Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Brive1987]

BR didn't bring avfm to the fight, that was the pit. The only person who brought a hate group along, is KS with PZ and FTB

It's my recollection it was the refusal of the SJL to engage with BR's structured rebuttal, the cone of silence lowered by PZ on the topic and the cowardly foot shuffling of Big Tent Scepticism to support one of their own that led to last ditch measures.

And well done to Mykeru for raising the only 6K BR is likely to see from his allies.

[zenbabe]

Has KS new update been raised yet?

Karen Stollznow posted an announcement 13 hours ago
My harasser continues to try to spread false information about me while demonstrating his harassment. He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men". They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not. They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money. I am not. They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.

These are the same techniques of silencing the victim that many of us have encountered and suffered through. I will no longer be silent. My day in court is coming...

Come one come all to see the propaganda inherent in the linguist.

http://designyoutrust.com/wp-content/up ... niesta.jpg

[Scented Nectar]

Can anyone explain this:

http://i.imgur.com/RqSf9fw.jpg

IANAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_jurisdiction

In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits. This is a general exception to the usual American rule giving the plaintiff the right to make the decision on the proper forum. Removal occurs when a defendant files a "notice of removal" in the state court where the lawsuit is presently filed and the federal court which the defendant would like to remove the case to.

At http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf , it's mentioned that people often try to move a state case over to a federal one because federal ones have stricter expert testimony rules.

I wonder if Stollznow is trying to prevent Radford's use of experts regarding the emails and pictures. If I were Radford, I'd check with the experts whether they are authorized for federal cases. If not, get the verifications done again, but this time with a company that's accepted in federal courts.

The other reason, quite innocent, that people try for the "removal" (just means moving elsewhere, not dismissing the case), is because one of the people involved lives in a different state than the one where the case was filed.

[Parody Accountant]

I think Mykeru DID say "other emails" , but so did Baxter in the twitter conversation. Mykeru was likely referencing this, though I'm not sure because I've not looked at the JREF forums.

When Mykeru first started posting about his warnings here, I immediately remembered Baxter using the phrase (or something very similar). I assumed he was referencing this all along, and that the moderator hadn't looked at the convo. If Mykeru hadn't provided it there, it makes a lot of sense that there was a misunderstanding.

Meh, whatever. No big deal all around.

[zenbabe]

Here's a list of posters who suck: This guy, that guy, that other girl. That weirdo 60 year old victrola guy. Damion.

[youtube]1xJ_Z8esPXo[/youtube]

:lol:
Wow.

[Dick Strawkins]

Has KS new update been raised yet?

Karen Stollznow posted an announcement 13 hours ago
My harasser continues to try to spread false information about me while demonstrating his harassment. He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men". They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not. They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money. I am not. They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.

These are the same techniques of silencing the victim that many of us have encountered and suffered through. I will no longer be silent. My day in court is coming...

"My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud."

But why would this matter to Karen Stollznow?
Wouldn't the only reason it would matter be if she had actually committed fraud?
I thought she said that all her claims are true.

Is she implicitly admitting that her claims are fraudulent, and that damned Radford dudebro is taking her to court over them, and thus when he wins her household insurance won't cover it?

Therefore he's a harasser?

[zenbabe]

Captain Janeway Why Hast Thou Forsaken Us YouTube.png

Wait, does Rebecca Watson has plush toy steer horns on her hipster bike?

Not gonna happen, baby. I think you're obsessing.

Beware of adults who still play with, and decorate with, stuffed animals. I've come to believe that it's a strong indicator of immaturity and insanity.

Yup. The psycho crazy bipolar coworker loves her some stuffed toys. They litter the lab, to my great annoyance. I have tossed some of those things on occasion, it's gotten that bad.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Has KS new update been raised yet?

Karen Stollznow posted an announcement 13 hours ago
My harasser continues to try to spread false information about me while demonstrating his harassment. He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men". They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not. They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money. I am not. They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.

These are the same techniques of silencing the victim that many of us have encountered and suffered through. I will no longer be silent. My day in court is coming...

If those stats above apply to the federal Court as well, then her day in court will be more like 4-5 days, and those won't be for 2-3 years. On average she has a slightly better than even chance of winning, but a much better than even chance of crashing and burning financially if she loses. High risk indeed, but then no-one considers their particular case "average", which is why lawyers make money and courts keep busy. The stats don't mention costs and how they were awarded, but days of court time and legal prep work is going to far outweigh the median libel award, and I see from Justia that The Stolz has two lawyers in tow already.

I'm still betting this settles before it gets all the way to court, like 90+% of civil matters do, but lots of those finish "on the door of the court" - long after the money is gone.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Can anyone explain this:

http://i.imgur.com/RqSf9fw.jpg

IANAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_jurisdiction

In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits. This is a general exception to the usual American rule giving the plaintiff the right to make the decision on the proper forum. Removal occurs when a defendant files a "notice of removal" in the state court where the lawsuit is presently filed and the federal court which the defendant would like to remove the case to.

At http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf , it's mentioned that people often try to move a state case over to a federal one because federal ones have stricter expert testimony rules.

I wonder if Stollznow is trying to prevent Radford's use of experts regarding the emails and pictures. If I were Radford, I'd check with the experts whether they are authorized for federal cases. If not, get the verifications done again, but this time with a company that's accepted in federal courts.

The other reason, quite innocent, that people try for the "removal" (just means moving elsewhere, not dismissing the case), is because one of the people involved lives in a different state than the one where the case was filed.

Has the application to remove been granted, or just filed at this stage? If the alternative is that the case is thrown out because of jurisdictional limitations, I'd guess the plaintiff would agree anyway, but his lawyer should have been on top of that already.

[JayTeeAitch]

FYI KiTTYnaji is Robokitty. She was driven off the forum by the usual fuckstains, drunk on alcoholic ginger beverages.

I had absolutely no idea but noticed that someone on ftb pointed it out.

