Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:53 pm
Haah. Oh hang on a minute. I'll have to put on my "I CARE" studded jacket just before I take this massive shit.
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
If there's one thing people here seem to agree on about this mess, it's that airing legal laundry in public isn't a bright idea. I don't see how he is helping himself here.Tigzy wrote: Radford ups the ante! Dig in! http://benrlegal.info/
Tigzy wrote: Radford ups the ante! Dig in! http://benrlegal.info/
for those on mobile / lazy this is what the website said wrote:Response to Stollznow Accusations
I’m presenting this material in response to accusations made against me by Karen Stollznow in an August 6, 2013, blog posted on the Scientific American Mind web site, and that she and others repeated elsewhere. Karen’s blog was soon voluntarily taken down by SciAm because it contained several demonstrable errors and false statements, but was widely seen and distributed.
When these accusations were first made public, and for many months afterward, I was prohibited from responding to her claims. I am now able to do so, and can finally present my side. I am making this information public in order to set the record straight and correct misperceptions about this matter. There’s a lot of material here because it’s important to be as open as possible and rebut her claims, while not complicating the legal situation (a defamation and fraud lawsuit against Karen has been filed), nor violating our privacy. Nonetheless I have both a right and a duty to respond to her claims and to defend myself against her false accusations.
Accusation Summary
Here is a brief summary of Karen’s claims; more information can be found through the links provided here and to the right.
1) Karen claimed that she broke off a dating relationship with me in 2009 and stated categorically that we were not in an on-again, off-again relationship afterwards. In fact, as fully documented in extensive e-mails and photographs here, our relationship continued on and off through 2010, including an April 2010 visit to a San Francisco hotel room suggested, arranged, and paid for by Karen. As recently as September 2010 Karen asked me to continue our sexual affair.
2) Karen claimed that I sent her “incessant communication of a sexual nature†despite her repeated requests for me to stop contacting her starting in late 2009. In fact Karen sent me over 1,000 e-mails between 2009 and 2012, while encouraging our correspondence and repeatedly expressing her thanks for my occasional friendly gifts and birthday cards—including in the months and years after she claimed to have been sexually harassed and assaulted by me. (A dozen examples dating as recently as August 2012 can be seen here.) After our intimate relationship ended in late 2010, there was nothing more between us and we remained on good terms until 2013 when she made these accusations.
3) Neither I nor my lawyer have seen the dozens or hundreds of “communications of a sexual nature†that she claims I sent her, but we do have clear evidence that Karen eventually resorted to falsifying the dates on “harassing†e-mail correspondence from me, attributing newer dates to older correspondence to show others in support of her false claims. Examples of Karen Stollznow’s falsified e-mails can be seen here.
4) Perhaps most seriously, Karen claimed that I sexually harassed and even assaulted her in a hotel room in July 2010. While it’s very difficult to conclusively prove what happened while we were alone behind closed doors, there is clear evidence suggesting that no harassment, abuse, or assault took place, including an e-mail from Karen one week after the alleged assault occurred in which she wrote to me, “Good morning to you too beautiful! My day will be spent writing about TAM and recording a podcast episode! I’ll try to get in some relaxation too. Have a wonderful day!†Karen also sent me a birthday gift and card (signed, “Lots of love, Karen xxx/ooo [hugs and kisses]â€) just two months after she now claims I sexually assaulted her (see the card here: One || Two), and as late as September 2010 Karen offered to continue our sexual affair and visit me alone at my home for a week (view the e-mail here).
5) Karen has claimed that I sexually harassed her while we were on stage on a panel together (with her now-husband Baxter seated a few feet away to her right) at a conference in Las Vegas. In fact a videotape of the only panel that we were both on at that conference is available online, and shows nothing inappropriate occurring. The video can be seen here.
There are other claims and accusations made against me, but these are the main ones.
Here’s what you will find on the other pages of this site:
Overview: A closer look at the specifics of Karen’s accusations against me, at the broader context of her claims, and detailed rebuttals.
FAQ: Concise answers to some common questions about Karen’s accusations.
Timeline: A comprehensive overview of my relationship with Karen and her accusations against me, spanning seven years.
Relationships with Stollznow: An in-depth look at Karen Stollznow’s relationships with me, Matthew Baxter, and others. This is important for understanding the nature of our relationship and demonstrates why Karen’s accusations are false.
Gifts & Correspondence: A documented and referenced refutation of Karen’s claim that I sent her harassing communications long after she repeatedly asked me to stop contacting her (“I made repeated requests for his personal communication to ceaseâ€). In fact Karen sent me over 1,000 e-mails during the time she now claims I sexually harassed her, and she repeatedly encouraged my communications and thanked me for contacting her with occasional friendly gifts.
