I am an author and researcher with a PhD in Linguistics. In recent months, I wrote an article for a Scientific American Mind blog in which I spoke out about sexual harassment I’d endured from Jesus for several years. I did this to highlight the wide problem of sexual harassment in the workplace for women, including those in scientific and academic fields. Many people who read the article immediately identified Jesus, my harasser, by name, and spoke publicly about my situation on their own blogs and other social media. They knew who Jesus, my harasser, was because He had recently been disciplined by His employer for His behavior.

As a result, Jesus, my harasser, filed a defamation suit against me, trying to bully me into silence. Although He’s spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer to clear His name, He knew that I could not afford the same. In my attempts to settle out of court Jesus has tried to bully me into signing a retraction, which claimed that I had lied about the whole ordeal, including Jesus's ongoing harassment of me, and assaults at one of our professional conferences. Although I didn’t sign the retraction, Jesus posted the document on his very public Facebook page and announced victory over me. This also led to false public edits being made to my Wikipedia page.

I never lied about the harassment I endured and I have evidence and witnesses to attest to my experiences. The only crime I have committed is not being rich enough to defend myself. If you believe in justice and in protecting victims who are bullied into silence, please dig deep and help support this legal fund. I must raise $30,000 in the next two weeks in order to find legal counsel to fight these allegations and clear my own name. If Jesus, my harasser, succeeds in bullying me into silence, it will only serve to embolden harassers, and teach victims that they should never speak up, lest it ruin their lives.

Any money raised through this campaign that is not spent on these legal expenses will be donated to Colorado's Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center.

Thank you for listening to my story, and please give as you can. To contact me about this fundraising campaign, email stollznowlegaldefense@gmail.com.


Thank you.
Jesus was never convicted in a court of law for anything that Mary alleges. Wouldn't he have some kind of legal recourse? Why would indiegogo support such a thing?



//And way to be super-vague about the discipline, Karen. And you're not on defense, sweetie. You're on offense. You accused a man of rape. You are the one alleging, not him.

Linus
.
.
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17822

Post by Linus »

JacquesCuze wrote:You can find many of Glenn Sacks' sources here at his source page:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000
Most of his sources for the article in question aren't there. A couple are.

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17823

Post by katamari Damassi »

Za-zen wrote:
JacquesCuze wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:The whole atheist/skeptic movement, or at least the so-called leaders with their stupid conferences and insipid blogs, seems to consist almost entirely of worthless narcissist clowns, if people like Peezus, Watson, Radford, Dillahunty et al. are even slighty representative. Only the real scientists in the movement, like Dawkins, Coyne, Krauss, and a sporadic talented speaker like the late Christopher Hitchens, are worth listening to. The rest are just fodder for satire. Fuck them all.
Familiarity breeds contempt, but yeah,the more I learn about the various movement leaders and the speakers at skeptic conferences the more I am glad to waste my conference dollars on heroin.
Youtube celebrity one trick ponies promoted via incestuous circle jerks, and orgs desperate for reflected views. Carrie "my brain is a fluffy puppy" popsicle Flies (is flown to) England to host panels Dawkins is on, it's beautifully ridiculous.
I posted earlier how pissed it made me that one of my faves-Barbra Ehrenreich-is sharing billing with Poppy, Roth, Miri Whazzername, etc..
Ehrenreich has degrees in physics and journalism, she's done investigative journalism and written best selling books based on her experiences. She's been doing political analysis for The Nation for years. She's has a great intellect and can communicate. If she were to develop a passion for skepticism/atheism, I think she'd be one of the horsemen.

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17824

Post by Southern »

dogen wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't yet seen a contribution from a Mr. Ben Radford...
They don't know how to troll properly, those idiots.

I'll donate a hundred North Korean dollars in name of Viktor Ivanoff.


katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17826

Post by katamari Damassi »

Mykeru wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:
Unless Shermer, who was attempting to defend his good name, she is going to court to fight to sully Radford's name. If she is right, of course, her cause is just. But even so, she may lose, and the wording of her fundraising efforts may violate Indiegogo rules and count as libelous on their own.
Which is why her strategy of (as the figures now stand) a $500 lawyer and $34,500 in "fun money" isn't going to work out for her.
If things don't go her way then Radford is going to get that $34.5K. That should sit well with the SJL.


Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17828

Post by Southern »

Sulman wrote:Misogynistic harassers
http://i.imgur.com/X4ECqBp.png
Hey, it's that shithead that was on TV, James Billihingan! Hi, famous shithead!

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17829

Post by Southern »

windy wrote:
Aneris wrote: Perhaps Sara really did add a dime, why would she not? I find it quite bizarre that some people assume that it's about the rift and each side is funding their champion.
Why "bizarre"? It's not what people should be doing, but that's clearly what is happening at least with the majority of those donations.