Consensual {hugs} if you want then 'naji

What? No! I had absolutely no idea, but in retrospect, the posting style was similar. How could I be so blind?

I'll be sleeping naked outside for the next month, the least I can do, for the abominable slight. I think you should too.

[ROBOKiTTY]

I'll repeat my earlier question. How old are you?

14.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Has KS new update been raised yet?

Karen Stollznow posted an announcement 13 hours ago
My harasser continues to try to spread false information about me while demonstrating his harassment. He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men". They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not. They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money. I am not. They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.

These are the same techniques of silencing the victim that many of us have encountered and suffered through. I will no longer be silent. My day in court is coming...

"My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud."

But why would this matter to Karen Stollznow?
Wouldn't the only reason it would matter be if she had actually committed fraud?
I thought she said that all her claims are true.

Is she implicitly admitting that her claims are fraudulent, and that damned Radford dudebro is taking her to court over them, and thus when he wins her household insurance won't cover it?

Therefore he's a harasser?

There is no way The Stolz can "keep it for the judge". Two years without a peep - no chance in hell, if that's the way she's talking already. This is going to go on and on, but if the so-called "skeptic community" can't see that she is damaging her credibility with every unsupported claim, it should scrap itself and keep itself off the street by playing Bingo. It would be more productive than what they seem capable off at the minute.

[AnonymousCowherd]

I'll repeat my earlier question. How old are you?

14.

Uh oh.

[Mykeru]

BR didn't bring avfm to the fight, that was the pit. The only person who brought a hate group along, is KS with PZ and FTB

It's my recollection it was the refusal of the SJL to engage with BR's structured rebuttal, the cone of silence lowered by PZ on the topic and the cowardly foot shuffling of Big Tent Scepticism to support one of their own that led to last ditch measures.

And well done to Mykeru for raising the only 6K BR is likely to see from his allies.

And I'm not done yet.

Although, Jesus, talk about being hamstrung by RocketHub and having to get a separate PayPal donation account going.

Oh, wait, does that fuck up Hornbeck's conspiracy theories?

[Mykeru]

I'll repeat my earlier question. How old are you?

14.

Have you met Clarence?

[Scented Nectar]

Hello, KiTTYnaji here. How is everyone doing?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

For every old god lost, it seems a new one comes along. I don't know who to pray to anymore. :lol:

[CuntajusRationality]

Has KS new update been raised yet?

Karen Stollznow posted an announcement 13 hours ago
My harasser continues to try to spread false information about me while demonstrating his harassment. He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men". They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not. They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money. I am not. They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.

These are the same techniques of silencing the victim that many of us have encountered and suffered through. I will no longer be silent. My day in court is coming...

If those stats above apply to the federal Court as well, then her day in court will be more like 4-5 days, and those won't be for 2-3 years. On average she has a slightly better than even chance of winning, but a much better than even chance of crashing and burning financially if she loses. High risk indeed, but then no-one considers their particular case "average", which is why lawyers make money and courts keep busy. The stats don't mention costs and how they were awarded, but days of court time and legal prep work is going to far outweigh the median libel award, and I see from Justia that The Stolz has two lawyers in tow already.

I'm still betting this settles before it gets all the way to court, like 90+% of civil matters do, but lots of those finish "on the door of the court" - long after the money is gone.

I was not able to find data specific to defamation/slander/libel at the federal level, but here are some stats on federal tort cases that fall into the "other" category, which would seem to include cases of this type. Data from 2013.

Average resolution time (assuming they settle pre-trial): 8.4 months
Average resolution time (assuming it goes to trial): 22.7 months

Source: US Courts Statistics, March 2013

Total number tort cases in "other" category: 1745
Resolved With No Court Action: 22.3%
Resolved Before Trial: 87.9%
Resolved During or After Pretrial: 11.0%
Resolved Through Non-Jury Trial: 0.92%
Resolved Through Jury Trial: 0.17%

Source: US Courts Statistics, March 2013

[Parody Accountant]

I'll repeat my earlier question. How old are you?

14.

Have you met Clarence?

Clarence is 14 too. He also preys to you.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk25 ... 4fCali.jpg

[youtube]5wBTdfAkqGU[/youtube]

[Mykeru]

It wouldn't change my mind much if Radford did cherry pick. I fully expect dumb fuckery from all of them, while maintaining that Stollznow's crazy and Radford never harassed or abused her. She LIKED that kind of attention for chrissakes! Her hubby admits it! And while I'm at it Dear god WHO breaks up and gets back together that many times!? Why does Radford find Stollznow, who he knows is in that kind of relationship, worth being involved with in any way? I would never ever ever ever in a zillion years be attracted to a man already in a relationship that tumultuous.

I don't know if women have this experience, but a couple times I've had a girlfriend I broke up with try to win me back. So she could dump me. Her ego required it.

The second time around I didn't fall for it, which lead to a whole shitstorm from the psycho ex-girlfriend. In Stolly's case, she has the added fun habit of breaking up with guy so they can show how much the care by pursuing her. And, if she has enough, can turn around and claim they are stalking her. It's fucked up.

[Scented Nectar]

Captain Janeway Why Hast Thou Forsaken Us YouTube.png

Wait, does Rebecca Watson has plush toy steer horns on her hipster bike?

Not gonna happen, baby. I think you're obsessing.

Beware of adults who still play with, and decorate with, stuffed animals. I've come to believe that it's a strong indicator of immaturity and insanity.

Yup. The psycho crazy bipolar coworker loves her some stuffed toys. They litter the lab, to my great annoyance. I have tossed some of those things on occasion, it's gotten that bad.

Oh, you have my sympathies. It's bad enough that they have it in their homes, but when they try to 'cutesy' up a working/learning environment with toys and dolls, it drives me mad.

[Sulman]

Stolly's wording is brilliant. Absolutely by the book.