TAM Allegations: One of the most serious accusations that Karen made was that I sexually assaulted her in a Las Vegas hotel room around July 11, 2010. This section provides an in-depth look at this accusation, and offers statements in Karen’s own words in the weeks and months after this alleged assault discrediting her claims. Karen also claimed, in statements that blogger Carrie Poppy published, that I sexually harassed her onstage at the same conference two years later (as noted above).
Karen Stollznow’s History of False Accusations: This section discusses several previous examples of Karen making false accusations against other people, including of sexual harassment and making inappropriate sexual advances. Sources of this information come from police records of her arrest on domestic violence charges, her husband, and an organization where she previously worked.
Stollznow’s Falsified Documents and Fraud: Karen fabricated evidence against me of sexual harassment, in the form of falsified-date e-mails. Karen altered the dates on at least a half-dozen e-mails to create the appearance that I sent her intimate or harassing e-mails in 2012 when in fact I did not.
There are no “winners†in cases of false accusations such as this; everyone loses, everyone is tarnished, even after the truth comes out. There are far too many genuine cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault, where the abuse (and the damage done) is very real. Where Karen provided a few hundred words of rumor, innuendo, and vague claims with no supporting evidence, I have supplied thousands of words of detailed rebuttals, supported by extensive references; original, authenticated documentation; and independent analysis. This is my final public statement on the matter. The information is there for those who wish to see it. There will be no follow-up responses, no back-and-forth discussions or debates. This concludes my public response to Karen Stollznow’s allegations. This matter will be settled in the courts through litigation, and I am very confident in the outcome. Interested parties who desire further information can access the lawsuit itself, which is public record and can be downloaded here.
These accusations have cost me greatly. They have tarnished a reputation I’ve spent nearly twenty years building; cost me opportunities and huge sums of money; they have ended valued friendships and caused both colleagues and strangers to attack me publicly. A legal defense fund has been set up by a friend of mine to help pay my legal costs in clearing my name from these false accusations. I did not set it up but I approved it and have offered items for it. Donations of any amount are appreciated, and the site can be found HERE.
Thank you.
I'm afraid it already has.Gumby wrote:If everyone had to apologize because someone, somewhere didn't do their research and decided to be mindlessly outraged, then civilization would grind to a halt.
Awesome. Thanks for the find!Tigzy wrote: Radford ups the ante! Dig in! http://benrlegal.info/
I think the palestinian rockets fired into Israel were justified given the zionist occupation policy. Also, i'm glad they killed some israelis.Git wrote:Bored now.
This wouldn't have happened if it weren't for you meddling kids!!! :lol:Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I'm afraid it already has.Gumby wrote:If everyone had to apologize because someone, somewhere didn't do their research and decided to be mindlessly outraged, then civilization would grind to a halt.
I think you suck Hitler's ghostly dick.cunt wrote:I think the palestinian rockets fired into Israel were justified given the zionist occupation policy. Also, i'm glad they killed some israelis.Git wrote:Bored now.
Ghosts don't exist. Ask Ben Radford.Clarence wrote:I think you suck Hitler's ghostly dick.cunt wrote:I think the palestinian rockets fired into Israel were justified given the zionist occupation policy. Also, i'm glad they killed some israelis.Git wrote:Bored now.
I predict a post with 10,000 comments, 500 of them from Cainaji, at the 'Gulag -- that, or total silence.Guestus Aurelius wrote::popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnqt9 ... o1_500.jpgcunt wrote:I think the palestinian rockets fired into Israel were justified given the zionist occupation policy. Also, i'm glad they killed some israelis.Git wrote:Bored now.
No, what we can agree on is if Ben Radford shot himself in the fucking head, some people would claim he did it wrong by putting the gun to his temple instead of in his mouth.Gumby wrote: If there's one thing people here seem to agree on about this mess, it's that airing legal laundry in public isn't a bright idea. I don't see how he is helping himself here.
Git wrote:http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnqt9 ... o1_500.jpgcunt wrote:I think the palestinian rockets fired into Israel were justified given the zionist occupation policy. Also, i'm glad they killed some israelis.Git wrote:Bored now.
Yes, this will be terrible for Ben. Now that he actually has to proceed with the lawsuit he threatened. Where's my wallet.Mykeru wrote:No, what we can agree on is if Ben Radford shot himself in the fucking head, some people would claim he did it wrong by putting the gun to his temple instead of in his mouth.Gumby wrote: If there's one thing people here seem to agree on about this mess, it's that airing legal laundry in public isn't a bright idea. I don't see how he is helping himself here.