Sara says it wasn't her:
IMO, she played into their hands by getting all indignant about it (now they can frame her as not caring about harassment victims and being a big meany to Karen)
I don't know why should Sarah care about how a psycho like Stollsown frames her or not. "What about bacon?" should be the default answer.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17830

Post by Tigzy »

Parody Accountant wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:I knew this face looked familiar.

http://i.imgur.com/qLIddLC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/v8ixI5k.png

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17831

Post by Mykeru »

Southern wrote:
Sulman wrote:Misogynistic harassers
http://i.imgur.com/X4ECqBp.png
Hey, it's that shithead that was on TV, James Billihingan! Hi, famous shithead!
BABOONITIS FULL.gif
(1.44 MiB) Downloaded 158 times

Linus
.
.
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17832

Post by Linus »

JacquesCuze wrote:
Linus wrote:So you're suggesting that we can't differentiate between levels of abuse and that you would object to labeling someone who kicked a spouse down a flight of stairs "more abusive" than someone who slapped a spouse?

Violence that does not (and/or is not likely to) result in serious injuries is "minor" or "moderate" in relation to violence that does (and/or is not likely to) result in severe injuries.
I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this, but feminists and the law certainly take the position that a slap is the same as a kick down the stairs.
I don't agree with you that feminists and the law "certainly take that position", but it wouldn't change my opinion even if they did. I think equating the two things is absurd.
Today's news:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cou ... 4538.story
Supreme Court keeps guns away from those guilty of domestic violence
Justices strengthen a federal law that forbids anyone convicted of domestic violence from having a gun.


By David G. Savage
March 26, 2014, 7:27 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday strengthened a federal law that bars anyone convicted of domestic violence from possessing a gun.

In a 9-0 decision, the high court said the ban extended to anyone who had pleaded guilty to at least a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, even in cases in which there was no proof of violent acts or physical injury.

The ruling overturns decisions in several regions, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which had said the ban applied only to convictions that involved a "violent use of force."

At issue was a 1996 law in which Congress expanded an existing ban that applied to anyone convicted of a felony in a domestic violence case to include misdemeanor convictions.

"Domestic violence is not merely a type of 'violence,'" said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "It is term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as 'violent' in a non-domestic context." It includes acts such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping and hitting," she said.
If I understand that right, Feminist Theory is that precludes gun ownership from anyone a Feminist convicts of
http://i.imgur.com/UosPya3.jpg

But no, I think I hear a criticism that some random infographic from the web obtained by googling domestic violence wheel is hardly of legal importance

So here's what the US Office on Violence against Women has to say:

http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm

http://i.imgur.com/oaOWR7r.jpg

Hey, look, it's that same old widely debunked feminist domestic violence wheel.

Should courts and researchers and doctors and feminists see the nuances you see in domestic violence severity?

Probably.

Do they? No they lobby for and pass laws for zero tolerance of the slightest kind of "abuse" and teach judges and lawyers using this old and highly misleading model.
Sorry, but I don't understand your logic. None of this seems to me to be stating or implying that all types of domestic violence are of equal severity.

JacquesCuze
.
.
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:32 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17833

Post by JacquesCuze »

Linus wrote:
JacquesCuze wrote:You can find many of Glenn Sacks' sources here at his source page:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000
Most of his sources for the article in question aren't there. A couple are.
There are plenty of articles at the glenn sacks blog and linked at his resource page that are there and are valid to give you plenty of stuff to google and plenty of reading to do that will confirm what modern research into dv is, and confirm that this is not what either feminists or judges or politicians present. And also that well, most of the views I've read of yours in the past 24 hours are off the mark in some huge ways.

You may also find material at saveservices.org, cotwa.info, hanging around a good library, or even mens rights reddit, a voice for male students, a voice for men, or the websites of all of those researchers that have been pointed out to you.

This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17834

Post by Tigzy »

I like the fact that the lustfully snorting transchamp Oolon appeared straight after that pic of Simpleflower.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17835

Post by Mykeru »

JacquesCuze wrote:
Do they? No they lobby for and pass laws for zero tolerance of the slightest kind of "abuse" and teach judges and lawyers using this old and highly misleading model.
And that's why I took one of my guns out for Valentine's day.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17836

Post by James Caruthers »

Really? wrote:
Let's take a look at her statement on Indiegogo. Now, she doesn't use Radford's name, but it's clear to all who she is talking about; after all, the litigation in question is public information. I don't want to be sued (nor should the 'Pit) be sued for such language, so I'm using a long-dead public figure as an example.
My name is Mary Magdalene. I am an author and researcher with a PhD in Linguistics. In recent months, I wrote an article for a Scientific American Mind blog in which I spoke out about sexual harassment I’d endured from Jesus for several years. I did this to highlight the wide problem of sexual harassment in the workplace for women, including those in scientific and academic fields. Many people who read the article immediately identified Jesus, my harasser, by name, and spoke publicly about my situation on their own blogs and other social media. They knew who Jesus, my harasser, was because He had recently been disciplined by His employer for His behavior.