[Mykeru]

For reference:

mykeru_avfm_radford .png

(32.75 KiB) Downloaded 342 times

[deanesmay]

You'll have to forgive me, I just got up on a Sunday morning to see this so it may be rambling but there are multiple lies here of the type which are pretty well typified by what Dr. Tara Palmatier (a psychologist whose full time practice is in working with men who are or have been in relationshps with abusive borderlines) calls "DARVO" - Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. She's making up lies to change the subject. Let's go through them one by one:

"He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men"."

Despite lies by the FreeThoughBlog crowd and a few others, AVfM has NEVER been declared a hate group except in the opinion of hateful ideologues like PZ Myers. SPLC, while expressing some "concerns" because we sometimes allow heated (but strictly nonviolent) rhetroric, publicly disavowed any notion that they had declared us a hate group. But that's OK, we get the slander all the time and this isn't about us.

WHat's the real lie is the claim that Radford recruited us. She made this up. The only people to work on the story were Robert O'Hara and myself, with Robert doing most of the work and some support help from me. Neither of us has had any contact with Radford. We got a tip, we did some research, made some phone calls, worked with what we had online. Since everything in Radford's documentation holds up 100% consistent with what we see when we look at false accuser cases (and we've worked on a number of those) we came to the conclusion his case deserved wider exposure and ran our story.

"They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not."

We made no such claim, although we believe a strong case can be made that it does. An interesting test of this would be if someone would do an Indiegogo campaign for Ben Radford to help him raise money against libel from a malicious false accuser, without naming who his false accuser is. We can't do that, but someone else could. We hope someone does. If Indiegogo allows it, great, an almost certainly innocent man gets help. If Indiegogo denies it, then they will have confirmed that they are not consistent with their own terms of service and are fundamentally sexist. AVfM would not run such a campaign but would give extensive coverage to anyone who tried.

"They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money."

We made no such claim.

"They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested."

We made no such claim.

Now, we don't really care that Stollznow has lied about us because we get lied about all the time. It comes with the territory when you either attack ideological feminism (it garners the same type of slanderous responses that you get when you answer Creationist lunacy) or when you try to defend the rights of boys and men specifically, even when the science clearly shows that they're in deep trouble in our educational and legal and social systems in multiple areas (even if individual men are often fine, as a group men have problems no one wants to talk about and get mad at you when you do talk about them).

Although from a publicity angle it's probably not worth trying to address AVfM's reporting (and that's what it was: reporting) on the Radford/Stollznow case, the fact is that this response by Stollznow is probably further proof of libel and ill-intent by Stollznow. It certainly cements in my mind that she's probably a classic Cluster-B personality disordered type.

We would almost certainly do another story on this, if we could get an authenticated screen shot or otherwise-authenticatable copy of this set of perniciously false statements by Stollznow. Can anyone tell me where to find it and/or email it to me? I only occasionally visit the Slymepit and I'm very busy working other projects but my email is dean at avoiceformen and my Skype is deanesmay and my phone is 313-334-4887.

Has KS new update been raised yet?

Karen Stollznow posted an announcement 13 hours ago
My harasser continues to try to spread false information about me while demonstrating his harassment. He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men". They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not. They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money. I am not. They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.

These are the same techniques of silencing the victim that many of us have encountered and suffered through. I will no longer be silent. My day in court is coming...

Come one come all to see the propaganda inherent in the linguist.

http://designyoutrust.com/wp-content/up ... niesta.jpg

[Brive1987]

The edit button at the JREF forum works.

:dance:

[Mykeru]

[Brive1987]

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

[deanesmay]

Oh, and in case I didn't make myself clear enough, neither Robert, nor myself, have EVER spoken to Radford, exchanged emails with him, or communicated with him in any way, and so far as I know no one else at AVfM has either. We reported based on what was in the public record, period, and didn't even bother trying to contact Radford since he publicly stated he would make no further statements on his case to the press or anyone else and he made it pretty clear he didn't want to talk to anyone about it. We respected that.


[quote="deanesmay"]You'll have to forgive me, I just got up on a Sunday morning to see this so it may be rambling but there are multiple lies here of the type which are pretty well typified by what Dr. Tara Palmatier (a psychologist whose full time practice is in working with men who are or have been in relationshps with abusive borderlines) calls "DARVO" - Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. She's making up lies to change the subject. Let's go through them one by one:

"He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men"."

Despite lies by the FreeThoughBlog crowd and a few others, AVfM has NEVER been declared a hate group except in the opinion of hateful ideologues like PZ Myers. SPLC, while expressing some "concerns" because we sometimes allow heated (but strictly nonviolent) rhetroric, publicly disavowed any notion that they had declared us a hate group. But that's OK, we get the slander all the time and this isn't about us.

WHat's the real lie is the claim that Radford recruited us. She made this up. The only people to work on the story were Robert O'Hara and myself, with Robert doing most of the work and some support help from me. Neither of us has had any contact with Radford. We got a tip, we did some research, made some phone calls, worked with what we had online. Since everything in Radford's documentation holds up 100% consistent with what we see when we look at false accuser cases (and we've worked on a number of those) we came to the conclusion his case deserved wider exposure and ran our story.

"They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not."

We made no such claim, although we believe a strong case can be made that it does. An interesting test of this would be if someone would do an Indiegogo campaign for Ben Radford to help him raise money against libel from a malicious false accuser, without naming who his false accuser is. We can't do that, but someone else could. We hope someone does. If Indiegogo allows it, great, an almost certainly innocent man gets help. If Indiegogo denies it, then they will have confirmed that they are not consistent with their own terms of service and are fundamentally sexist. AVfM would not run such a campaign but would give extensive coverage to anyone who tried.

"They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money."

We made no such claim.

"They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested."

We made no such claim.

Now, we don't really care that Stollznow has lied about us because we get lied about all the time. It comes with the territory when you either attack ideological feminism (it garners the same type of slanderous responses that you get when you answer Creationist lunacy) or when you try to defend the rights of boys and men specifically, even when the science clearly shows that they're in deep trouble in our educational and legal and social systems in multiple areas (even if individual men are often fine, as a group men have problems no one wants to talk about and get mad at you when you do talk about them).