Other than maybe getting a few more contributions to his legal defense fund, I don't see the benefit of putting all this info out there. And I have to wonder if his lawyer actually approved all this - there's tons of info in there, lots of things that could complicate or downright jeopardize his case. And you know her lawyers are going to be crawling all over that site. I mean, if you're filing a countersuit, is this really a good idea, putting all this shit out there?Clarence wrote: I'll leave most of the analysis to others except to say that I disagree that putting this out necessarily harms him -provided he got the 'go-ahead' after a review from his lawyer. It's possible this might sway a few people his way, esp. since we've heard pretty much nothing except HER story and that of her supporters, many of whom - lets be fair - aren't known for honesty.
Well, I certainly didn't think he shot himself in the foot here. And I'm glad he didn't shoot anywhere else. We have no idea what aces are up Karen's sleeves, but he just laid out a royal flush. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention, but it seems like Ben's allegations of date-falsifying are new, and explain a lot of shit. Easily proven, easily faked, we'll have to wait for experts/courts to rule, obviously - but this is pretty fucking damning stuff.Mykeru wrote:No, what we can agree on is if Ben Radford shot himself in the fucking head, some people would claim he did it wrong by putting the gun to his temple instead of in his mouth.Gumby wrote: If there's one thing people here seem to agree on about this mess, it's that airing legal laundry in public isn't a bright idea. I don't see how he is helping himself here.
:shock:Tigzy wrote: Radford ups the ante! Dig in! http://benrlegal.info/
You mean as an alternative to spending $60,000 in legal fees defending against a defamation you think is clearly bullshit?Garlic wrote::shock:Tigzy wrote: Radford ups the ante! Dig in! http://benrlegal.info/
Assuming this website is legit, he's going for the "Glass Parking Lot" legal technique...
He's claiming that Stollznow falsified email dates, and that she has a documented history of false accusations. He's showing a full FB message from Baxter (allegedly), in which Baxter (supposedly) explains at length how Karen is basically a delusional loon.
He's also publishing Stollznow's domestic violence arrest report - with her mugshots ! :o
Question to the 'pit legal luminaries: does it really make sense to publish all that stuff (even assuming it's true) before trial?
Is he saying that boy toddlers are oppressors who deserve to be raped with scalpels ? Is he insane ?A lot of feminists are anti-circumcision. Both Female and Male. Now Female genital mutilation is on many scales worse than the male equivalent, but we often see MRA derail conversations about FGM with conversations about men.9. You find the idea of genital mutilation of a man being joked about on live television hysterically funny but claim misandry doesn’t exist.
Humour punches up. Male circumcision and getting kicked in the crotch is funny for the same reason falling down the stairs is funny. It is because it is someone in power getting hurt by an attack on one of the things that gives him power. While hitting a woman is not funny since women are routinely hit by men and it’s a major problem.
I first heard about it from a tweet by Radford himself: https://twitter.com/BTRadford/status/451490738073657344ERV wrote:Is that site real or April Fools? I'm seriously, you guys.
I read "a point of view" not "the point of view".Guestus Aurelius wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/opinion/s ... index.html
:roll:
Hope this writer never makes it past "adjunct professor." What a stupid fucking asshole.
Here is a gem:
So Park and her brigade of hypersensitive twits "represent [the] point of view ... [of] liberals, racial minorities, [and] the underprivileged"? Really? Did you poll "liberals, racial minorities, [and] the underprivileged" to see if they overwhelmingly agree with Park? Methinks not, and methinks your generalization is wrong and frankly more racist and offensive by far than Colbert's satire.Many of Colbert's defenders have been asking why Park and her followers should get to decide what Colbert can and cannot say? Who cares what they think?
Colbert should care what they think. Park and her followers represent a point of view that Colbert takes himself to be speaking for, liberals, racial minorities, the underprivileged. As a privileged white male, Colbert (just like the character he plays) gets his license to use what would otherwise be outrageous language because of his associations to those communities themselves.
And I would want to state that I don't care about Jen McReight's parents one bit.Struth wrote:Aneris wrote:He might be a total cunt, but he is right. The death of my parents is my worst fear. When I read of Jen's case today, I felt only sympathy.
I would like to echo your sentiments.
I stopped reading it. It's sad. It's really, really, sad.Tigzy wrote:I first heard about it from a tweet by Radford himself: https://twitter.com/BTRadford/status/451490738073657344ERV wrote:Is that site real or April Fools? I'm seriously, you guys.
ERV wrote:Is that site real or April Fools? I'm seriously, you guys.
So, it's just beg on the internet and the money flows, eh?Gumby wrote:If there's one thing people here seem to agree on about this mess, it's that airing legal laundry in public isn't a bright idea. I don't see how he is helping himself here.Tigzy wrote: Radford ups the ante! Dig in! http://benrlegal.info/
On the bright side, his legal defense fund is almost at $500! Woo-hoo!