As a result, Jesus, my harasser, filed a defamation suit against me, trying to bully me into silence. Although He’s spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer to clear His name, He knew that I could not afford the same. In my attempts to settle out of court Jesus has tried to bully me into signing a retraction, which claimed that I had lied about the whole ordeal, including Jesus's ongoing harassment of me, and assaults at one of our professional conferences. Although I didn’t sign the retraction, Jesus posted the document on his very public Facebook page and announced victory over me. This also led to false public edits being made to my Wikipedia page.

I never lied about the harassment I endured and I have evidence and witnesses to attest to my experiences. The only crime I have committed is not being rich enough to defend myself. If you believe in justice and in protecting victims who are bullied into silence, please dig deep and help support this legal fund. I must raise $30,000 in the next two weeks in order to find legal counsel to fight these allegations and clear my own name. If Jesus, my harasser, succeeds in bullying me into silence, it will only serve to embolden harassers, and teach victims that they should never speak up, lest it ruin their lives.

Any money raised through this campaign that is not spent on these legal expenses will be donated to Colorado's Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center.

Thank you for listening to my story, and please give as you can. To contact me about this fundraising campaign, email stollznowlegaldefense@gmail.com.

Thank you.
Jesus was never convicted in a court of law for anything that Mary alleges. Wouldn't he have some kind of legal recourse? Why would indiegogo support such a thing?

//And way to be super-vague about the discipline, Karen. And you're not on defense, sweetie. You're on offense. You accused a man of rape. You are the one alleging, not him.
Just so. It was a criminal allegation of a crime which she attempted to settle extra-judicially, in a court of public opinion. She did involve the employer, which is good, I suppose, but she also involved the entire fucking SJW internet.

There are many... Problematic uses of language in that statement. Many criminal accusations repeated. None of which have been proven as of yet. It is her job to prove her case, which she did not do, which is why she is now facing libel charges. So repeating the claims which are being called libelous on your IndieGogo where you are begging for money does not seem like a brilliant idea.

I have bolded the parts of Stollznow's statements which appear to be clear accusations of criminal wrongdoing. Keeping in mind that "Jesus" has not, as you say, ever been convicted of these crimes, and is currently engaged in legal action against Stollznow for libel.

Radford did some very stupid things, publishing that retraction and taking Baxter's word for it that he couldn't possibly be boned. But now Stollznow is saying some very stupid things in public. She could have easily consulted a lawyer for neutral wording for her fundraiser, but instead has chosen to play up The Righteous Cause and her role as a Poor Little Victim. If she is indeed, of course, a victim, then fair enough. The truth will be an absolute defense against libel or slander charges. However, the onus is now on her to provide that evidence to the court (she has certainly not provided it to any neutral onlookers), and if she fails, she may find herself up on even more charges of libel for what has been published on IndieGogo.

But I'm not a lawyer, and DeepInsideYourMind probably has the straight dope on this one.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17837

Post by mordacious1 »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
mordacious1 wrote:Seems like a good strategy: Claim you can't afford a lawyer even though the other side hires one. Get your husband to negotiate with other party and their lawyer. Drag it out, running up lawyer fees for the other party. Refuse to sign the retraction agreed upon by both parties. Claim victim status (again). Then, and only then, plead for help paying for an attorney because the other side has been bullying you with a lawyer and you're just a defenseless schoolmarm on the prairie, all alone among wolves. Now you are the one that can afford a lawyer and the other side has spent all their money. Smart.
Karen does have dual incomes now that she is married. I suspect her family isn't as poor as she makes it out to be & that Ben Radford isn't in some magically better place financially. He just has more to lose by not fighting this.

That said, if friends of Shermer can collect a legal fund, I can't see a problem with friends of Karen collecting a legal fund too. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves in court. What I hate are unsubstantiated accusations floating around.
Oh, I have no problem with her hiring a lawyer. She can raise $1 million and Johnny Cochrane's corpse to defend herself, good for her. I was just pointing out how she "negotiated in good faith" using her husband as a free go-between, until it was time to sign the agreed upon retraction. It appears that at that point, she decided not to proceed with the negotiation, but to seek $30 K to vigorously defend herself. By this time, the other party had exhausted (I'm assuming, based on statements) his cash reserves. She now has deep pockets while his are empty and her money is given to her, so she doesn't have to dig deep. It's a very effective strategy, I'm just saying that it is very Machiavellian of her. She could have gone back to the negotiating table if she wasn't happy with the retraction. The other party's mistake was to complain about how much money it was costing him and to trust that she was negotiating in good faith.

Linus
.
.
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17838

Post by Linus »

JacquesCuze wrote:
Linus wrote:
JacquesCuze wrote:You can find many of Glenn Sacks' sources here at his source page:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000
Most of his sources for the article in question aren't there. A couple are.
There are plenty of articles at the glenn sacks blog and linked at his resource page that are there and are valid to give you plenty of stuff to google and plenty of reading to do that will confirm what modern research into dv is, and confirm that this is not what either feminists or judges or politicians present. And also that well, most of the views I've read of yours in the past 24 hours are off the mark in some huge ways.