Although from a publicity angle it's probably not worth trying to address AVfM's reporting (and that's what it was: reporting) on the Radford/Stollznow case, the fact is that this response by Stollznow is probably further proof of libel and ill-intent by Stollznow. It certainly cements in my mind that she's probably a classic Cluster-B personality disordered type.

We would almost certainly do another story on this, if we could get an authenticated screen shot or otherwise-authenticatable copy of this set of perniciously false statements by Stollznow. Can anyone tell me where to find it and/or email it to me? I only occasionally visit the Slymepit and I'm very busy working other projects but my email is dean at avoiceformen and my Skype is deanesmay and my phone is 313-334-4887.

[Mykeru]

Dean asks, Stephan provides:

I submit:

Stollznow Announcement cap Give a Voice to Harassment Victims Indiegogo.png

(264 KiB) Downloaded 350 times

[deanesmay]

Argh, this is what I get for writing when I've just gotten up and haven't had my coffee. AVfM did SUGGEST the POSSIBILITY that her campaign violates Indiegogo terms of service. I still think it probably does, but we did not state definitively that it does. I have already suggested the best way to test it and I hope someone does that so we can promote it (am I broadly making a huge hint? Yes I am.)

Anyway, what we said was this:

"After publication Stollznow denied agreeing to a retraction and ten days ago on March 27th, started a defense fund under the byline “Give a Voice to Sexual Harassment Victims” which has already raised nearly $60,000, even though there is strong reason to believe that this campaign, which is defamatory of another person, is arguably a violation of Indiegogo’s terms of use since it is widely known whom Stollznow has accused. "

In the legal minefield of precise language, I suppose you could spin that into more than a speculation, but that's all it was, speculation. It was not an assertion of anything except that it looks like it's arguably in violation.

I have already suggested a good test of my hypothesis: someone do an Indiegogo for Radford, without mentioning who his false accuser is. There's no down side to that except taking the time to try. Just don't mention Stollznow and let's see how consistently Indiegogo holds to its own rules.

[John D]

Hornbeck doesn't understand: everyone reads the Pit.The likes of Meyers may try to avoid the implication, by using the spelling "Slime", but don't doubt that his piggy little eyes are all over this shit. Every day.

So true. Love us or hate us, they can't stop reading. :lol:

Hi, you snooty motherfuckers! :dance: Too good to post a comment, PZ, Zvan, Hjornbeck, Oolon et al, but you don't mind lurking the shit out of this place every day, even though you know we're only gonna post comments that offend you!

You're addicted to the moral outrage, FTBloggers. Admit it. You love coming here because we make you pissed off and angry, and if you couldn't feel that way, you couldn't get all in a snit, run off to your blogs, post some boring diatribe about how not-Social Justice the world is, and bring in the moral outrage clicks from your fans. Fact is, most of you lot live in liberal towns full of liberal people and work at liberal workplaces full of liberal coworkers. If you weren't so toxic and downright mean, you could float through months on end in your real lives without encountering a single offensive thought, let alone actual bigotry. But toxic behavior begets a toxic response.

Ho ho ho, the power of the evil white male oppressor! Our White Cishet Male Priv is so strong, it forces oppressed minorities like PZ Myers to read our words, even though he doesn't want to! Oh God! That's no space station, that's our Slyme Privilege! His eyes are caught in our tractor beam and he can't break away!

Patriarchy POWER-UP!.... up.....up......Up.....UP! Privilege Power 6000!!!!!!

[Søren Lilholt]

Ok.... so, Clarence - how likely is it that there is some kind of god? I think it is astronomically unlikely. Do you think it makes good sense that some kind of god exists and someone will find proof one day?

I don't think we have the knowledge to assign probabilities honestly.
Now the type of God that performs miracles on Earth , consistently answers human prayers that sort of thing, we have more evidence against.

One that doesn't give much of a shit about as (as individuals, possibly as a species), not so much.

I think the point you could be missing is that Agnosticsm on the assertion of 'God' accords a positive weight to non-existent evidence. This isn't logical.

It's different with some other unknowns - life on other planets, say. We know life CAN exist but we don't know WHETHER it exists elsewhere. So agnosticism on that question is eminently logical. But with 'God', there is no such basis for it.

[screwtape]

Don't mix up Crabbie's with ginger beer - it's ginger wine and totally different. There used to be an inferior product called Stone's, and there's even one here made in Newfoundland. Crabbie's is green sweet and syrupy. Serve on ice or even add soda water. More than half a bottle in one go is guaranteed to induce vomiting as reliably as ipecacuanha.

Here's an idiot proof recipe for making ginger beer:
½ cup fresh ginger (measure by displacement method - thanks, Archimedes!)
OR 1 tsp ground ginger - not both!
1½ cups water
1¼ cups sugar

Puree ginger in a little of the water, place in a pan with rest of water and add sugar. Bring to the boil, cover, turn heat off and let it cool.

Strain the mixture into a 2l plastic soda bottle, add ½tsp dried yeast and ½tsp cream of tartar, then top up the bottle with warm (35 - 40ºC) water. Leave a 2"/5cm airspace at the top, because I won't come and clean up if you don't; it will explode. Seal tightly and put in a warm place - I sit it on a forced air heating vent. When the bottle is hard, carefully let off some pressure, reseal and place in fridge. Drink at will. It tastes better if you use fresh ginger root, but you don't have to do the straining if you used dried ginger. In either case there will be yeasty sediment in the bottom so open slowly so as not to stir it up and pour carefully.