JacquesCuze wrote:You mean as an alternative to spending $60,000 in legal fees defending against a defamation you think is clearly bullshit?Garlic wrote::shock:Tigzy wrote: Radford ups the ante! Dig in! http://benrlegal.info/
Assuming this website is legit, he's going for the "Glass Parking Lot" legal technique...
He's claiming that Stollznow falsified email dates, and that she has a documented history of false accusations. He's showing a full FB message from Baxter (allegedly), in which Baxter (supposedly) explains at length how Karen is basically a delusional loon.
He's also publishing Stollznow's domestic violence arrest report - with her mugshots ! :o
Question to the 'pit legal luminaries: does it really make sense to publish all that stuff (even assuming it's true) before trial?
What were his alternatives to threatening a lawsuit?cunt wrote:Yes, this will be terrible for Ben. Now that he actually has to proceed with the lawsuit he threatened. Where's my wallet.
But did the Palestinians dual-wielded the rocket launchers? That's the real question.Clarence wrote:I think you suck Hitler's ghostly dick.cunt wrote:I think the palestinian rockets fired into Israel were justified given the zionist occupation policy. Also, i'm glad they killed some israelis.Git wrote:Bored now.
:clap: :clap: :clap:Mykeru wrote:"I haz thouzandz of ur dollers"
I am suing you. I would prefer not to, I can't afford it. Even if I win, I know you'll never be able to pay my lawyer fees, but you forced me to, so we are going to trial. It's set for June. By the way, here is all of my evidence, including surprise your arrest report, and if you read it you can see I've got you nailed six ways from Sunday.Garlic wrote:JacquesCuze wrote:You mean as an alternative to spending $60,000 in legal fees defending against a defamation you think is clearly bullshit?Garlic wrote: Assuming this website is legit, he's going for the "Glass Parking Lot" legal technique...
He's claiming that Stollznow falsified email dates, and that she has a documented history of false accusations. He's showing a full FB message from Baxter (allegedly), in which Baxter (supposedly) explains at length how Karen is basically a delusional loon.
He's also publishing Stollznow's domestic violence arrest report - with her mugshots ! :o
Question to the 'pit legal luminaries: does it really make sense to publish all that stuff (even assuming it's true) before trial?
But it's not "an alternative". He's going forward with the litigation. I can't see that helping him at a trial, but IANAL.
Looking forward to Stollznow and Baxter's response... Or lack thereof, due to actually listening to legal advice.
No, he's wrong. My mom died when I was 14. You'll get over it. If that's your worst fear, I hope you're never alone in an elevator with Karen Stollznow.Aneris wrote:He might be a total cunt, but he is right. The death of my parents is my worst fear. When I read of Jen's case today, I felt only sympathy.
That to me is the only logical reason (from a legal standpoint) to post all this shit. Of course, he could have just communicated all this through attorneys. However, maybe he just wanted to wallop her in public the way she's been doing to him lately. It's an understandable impulse.JacquesCuze wrote: I am suing you. I would prefer not to, I can't afford it. Even if I win, I know you'll never be able to pay my lawyer fees, but you forced me to, so we are going to trial. It's set for June. By the way, here is all of my evidence, including surprise your arrest report, and if you read it you can see I've got you nailed six ways from Sunday.
Are you sure you don't want to consider that retraction again?
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Stollznow is toast.
And now we have an explanation for the "Kubrick Face."
I love it when you talk dirty.Lsuoma wrote:Going down for new thread. Back soon.
It probably worked out for you so well because you were so young. I was older when my grandparents died (whom I grew up with as a child), and the damage to my entire personality was immense.Apples wrote:No, he's wrong. My mom died when I was 14. You'll get over it. If that's your worst fear, I hope you're never alone in an elevator with Karen Stollznow.Aneris wrote:He might be a total cunt, but he is right. The death of my parents is my worst fear. When I read of Jen's case today, I felt only sympathy.
Totes marriage material, Baxter.My relationship with Karen has been a rocky one. She is the most enchanting,
wonderful, spiteful, insecure, grudge-harboring woman I have ever met. The thing
that worries me is the signs that she is either a huge liar or delusional
My dad died shortly after I got my BS, so pretty young. But I thought I was a big grown adult and wouldn't be affected.TiBo wrote:It probably worked out for you so well because you were so young. I was older when my grandparents died (whom I grew up with as a child), and the damage to my entire personality was immense.Apples wrote:[.quote="Aneris"]He might be a total cunt, but he is right. The death of my parents is my worst fear. When I read of Jen's case today, I felt only sympathy.[./quote]No, he's wrong. My mom died when I was 14. You'll get over it. If that's your worst fear, I hope you're never alone in an elevator with Karen Stollznow.