You may also find material at saveservices.org, cotwa.info, hanging around a good library, or even mens rights reddit, a voice for male students, a voice for men, or the websites of all of those researchers that have been pointed out to you.

This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
I'm not sure where you think I'm off the mark, but it seems rather cocky to assume that if I don't agree with you it must be because I haven't read enough. Like I said, I've read actual research studies on this subject. I'm not going to inform myself on it further by reading Jezebel or blogs or MRA websites. I'm only interested in reading more peer reviewed scientific studies if anything at this point.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17839

Post by Aneris »

I am curious what would happen in the event that Karen does not win. Will they accept the verdict now that they not only invested emotionally but also financially, and provided that they ideologically already have Teh Patriarchyâ„¢ in place to blame? Wouldn't this erode further their view on the legal systems and would they not think that the deck was stacked against them? And as result, would this not lead to further hostility between those people who accept the ruling and those who refuse to? And in the event Karen does win, wouldn't this not be streched beyond the breaking point to mean all sorts of things, including that Thunderf00t is wrong about everything, Blackford is indeed lying about something, Shermer is indeed a serial wine-connoisseur and Dawkins was really wrong about Muslimas and airport honey. I have a very bad feeling about this. Either way, it won't be pretty.

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17840

Post by SoylentAtheist »

I would like to point out that after this:


Any retraction she makes will be worthless, because she has already put out there than any point at which she caves is only because she can't afford the fight. She could 100% completely cave tomorrow & Radford's reputation would still be shit.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17841

Post by Really? »

Aneris wrote:I am curious what would happen in the event that Karen does not win. Will they accept the verdict now that they not only invested emotionally but also financially, and provided that they ideologically already have Teh Patriarchyâ„¢ in place to blame? Wouldn't this erode further their view on the legal systems and would they not think that the deck was stacked against them? And as result, would this not lead to further hostility between those people who accept the ruling and those who refuse to? And in the event Karen does win, wouldn't this not be streched beyond the breaking point to mean all sorts of things, including that Thunderf00t is wrong about everything, Blackford is indeed lying about something, Shermer is indeed a serial wine-connoisseur and Dawkins was really wrong about Muslimas and airport honey. I have a very bad feeling about this. Either way, it won't be pretty.
FFS, she keeps calling him a rapist and he hasn't been convicted of rape. How in the world could Radford lose?

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17842

Post by James Caruthers »

Eh, think about what the usual penalty is for a woman who falsely accuses a man of a sex crime.

They can't really punish Stollznow too harshly if she is lying, or else it will brainwash teh womyn to conceal their rapes from the police. Because patriarchy.

JacquesCuze
.
.
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:32 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17843

Post by JacquesCuze »

Linus wrote:
JacquesCuze wrote:
Linus wrote:[.quote="JacquesCuze"]You can find many of Glenn Sacks' sources here at his source page:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000[./quote]

Most of his sources for the article in question aren't there. A couple are.
There are plenty of articles at the glenn sacks blog and linked at his resource page that are there and are valid to give you plenty of stuff to google and plenty of reading to do that will confirm what modern research into dv is, and confirm that this is not what either feminists or judges or politicians present. And also that well, most of the views I've read of yours in the past 24 hours are off the mark in some huge ways.

You may also find material at saveservices.org, cotwa.info, hanging around a good library, or even mens rights reddit, a voice for male students, a voice for men, or the websites of all of those researchers that have been pointed out to you.

This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
I'm not sure where you think I'm off the mark, but it seems rather cocky to assume that if I don't agree with you it must be because I haven't read enough. Like I said, I've read actual research studies on this subject. I'm not going to inform myself on it further by reading Jezebel or blogs or MRA websites. I'm only interested in reading more peer reviewed scientific studies if anything at this point.
I have read your posts, and they seem way off the mark. They also are full of myths and errors.

I have presented alternatives, variously sourced.

I don't seem to recall you sourcing a single thing you have stated, you have just stated how you think domestic violence works, or should work.

I don't know what your questions are. I don't know how to answer them.

When you can't seen Sonia Sotomayor saying the slightest slap should be treated the same as a kick down the stairs in terms of gun control then I can only conclude we aren't anywhere close to having any sort of actual conversation on this.

If you had specific questions, or specific articles it might be one thing, but near as I can tell, all you have is your feelings on how it is.
I'm only interested in reading more peer reviewed scientific studies if anything at this point.
GOOD. THESE ARE TRIVIAL TO FIND. THE NAMES OF THE RESEARCHES HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED TO YOU. Report back to us what you find.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17177
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17844

Post by Brive1987 »

Right. Radford fucks up with retraction-gate. Signs-off with "now to court"

Karen sells the SJL want they want and gets enough money to assure a one sided financial MAD if he proceeds.

Redford backs off.

Karen and SJL are happy.

[Forgetting the CFI pile of poo for a minute]

Ben / Karen. Who would you hire?