I've just discovered a Chinese supermarket that sells burdock root, so my next trick is to try to recreate the dandelion and burdock of my UK childhood. Couldn't get it in the south, but visiting grandparents in the midlands always meant buying that stuff.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It wouldn't change my mind much if Radford did cherry pick. I fully expect dumb fuckery from all of them, while maintaining that Stollznow's crazy and Radford never harassed or abused her. She LIKED that kind of attention for chrissakes! Her hubby admits it! And while I'm at it Dear god WHO breaks up and gets back together that many times!? Why does Radford find Stollznow, who he knows is in that kind of relationship, worth being involved with in any way? I would never ever ever ever in a zillion years be attracted to a man already in a relationship that tumultuous.

1) Radford is under no obligation at this point to lay out every peak and valley of their Jerry Springer romance. He only needs to show that Stollz was lying about when Rads' amorous attentions occurred vs. when they broke up for good;

2) Rads likely included Baxter's police statement, that he & Psycho Girlfriend had broken up 40 times in the past year, because Stollz pulled the same shit with Rads;

3) I thank my lucky stars for all the times I had the wisdom to turn down psycho poon! Rads strikes me as an egotist, who enjoyed being the big stud among a crowd of virgin neckbeards, and later got off on cuckholding Baxter. Baxter strikes me as a sad naive character, who fell for the damsel-in-distress con, and then endured the abuse because Karen was the first women to ever have sex with him. Karen strikes me as a lying vindictive rabbit-boiling psycho who enjoys hurting people.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Karen Stollznow posted an announcement 13 hours ago
My harasser continues to try to spread false information about me while demonstrating his harassment. He has recruited the help of a hate group to help spread his word. "A Voice For Men". They claim now that this campaign is a violation of Indiegogo's terms. It is not. They claim that I am planning to just pocket this money. I am not. They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.

These are the same techniques of silencing the victim that many of us have encountered and suffered through. I will no longer be silent. My day in court is coming...

Come one come all to see the propaganda inherent in the linguist.

She knows far too well how to play this game to be believable.

[mikelf]

IANAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_jurisdiction

In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits. This is a general exception to the usual American rule giving the plaintiff the right to make the decision on the proper forum. Removal occurs when a defendant files a "notice of removal" in the state court where the lawsuit is presently filed and the federal court which the defendant would like to remove the case to.

At http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf , it's mentioned that people often try to move a state case over to a federal one because federal ones have stricter expert testimony rules.

I wonder if Stollznow is trying to prevent Radford's use of experts regarding the emails and pictures. If I were Radford, I'd check with the experts whether they are authorized for federal cases. If not, get the verifications done again, but this time with a company that's accepted in federal courts.

The other reason, quite innocent, that people try for the "removal" (just means moving elsewhere, not dismissing the case), is because one of the people involved lives in a different state than the one where the case was filed.

That is correct, diversity of jurisdiction is one reason for moving a trial from state to federal court. Note that New Mexico is part of the 10th Circuit, which is based out of Denver. It is not clear to me if, or how, that is relevant. Stollznow may be trying to get it moved closer to home, although I think that stricter rules of evidence may be the thing.

[Lsuoma]

Don't mix up Crabbie's with ginger beer - it's ginger wine and totally different.

Wine:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419eEJ1atrL.jpg

Beer:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411k8DrSyqL.jpg

[Matt Cavanaugh]

So in other news, anti-science idiocy is reaching new heights. I love how in the article the 'coil surrounding a tube' is magically transformed into a "coil gun."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2yk4fw3lM

Much of LAUD is overrun by gangs, so they're hyper-sensitive about weapons on campus. But they also struggle mightily to be functioning schools where kids learn something, instead of just holding pens.

You can buy an handgun on the street for less than the cost of the materials to build those science projects. Learning thwarted, gang violence continues unabated -- Hurrah for Social Justice!

[zenbabe]

It wouldn't change my mind much if Radford did cherry pick. I fully expect dumb fuckery from all of them, while maintaining that Stollznow's crazy and Radford never harassed or abused her. She LIKED that kind of attention for chrissakes! Her hubby admits it! And while I'm at it Dear god WHO breaks up and gets back together that many times!? Why does Radford find Stollznow, who he knows is in that kind of relationship, worth being involved with in any way? I would never ever ever ever in a zillion years be attracted to a man already in a relationship that tumultuous.

1) Radford is under no obligation at this point to lay out every peak and valley of their Jerry Springer romance. He only needs to show that Stollz was lying about when Rads' amorous attentions occurred vs. when they broke up for good;

Yup, don't quote me but I think he might even say something in benlegal about providing us with the basic facts on that site. So we see some key evidence that simply shreds her story. It's what he needs to defend himself (at the very least so he can still work) during the possibly very prolonged interim before the trial.

2) Rads likely included Baxter's police statement, that he & Psycho Girlfriend had broken up 40 times in the past year, because Stollz pulled the same shit with Rads;

Certainly sheds a lot of light on her character.

3) I thank my lucky stars for all the times I had the wisdom to turn down psycho poon! Rads strikes me as an egotist, who enjoyed being the big stud among a crowd of virgin neckbeards, and later got off on cuckholding Baxter. Baxter strikes me as a sad naive character, who fell for the damsel-in-distress con, and then endured the abuse because Karen was the first women to ever have sex with him. Karen strikes me as a lying vindictive rabbit-boiling psycho who enjoys hurting people.

Hehe.
Though I'm currently inclined to think more harshly about Baxter. The bit about the kitten is a huge red flag, as well as beating up furniture (and as of his conversation with Mykeru it's clear Baxter feels no shame about that act). And the simple fact of staying in a relationship when they're breaking up EVERY MONTH (!!) tells me he's a total drama addict.

[Clarence]

I'll repeat my earlier question. How old are you?

14.

Have you met Clarence?

Oh, come on, now.
That's hitting below the belt.

I know you were trying to be clever and funny so I'll forgive it.

[bhoytony]

Don't mix up Crabbie's with ginger beer - it's ginger wine and totally different.