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17845

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Really? wrote:FFS, she keeps calling him a rapist and he hasn't been convicted of rape. How in the world could Radford lose?
Doesn't a swat on the ass count as sexual assault in the legal definition? I am not sure. I guess it would depend on what state the alleged incident occurred in. There is probably a large number of scenarios that could fall into this category.

Does anyone have a state's legal definition example of what falls under the term sexual assault?

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17846

Post by Really? »

Brive1987 wrote:Right. Radford fucks up with retraction-gate. Signs-off with "now to court"

Karen sells the SJL want they want and gets enough money to assure a one sided financial MAD if he proceeds.

Redford backs off.

Karen and SJL are happy.

[Forgetting the CFI pile of poo for a minute]

Ben / Karen. Who would you hire?
Well, if you hire Karen, she's going to make tens of thousands of dollars off of calling you a rapist, so...

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17847

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Brive1987 wrote:Ben / Karen. Who would you hire?
Sadly, neither. I wouldn't want the drama in my workplace. Both parties will be distracted while going through the court system.

Oh, by the way, both of their credit scores have taken a nose dive. Any time someone has a court case on their current record, it is a giant red flag to creditors that they are a huge default risk.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1823
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17848

Post by justinvacula »

Southern wrote:
dogen wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't yet seen a contribution from a Mr. Ben Radford...
They don't know how to troll properly, those idiots.

I'll donate a hundred North Korean dollars in name of Viktor Ivanoff.
What about bacon?

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17849

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Really? wrote:Well, if you hire Karen, she's going to make tens of thousands of dollars off of calling you a rapist, so...
But she didn't accuse CFI of that. However she did drag their name through the mud publicly. Not quite as bad, but no fun.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17850

Post by Really? »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Ben / Karen. Who would you hire?
Sadly, neither. I wouldn't want the drama in my workplace. Both parties will be distracted while going through the court system.

Oh, by the way, both of their credit scores have taken a nose dive. Any time someone has a court case on their current record, it is a giant red flag to creditors that they are a huge default risk.
That doesn't matter to Karen. She just received tens of thousands of untaxed income.
SoylentAtheist wrote:
Really? wrote:FFS, she keeps calling him a rapist and he hasn't been convicted of rape. How in the world could Radford lose?
Doesn't a swat on the ass count as sexual assault in the legal definition? I am not sure. I guess it would depend on what state the alleged incident occurred in. There is probably a large number of scenarios that could fall into this category.

Does anyone have a state's legal definition example of what falls under the term sexual assault?
If we've learned ANYTHING from the SJW, it's that EVERYTHING is rape.

http://i.imgur.com/il0MuYO.jpg

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17177
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17851

Post by Brive1987 »

You missed my qualifier. :)

What I'm saying is her specific approach since the retraction came out has been flawless.

Yep, odds are she is madder than a cut snake. But when discussing her actions in the tactical context, she is writing the manual. And we'd look like idiots if we were to say otherwise.

Same deal with, say, the Germans in WWII. Fucked up cause. But shit, half the world (the other half) wished they could operate like they did in the mud.

Nonetheless, at a more strategic level, I still want a good napalm strike on Karen's tree-line. "Smell that?"

I'll stop with the metaphors now .........

dogen
.
.
Posts: 2581
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17852

Post by dogen »

Really? wrote: If we've learned ANYTHING from the SJW, it's that EVERYTHING is rape.

http://i.imgur.com/il0MuYO.jpg
I have it on good authority (i.e., /b/) that all of the SJW photos taken around Oxford (this, the pegging one, etc.) are satire. If so, good for them!

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17853

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Really? wrote:That doesn't matter to Karen. She just received tens of thousands of untaxed income.
Money that she says that she will either spend on her legal defense, with left over funds (if any) going to a charity that she is not affiliated with. She publicly states she is not making a profit off of those donated funds.

And of all the things that Karen S. could have possibly done wrong (just as Ben R. could have done wrong too), I see no reason to believe she would pocket that money for her own person gain beyond those stated in the fundraiser.

dogen
.
.
Posts: 2581
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17854

Post by dogen »

Brive1987 wrote:You missed my qualifier. :)

What I'm saying is her specific approach since the retraction came out has been flawless.

Yep, odds are she is madder than a cut snake. But when discussing her actions in the tactical context, she is writing the manual. And we'd look like idiots if we were to say otherwise.

Same deal with, say, the Germans in WWII. Fucked up cause. But shit, half the world (the other half) wished they could operate like they did in the mud.

Nonetheless, at a more strategic level, I still want a good napalm strike on Karen's tree-line. "Smell that?"
"Kippers, sir. The men are being overcome by the stench of smoked haddock."

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17177
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17855

Post by Brive1987 »

Two more brain farts.

There is literally no difference between posting a humanising video of a passable female in distress making eye contact and the impact of upping the MG42 to a cyclical rate of fire approaching 1500 rpm.

Nothing at all.

I've posted proof of this below.

http://i.imgur.com/p7LriNi.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CBq00ZO.jpg


Secondly, when an Australian leaves Australia to live permanently OS they cease to be Aussie. Just want to make that clear.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8026
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17856

Post by AndrewV69 »

Linus wrote: I'm not sure where you think I'm off the mark, but it seems rather cocky to assume that if I don't agree with you it must be because I haven't read enough. Like I said, I've read actual research studies on this subject. I'm not going to inform myself on it further by reading Jezebel or blogs or MRA websites. I'm only interested in reading more peer reviewed scientific studies if anything at this point.
Well, now is your chance to go look for them.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10769
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17857

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Guestus Aurelius wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:DownThunder wrote:



Ben's behavior has been pretty low at times, too. Do you remember on the Facebook thread where he scolded some of his supporters for trying to get Karen booted from a speaking gig? He could have legitimately taken the high road with a simple "Please don't do that." Instead, he just had to tell us all that this is precisely what Karen had tried to do to him back when all the shit was going down.
That was spelled out in Stollznow's article in Sci- Am that precipitated the lawsuit in the first place. She says there she had tried to get him banned from TAM and was pissed when Grothe wouldn't do it. He was just spelling out why it wouldn't be appropriate from his viewpoint as I see it. Where is this bad behavior on the part of Radford?
That was me, not DownThunder. And thanks for the info there about Karen's original article.



I still think it was totally unnecessary for him to go the "Don't stoop to her level" route when he could have just said, "Please don't do that."
Sorry DT.
I don't entirely disagree with you.It's just that with the apparent bad/stupid behavior of both sides it seems a small detail.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17858

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Well, it amused me. Single image, comments one after the other.

http://i.imgur.com/oHv7NJn.png

Linus
.
.
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17859

Post by Linus »

[.quote="JacquesCuze"]
I have read your posts, and they seem way off the mark. They also are full of myths and errors.

I have presented alternatives, variously sourced.

I don't seem to recall you sourcing a single thing you have stated, you have just stated how you think domestic violence works, or should work.[/quote]

I'm not clear on what it is you think I've claimed falsely. You've made some vague claims along the lines of "you're misrepresenting domestic violence", "your posts are off the mark","your posts are full of myths and errors" and such, but if there was a specific point of contention I'm afraid I must have missed it.
I don't know what your questions are. I don't know how to answer them.
I don't know why you think I'm asking questions.
When you can't seen Sonia Sotomayor saying the slightest slap should be treated the same as a kick down the stairs in terms of gun control then I can only conclude we aren't anywhere close to having any sort of actual conversation on this.
Claiming that slapping someone and kicking someone down the stairs is not the same as claiming that there is no difference between slapping someone and kicking someone down the stairs. Sort of like how claiming that car thieves and murderers shouldn't be aloud to vote (both are felonies) is not the same as claiming that stealing a car is the same as murdering someone.
I'm only interested in reading more peer reviewed scientific studies if anything at this point.
GOOD. THESE ARE TRIVIAL TO FIND. THE NAMES OF THE RESEARCHES HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED TO YOU. Report back to us what you find.
Indeed, many peer reviewed studies are trivial to find. I already stated that I've read multiple such studies... But I'm in the dark as to what your frustration is.

Linus
.
.
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17860

Post by Linus »

[quote=Linus]
Claiming that slapping someone and kicking someone down the stairs is not the same as claiming that there is no difference between slapping someone and kicking someone down the stairs. Sort of like how claiming that car thieves and murderers shouldn't be aloud to vote (both are felonies) is not the same as claiming that stealing a car is the same as murdering someone. [/quote]

This should read "Claiming that slapping someone and kicking someone down the stairs should both preclude someone from being allowed to own a gun is not the same as claiming that there is no difference between slapping someone and kicking someone down the stairs."

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17861

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

dogen wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:You missed my qualifier. :)

What I'm saying is her specific approach since the retraction came out has been flawless.

Yep, odds are she is madder than a cut snake. But when discussing her actions in the tactical context, she is writing the manual. And we'd look like idiots if we were to say otherwise.

Same deal with, say, the Germans in WWII. Fucked up cause. But shit, half the world (the other half) wished they could operate like they did in the mud.

Nonetheless, at a more strategic level, I still want a good napalm strike on Karen's tree-line. "Smell that?"
"Kippers, sir. The men are being overcome by the stench of smoked haddock."
I don't get it, Dog. Google didn't help. And aren't kippers smoked herring, not haddock? BTW, smoked haddock/cod: I loves it.

guest

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17862

Post by guest »

Really? wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Right. Radford fucks up with retraction-gate. Signs-off with "now to court"

Karen sells the SJL want they want and gets enough money to assure a one sided financial MAD if he proceeds.

Redford backs off.

Karen and SJL are happy.