Wine:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419eEJ1atrL.jpg

Beer:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411k8DrSyqL.jpg

Oh, ninja'd, I was just about to write an abusive mean spirited rant using similar pictures.You're no fun.

[bhoytony]

14.

Have you met Clarence?

Oh, come on, now.
That's hitting below the belt.

You wish.

[Parody Accountant]

<3 Clarence. I don't really think you're a molestor. I think it's funny to tease you. If you start taking it personally, PM me.

FYI - you do say consistently awkward and off-putting things. Easily taken out of context. Even in context, kinda creepy. If you're alright with it, let us have our fun. We've got no oolon / damion / wonderist / walter ego etc to kick around. Please be our weirdo.

[bhoytony]

<3 Clarence. I don't really think you're a molestor. I think it's funny to tease you. If you start taking it personally, PM me.

FYI - you do say consistently awkward and off-putting things. Easily taken out of context. Even in context, kinda creepy. If you're alright with it, let us have our fun. We've got no oolon / damion / wonderist / walter ego etc to kick around. Please be our weirdo.

Can't we just give him Eucliwoo's email address and let them ride off into the sunset?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Yup, don't quote me but I think he might even say something in benlegal about providing us with the basic facts on that site. So we see some key evidence that simply shreds her story. It's what he needs to defend himself (at the very least so he can still work) during the possibly very prolonged interim before the trial.

KS made three broad accusations:
1. BR sexually harassed her for three years after they broke up;
2. BR linked job opportunities to sex;
3. BR sexually assaulted her "several times" at three consecutive TAMs.

BR's evidence conclusively disproves 1. & 3., and severely undermines 2 -- regardless of any yet undisclosed trailer-trashdom. There's also no conceivable no evidence to exonerate KS from falsifying the dates of emails.

I'm currently inclined to think more harshly about Baxter. The bit about the kitten is a huge red flag, as well as beating up furniture (and as of his conversation with Mykeru it's clear Baxter feels no shame about that act). And the simple fact of staying in a relationship when they're breaking up EVERY MONTH (!!) tells me he's a total drama addict.

Nothing angers me more than animal abuse, but the description was too vague for me to come to a firm conclusion. The vet, at least, confirmed there was no injury to the kitten. Animal abuse could be just one of the thousand false accusations you face when dating a Karen Stollznow.

I admit to being perhaps too easy on Baxter, having been in a similar situation myself. He's reacting badly to a bad situation. He smashed his furniture when I'm sure he really wanted to crack open her skull. I interpret Bax' exchange with Mykeru less as 'no shame' rather than reflexive cover-up for KS. Same with the retraction fiasco. I used to do similar damage-control for my psycho ex, and felt immense embarrassment underneath.

But I could be wrong, and Baxter be an odious character, too. These three really are plagiarizing Sartre.

[Lsuoma]

<3 Clarence. I don't really think you're a molestor. I think it's funny to tease you. If you start taking it personally, PM me.

FYI - you do say consistently awkward and off-putting things. Easily taken out of context. Even in context, kinda creepy. If you're alright with it, let us have our fun. We've got no oolon / damion / wonderist / walter ego etc to kick around. Please be our weirdo.

PA and Clarence sitting in a tree...

[Kenteken]

Seen the 1st episode of your inner fish and I've enjoyed it very much, it was on par with the book.

Props for whoever gave the heads up

[Parody Accountant]

<3 Clarence. I don't really think you're a molestor. I think it's funny to tease you. If you start taking it personally, PM me.

FYI - you do say consistently awkward and off-putting things. Easily taken out of context. Even in context, kinda creepy. If you're alright with it, let us have our fun. We've got no oolon / damion / wonderist / walter ego etc to kick around. Please be our weirdo.

PA and Clarence sitting in a tree...

K-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I

[Guestus Aurelius]

The most mind-blowing aspect of this whole saga IMO is the SJL's silence about the strong and uncontested evidence that Stollznow and Baxter have a propensity for DV.

Imagine if Baxter's DV arrest had come out in another context. He's a white cishet male, FFS! He'd immediately be persona non grata. And it's even possible that the SJL would have thrown Stollznow under the bus if her DV arrest had come out under different circumstances (if only to pay lip service to "DV is bad when women do it, too").

Of course, Stollznow's DV arrest has fuck-all to do with Radford's guilt, but my point here (and my only interest in this case) is about the SJL's mindset. Ostensibly their reason for trying to excommunicate Radford in the first place is that the evidence points to his secretly being a danger to others in the community. But if their goal is really to make the community safer by outing and ostracizing people who are dangerous in private settings, they wouldn't let their campaign against Radford get in the way of also making a stink about Baxter's and Stollznow's violent pasts.

And I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the evidence that Baxter and Stollznow have "inner demons" is, uh, at least as convincing as the evidence that Radford does.

But no—Baxter and Stollznow get a "pass" because Radford. The story isn't, "Damn, Baxter and Stollznow should be excommunicated, too"; predictably, the story is limited to, "How dare Radford make private information public?"

Had the SJL rallied against Baxter and Stollznow when their violent streaks were made public, I'd have been impressed. I'd still think they're crazy, but I'd also think, "Hey, maybe their crazy is a little more equal-opportunity than I thought. At least they're being consistent."

As it is, they've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (again) that they don't care about evidence or "safe spaces." They care about sides. They care about never having to admit to being wrong. They care about ideology. They care about knocking down successful white cishet males in order to lift themselves up, regardless of the facts.

In short, the SJL are straight-up bad people. They're not just misguided. This is what "evil" looks like, and I have no doubt that if these assrockets had actual political power, we'd be in serious trouble.

[Clarence]

1) As described, a quantum vacuum doesn't come from anything; it just is. Asking what caused it is nonsensical;
2) Are you saying you don't know the meaning of "quantum", or just what makes a quantum vacuum quantum? In either case, the answers can be easily googled ("RTFM"). Until you do, yours is an argument from ignorance;
3) Define "potentiality."