[Forgetting the CFI pile of poo for a minute]

Ben / Karen. Who would you hire?
Well, if you hire Karen, she's going to make tens of thousands of dollars off of calling you a rapist, so...
Watson did worse or as badfor CFI / CSICOP but they still pay her to write for them
http://www.csicop.org/author/rebeccawatson

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17863

Post by Clarence »

Aneris wrote:http://i.imgur.com/Jzd8X3Q.png

http://wallpapers5.com/images/wallpaper ... ermany.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/i4XBBO3.png

I'm looking forward to summer, because rape is everywhere and I like to ride the bike along the yellow fields.
:lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17864

Post by Skep tickle »

Several people have said KS accused BR of rape. Where do you see this? What I've seen says "sexual harassment" (largely via electronic means) and refers to "sexual assault" at conferences when, as she reports, he "place[d her] in a vulnerable position". Definitions vary by jurisdiction but "sexual assault" isn't the same as "rape".

That's all from this, that claims to be a copy of KS's SciAm post:
I was sexually harassed for four years...

Sometimes we don’t even know how to identify sexual harassment because its methods are changing. Today, sexual harassment is not always as bold, brazen and blatant as the boss who slaps his secretary’s ass. It doesn’t have to involve leering or groping. It happens in a virtual work environment as much as it happens around the water cooler. More people are telecommuting although physical distance doesn’t prevent staff from being targeted by a harasser. Harassment from afar can include sending unwanted communication of a sexual nature, including emails, texts, instant messages, mail, tweets, phone calls, images, Facebook “pokes”, and stalking on networking sites. ...

[claim of quid pro quo re work assignments]

...Then, he saw me at conferences and took every opportunity to place me in a vulnerable position. This is where the psychological abuse turned physical and he sexually assaulted me on several occasions.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17865

Post by Skep tickle »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
Really? wrote:FFS, she keeps calling him a rapist and he hasn't been convicted of rape. How in the world could Radford lose?
Doesn't a swat on the ass count as sexual assault in the legal definition? I am not sure. I guess it would depend on what state the alleged incident occurred in. There is probably a large number of scenarios that could fall into this category.

Does anyone have a state's legal definition example of what falls under the term sexual assault?
In other words: what SoylentAtheist said.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10934
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17866

Post by Lsuoma »

Aneris wrote:http://i.imgur.com/Jzd8X3Q.png

http://wallpapers5.com/images/wallpaper ... ermany.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/i4XBBO3.png

I'm looking forward to summer, because rape is everywhere and I like to ride the bike along the yellow fields.
I much prefer riding through the chocolate tunnel or up the Oxo tower...

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5236
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17867

Post by KiwiInOz »

When the white cock comes up against authority.

[youtube]xsx9gtQM8f8&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

dogen
.
.
Posts: 2581
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17868

Post by dogen »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
dogen wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:You missed my qualifier. :)

What I'm saying is her specific approach since the retraction came out has been flawless.

Yep, odds are she is madder than a cut snake. But when discussing her actions in the tactical context, she is writing the manual. And we'd look like idiots if we were to say otherwise.

Same deal with, say, the Germans in WWII. Fucked up cause. But shit, half the world (the other half) wished they could operate like they did in the mud.

Nonetheless, at a more strategic level, I still want a good napalm strike on Karen's tree-line. "Smell that?"
"Kippers, sir. The men are being overcome by the stench of smoked haddock."
I don't get it, Dog. Google didn't help. And aren't kippers smoked herring, not haddock? BTW, smoked haddock/cod: I loves it.
I was thinking about the consequences of kindling fire near to Karen's 'tree line'. Fnarr fnarr. A silly joke, I admit.

And you're right about kippers. I think I was getting confused with kedgeree, which I highly recommend if you like smoked fish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kedgeree

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17869

Post by Southern »

guest wrote:
Really? wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Right. Radford fucks up with retraction-gate. Signs-off with "now to court"

Karen sells the SJL want they want and gets enough money to assure a one sided financial MAD if he proceeds.

Redford backs off.

Karen and SJL are happy.

[Forgetting the CFI pile of poo for a minute]

Ben / Karen. Who would you hire?
Well, if you hire Karen, she's going to make tens of thousands of dollars off of calling you a rapist, so...
Watson did worse or as badfor CFI / CSICOP but they still pay her to write for them
http://www.csicop.org/author/rebeccawatson
It's because Watson is so talented and original and amazing and joyful and such a gifted writer.

Also, she's such a fun party girl. Who wouldn't want to pay her for her writing? I know that Dr. P.Z. Myers who has a blog on the internet and so is an authority on the subject, would pay her for her handjob.

WRITING handjob, people. Jeez, such pigs you are.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5236
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17870

Post by KiwiInOz »

KiwiInOz wrote:When the white cock comes up against authority.

[youtube]xsx9gtQM8f8&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Try, try again.

[youtube]xsx9gtQM8f8[/youtube]

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17871

Post by Skep tickle »

Nice new avatar, Clarence.

Spike13
.
.
Posts: 3014
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: Dirty Jersey, on the Chemical Coast
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17872

Post by Spike13 »

It’s been a good day
by PZ Myers
I've spent a long day in a dark quiet room with a red pen in my hand slogging through a mountain of grading, but at least you got something significant accomplished — it only took you 8 hours to completely meet Karen Stollznow's initial legal fees. Don't stop now, keep on going! This ink-stained wretch looked up from his labors and felt a twinge of hope, like that there really are good people in this movement.