The question was actually, WHY it is a quantum vacuum instead of an EMPTY vacuum or some other type of vacuum. In other words, why these particular properties over others? I suppose your answer would be because that is the theory you prefer.
I know that in Physics a vacuum is the lowest energy state in any given theory, so it is not the Nothing I am talking about anyway, which is a philosophical concept of absolute non-existence of time,space, and energy -generally the things we believe are intrinsically attached to physical existence. If I wanted to go even farther I could also exclude even conceptual objects such as mathematical constructs. Absolute Non-existence should make even thought that is outside a physical substrate (somehow) impossible.

And your request at number three is laughable considering your answer to one. It's easy enough to parse my question if you use a dictionary, because I'm using words in their everyday or (at worst) philosophical contexts whereas you seem to be switching between technical use and day to day use.

[Avalyne]

Another lovely Sunday morning spent catching up on the Pit. God help me! Oh, and speaking of God.. I'm thrilled to learn that my kitteh god-naji has not forsaken me, after all. Damn, though. Now, I'll have to find another opressor to blame for my PTSD-like abandonment issues. :cry:

Thought I'd share this powerful illustration of an important social experiment being conducted in Australia.

And Guys.. Don't do this! You're not you when you're hungry.

[youtube]9XnkdbkOn5s[/youtube]

And may the slymegods forgive me if this has already been shared. My Sabbath day catch-up sessions aren't always sufficient. I guess I need to stop having a life and get with the pit program! I'm working on that....

[Clarence]

<3 Clarence. I don't really think you're a molestor. I think it's funny to tease you. If you start taking it personally, PM me.

FYI - you do say consistently awkward and off-putting things. Easily taken out of context. Even in context, kinda creepy. If you're alright with it, let us have our fun. We've got no oolon / damion / wonderist / walter ego etc to kick around. Please be our weirdo.

I can't help but be myself and while many like me it is true that I often come off in real life as either the funny guy or the weirdo. It's always one or the other. But no-one has ever thought I was a danger to anyone let alone children or young ( I consider thirteen and fourteen to be 'baby' teens)teens.

And yes, I mix slang and words in very odd ways. Maybe it's because I've read alot. Maybe it's because I've lived in areas ranging from poor to middle class and from urban to rural. I once got in trouble at a job (my first ever write up :) ) when I was very young for using the term 'wench' to a black female friend of mine. I didn't get into trouble because of the possibly SEXIST use of the word (which I was aware of, I was trying to be teasing), but because of the possibly RACIST use of the term. And I had literally never heard the term used in a racist way so it was a total shock to me. I was familiar with it from Shakespeare and other old writings as well as a few comic books. Never saw it otherwise.

Of course I no more believe Robokitty is 14 (she has her own site which I think she pays for) than I believe in Bigfoot. And I usually don't mind the parodies. I suppose I wouldn't have been so forgiving of Mykeru if I didn't know he was a CNUT or if he had chosen an even younger age range. I just hope no one really believes that stuff about me. I really don't have this BIG PERVERT reputation anywhere else on the Net and while it can be amusing at times, it does sometimes get in the way of actual conversations and also while "old enough to pee, old enough for me" is funny because it's so shocking, it's also gross.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

There is no way The Stolz can "keep it for the judge". Two years without a peep - no chance in hell, if that's the way she's talking already. This is going to go on and on, but if the so-called "skeptic community" can't see that she is damaging her credibility with every unsupported claim, it should scrap itself and keep itself off the street by playing Bingo.

The pathological liar reacts very negatively when busted for telling a lie by:

* Being extremely defensive. He may try to blame someone else.
* Fabricating yet another lie. The pathological liar covers up the original fib to make sure that his reputation remains intact by telling a bigger lie.
* Becoming vindictive. They may react with anger or rage and may retaliate.

Ring a bell?

[Parody Accountant]

Lsuoma, I requested you release top 10 most blocked a while ago. Do it, silly sausage. Weekly pariah poll positions.

Or maybe make it universal.

Avatar.jpg
Parody Accountant
Edit Button
Posts: 530
Joined: 19 May 2013, 20:40
Blocked by: 6 users
PM / EMAIL / (UN)BLOCK

[screwtape]

Don't mix up Crabbie's with ginger beer - it's ginger wine and totally different.

Wine:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419eEJ1atrL.jpg

Beer:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411k8DrSyqL.jpg

Well that's what I get for living in the back of beyond. I had no idea Crabbie's had extended to beer. I have a new mission in life.

[Mykeru]

Of course, Stollznow's DV arrest has fuck-all to do with Radford's guilt, but my point here (and my only interest in this case) is about the SJL's mindset. Ostensibly their reason for trying to excommunicate Radford in the first place is that the evidence points to his secretly being a danger to others in the community. But if their goal is really to make the community safer by outing and ostracizing people who are dangerous in private settings, they wouldn't let their campaign against Radford get in the way of also making a stink about Baxter's and Stollznow's violent pasts.

You forgot the first rule of Identity Politics: What was done doesn't matter. All that counts is who does it.

That the lesser actions of a cis while male would be judged in Biblical terms while the full-on violent behavior of one of the innocent pink mafia would be glossed over, even lauded, isn't an accident or oversight. It's the point. They are good, everyone who isn't them are bad and anything they do, by virtue of being done by them, is ennobled.

[bhoytony]

Well that's what I get for living in the back of beyond. I had no idea Crabbie's had extended to beer.

Perhaps several posts about it that were made last night and which presumably you were responding to might have given you a clue.

[Old_ones]

I believe something has always existed.
This could be the so-called "First Cause" which if it has any intelligent properties at all would be God.

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. There is something.
3. Therefore there has never been nothing. Therefore there has always been something.

Physics can already demonstrate that the pre-existence of a quantum vacuum is sufficient to explain the origin of our universe. I don't think a quantum vacuum is particularly intelligent...