There was also a bit of schadenfreude. Adam Lee has posted some of the slymey comments he'd been getting after Ben Radford's premature ejaculation — you know, where some of the gullible haters who succumbed to some motivated reasoning, saw the unsigned 'apology' written by Radford in Stollznow's name, decided the whole thing was over now, and started sniping about, demanding immediate apologies, claiming that they had the confession in hand, etc. I have some of the same noise in my spam queue, so I thought I should share it, too.

Looks like PZ is a happy man.
The crowing goes on and on.
I would hate to see this guy if he actually won something.

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17873

Post by Clarence »

Lsuoma wrote:
Za-zen wrote:Radford slipped a hell of a way into the "village idiot" category in my book when he presented a non signed statement, as if it was the settled, signed sealed and delivered settlement. That says a lot, for a lot of us, that the village idiot sold us a crock of shit (irrelevant whether he was lead to believe it would be signed or not, he presented it as if it was).

I hold my hands up as a village idiot, i bought it, couldn't fathom that someone engaged in legal proceedings would do something so fucking dumb as that, it seemed utterly incredible.

Okay if i'm putting myself in the village idiot category, Radford is further demoted (what's below village idiot?).
Slyme Pit Moderator.

At least you are modest!!! :o :D

JacquesCuze
.
.
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:32 am
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17874

Post by JacquesCuze »

Skep tickle wrote:
SoylentAtheist wrote:
Really? wrote:FFS, she keeps calling him a rapist and he hasn't been convicted of rape. How in the world could Radford lose?
Doesn't a swat on the ass count as sexual assault in the legal definition? I am not sure. I guess it would depend on what state the alleged incident occurred in. There is probably a large number of scenarios that could fall into this category.

Does anyone have a state's legal definition example of what falls under the term sexual assault?
In other words: what SoylentAtheist said.
The definition of sexual assault vs. rape (vs. other terms) differs from state to state. So you really do need to examine the definitions for the state of interest.

That said, most states have moved or are moving to the "Federal definition" which is summarized by RAINN:

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/t ... al-assault
Sexual Assault

The exact definition of “rape,” “sexual assault,” “sexual abuse” and similar terms differs by state. The wording can get confusing, since states often use different words to mean the same thing or use the same words to describe different things. So, for a precise legal definition, you need to check the law in your state. But here are some general guidelines based on the definitions used by the U.S. Justice Department. Please note that this definition is a bit graphic, which is inevitable when describing crimes this violent.

Sexual assault: unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling. (But, be aware: Some states use this term interchangeably with rape.)

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17875

Post by Clarence »

Skep tickle wrote:Nice new avatar, Clarence.
Purely innocent, lollipops and rainbows and unicorns and bright colors and not some psycho bitch from Kill La Kill... :whistle:

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17876

Post by another lurker »

So I went to see 300. Big mistake. Hackneyed. Cliche. Overacted. Miscast. The casting was particularly bad - all of the actors sounded like they would have been more at home in a romantic comedy, not a hyper-masculine setting. I am no fan of Gerard Butler, but at least he can play a leader. These actors so did not belong in this movie.

And the dialogue. Facepalm!

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17877

Post by Clarence »

another lurker wrote:So I went to see 300. Big mistake. Hackneyed. Cliche. Overacted. Miscast. The casting was particularly bad - all of the actors sounded like they would have been more at home in a romantic comedy, not a hyper-masculine setting. I am no fan of Gerard Butler, but at least he can play a leader. These actors so did not belong in this movie.

And the dialogue. Facepalm!
If you can view 300 like I do -- gay & female beefcake(the real Spartans DID have long hair, but they also wore breast plates) and mostly the type of story a drunk Spartan would tell impressionable youth or a foreign friend around the campfire about the famous battle - then it can be enjoyed as the cheesy classic it is :)

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17878

Post by Clarence »

What a mess that Stollznow/Radford thing has turned into!

Drama, drama, drama.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17879

Post by another lurker »

@Clarence

I am talking about the sequel, which was terrible. The original was great. The beefcake was not at all enjoyable because everything just felt *wrong*. it was very snuff pr0n as well.

Spike13
.
.
Posts: 3014
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: Dirty Jersey, on the Chemical Coast
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#17880

Post by Spike13 »

Do you think that retraction letter was a fake? Are you a birther as well? Was 911 an “inside job”?

PZ:Yeah, they went there, claiming that rejecting the 'apology' was equivalent to being a conspiracy nut and denialist. Of course, I was sitting here with inside information — I knew that Stollznow hadn't signed it.

Spike: First off, it was a retraction, not an apology.

PZ :Guess what, annoying troll? The retraction letter was a fake. Stollznow had nothing to do with it.

Spike: A fake? Her husband all but assured it was a done deal.He worked on it with Radford was he lying? Was he dealing unknown behind her back?

Locked