And where did the 'quantum vaccum' come from? And why is it 'quantum'? I understand this theory talks of virtual particles and differences in energy (energy from where?) and handwaves because if we 'average out' the values they come up to zero, so we can pretend that getting energy from nothing is somehow not getting energy from nothing.
You would also seem to be ignoring or discounting M theory, which would have our universe as merely the result of a collision between multidimensional 'branes'.
I'm not about to 'take sides' on physics but we don't have a working Unified Theory that includes gravity yet, so I'm disinclined to choose one model of the 'Big Bang' (which, once again, only explains our Space-Time) over the other.
Now, I may not be a "Big Name" physicist but surely you wouldn't pretend that all Big Name physicists believe in one single model for the Big Bang or have one single answer to the creation of the universe, the question of other universes or dimensions ( I know some hate string theories and some embrace them) or just about any of that.

The question can still be broiled down to : why potentiality over non-potentiality and no-one has come close to answering that.

I think what you are doing here is just a straightforward "god of the gaps" hinging on the question of "why is there something instead of nothing". I don't think anyone will ever know why we have quantum effects that create virtual particles instead of an "absolute nothing" with no potential to generate a something. I can tell you why I don't find the existence of a something ( a "quantum vacuum") a convincing argument for a god, though.

If we started with an "absolute nothing" then nothing would have formed. A god can't be part of an "absolute nothing" because a god is a thing. If we are going to be intellectually honest we have to ask where a god would have come from if we are going to consider the possibility that one was involved with our universe. We could assume that there was always a something (e.g. a "quantum vacuum" or a god suspended in an "absolute nothing") but we should evaluate which starting condition is more likely. Personally I'll defer to Dawkins, and take the vacuum with some strange physical properties over the omnipotent magical being in that case. We can't necessarily explain either condition, but we at least know that "quantum vacuum" exists now. With the god, the mystery is not just "why would it have been present", but also "why is it complex and sentient", "why does it have the magical power to create other things ex-nihilo" and "why don't we see it now".

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The question was actually, WHY it is a quantum vacuum instead of an EMPTY vacuum or some other type of vacuum. In other words, why these particular properties over others?

Cuz those are the conditions that created the particular universe you're sitting in, pondering those conditions. Nuf ced. You seem to be leaning here toward fine tuning.

I suppose your answer would be because that is the theory you prefer... so it is not the Nothing I am talking about anyway, which is a philosophical concept of absolute non-existence of time,space, and energy -generally the things we believe are intrinsically attached to physical existence.

The "nothing" you're talking about is, in short, a fiction. Philosophy is just mental jenkum if unrelated to "physical existence."

If I wanted to go even farther I could also exclude even conceptual objects such as mathematical constructs. Absolute Non-existence should make even thought that is outside a physical substrate (somehow) impossible.

I really haven't the slightest clue what you're going on about here. Are you saying mathematics is just a "construct"?

And your request at number three is laughable considering your answer to one. It's easy enough to parse my question if you use a dictionary, because I'm using words in their everyday or (at worst) philosophical contexts whereas you seem to be switching between technical use and day to day use.

potentiality, n: Potential state or quality; power or powerfulness; esp., possibility, as opposed to actuality; capability of development; latent power or capacity; also, something potential; a possibility; something which may be developed into actuality.

The universe actually exists. End of discussion. Unless you're getting all Aristotelean on us, in which case, you need to elaborate.

[zenbabe]

I admit to being perhaps too easy on Baxter, having been in a similar situation myself. He's reacting badly to a bad situation. He smashed his furniture when I'm sure he really wanted to crack open her skull. I interpret Bax' exchange with Mykeru less as 'no shame' rather than reflexive cover-up for KS. Same with the retraction fiasco. I used to do similar damage-control for my psycho ex, and felt immense embarrassment underneath.

But I could be wrong, and Baxter be an odious character, too. These three really are plagiarizing Sartre.

Your inclination is understandable, and I hope you're right and there's a chance for him to wake up, even though I suspect you're wrong :). But regardless right now he's not listening to himself (if he has that voice inside saying NOOOOO), nor to others about how his relationship is bad news.

I don't find white knighting in and of itself to be a bad thing at all actually, but in this case it's terrible. He's so weakened by it.

[Linus]

The misrepresentation was:

[Baxter] makes reference to the "other evidence" and "other emails", apparently using the old standby that it's crappy evidence but, gosh darn it, there's so much of it.

I posted a section of conversation that covered Baxter's trying to shift from the emails under discussion to "other evidence". I did not post more caps of my conversation because

1. Lack of nested quotes was getting confusing enough. By the time we played "50 Shades of The Fuck?" I had forgotten that "other emails" was something I said.
2. The server timing me out, forcing me to log back in if I responded with anything more than a smiley.
3. The inability of the JREF server to upload images.

Not to mention that I didn't feel a big doc dump was going to persuade people who, perhaps by force of will, didn't bother looking at the documentation on Radford's response, instead dismissing it as the "he said" portion of a "he said, she said". I have already posted a link here to my Google Drive with the entire conversation. That's not what was being asked for. As my compilation of the conversation was deemed confusing -- because this wasn't a Storify or timeline, it's a recovery -- and there was suggestion I has somehow fiddled with the conversation, the only thing that would have not satisfied was a dump of my original 24 screen caps. Like that was doable. And when I mentioned I saved some 85% of the conversation, having overwritten/lost the second 5 tweet capture, suddenly that became the god-damned smoking gun. Natch.

crop Mykeru_Parabax 4.2.2014_3.jpg

Baxter did make reference to "other emails" as well as "other evidence". He claims it was Radford who "cherry picked" the emails and there were more than were presented. So even in the midst of a big old brain fart, I still manage to be right.

Your move, Nelson.

...

You said "[Baxter] makes reference to the "other evidence" and "other emails", apparently using the old standby that it's crappy evidence but, gosh darn it, there's so much of it." That isn't actually what Baxter said or implied. Hence, that was the misrepresentation. It's not that complicated.