Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

@Really? and DeepInsideYourMind
The issue to me is that if you make a joint statement and you agree to it, the whole point is to make a joint statement. If one side, for whatever reason steps away from it, or appears to step away from it, the whole excersize is moot. I don't regard it a "brain falls out" case, because Stollznow could have agreed to it, and could later have decided against it and it could be consistent with anything else we know. In addition, I would not suspend judgement if it wasn't contested. But it apparently is and I have no way of knowing better than the people who claim the letter is fake.

You can get a joint statement relatively easily if the other side is struggling ... forcing the other party to capitulate in public, bend over in sorrow, beg for forgiveness etc etc is damn near impossible. She may well have agreed to forward a retraction to journals/blogs/etc where her claims were published, getting her to publish generally would be a big ask of a court.

The legal system doesn't work as clearly as it might be wished sometimes

[Southern]

I've missed the letter incident, but it appears to me that one side denies that the letter is legit and Karen Stollznow's tweet (posted a page or two ago) to be more skeptical refers to this. The letter was posted by Radford, but sounds like a joint statement. Striclty speaking, we don't know if Stollznow supports it. She would have to release it as well, and did she? If not, it's possibly not a joint statement and thus not to be taken seriously.

It seems that Radford and that woman who I didn't care enough to memorize would go on and say that the statement was, indeed, signed/notarized/approved by Stollznow and/or her lawyer if it wasn't. Also, it would be very strange if the shabang wasn't true for her not to release a statement (or even a fucking Tweet) saying something like "I didn't sign anything; Radford is lying about that". That certainly wouldn't cause harm in any legal action that may be happening as of now, because it would be a statement of fact. In fact, I think that would make Radford lose any chance of winning any court case, because then she would have a documented proof that Radford is harassing her. That would be the stuff dreams of her defense lawyer were made of.

The fact that she didn't say anything but an oblique bullshit that may or not be about the case is clearly bullcrap. Your Honor, I rest my case.

[Southern]

It really is all about her. And her fainting couch.

(I don't wish ill health on her, obviously.)

You don't? I do. She can die drowning on her own puke, for all I care. It's clearly what her want, so whatever, cupcake, just go dark and never come to the light again. Then, as the lyrics says, I can go all "oh well, whatever, never mind".

[katamari Damassi]

i would pay/donate money to watch drag queen Coco Peru play video games:

[youtube]G6Y5xLvYdMM[/youtube]

Incidentally drag is a hate crime to SJW's.

More proof that SJWs are worthless because that video was freaking fantastic!
And I think I'm half in love with Coco!
hehehe
Not sure I can pick a favorite part. Getting up to make a cup of tea while simply stopped at a red light, with a quick flash to the game showing the resulting traffic clusterfuck was a very subtle and terribly quirky moment that was perfectly done.
Just one example out of so many.
Oh and that he just loved being able to hit the chick who wouldn't stop texting and enjoy the view. lol
Super fun respite from the drama, katamari.
I'm still grinning :D

Yay! Glad you liked it.

[KiwiInOz]

It really is all about her. And her fainting couch.

(I don't wish ill health on her, obviously.)

You don't? I do. She can die drowning on her own puke, for all I care. It's clearly what her want, so whatever, cupcake, just go dark and never come to the light again. Then, as the lyrics says, I can go all "oh well, whatever, never mind".

I don't know why people react to MsAndery. She is an obvious agent provocateur aka troll. Trolling for the lolz. Sort of like our cunt.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Stollznow is likely radioactive at this point, and deservedly. Also, a TAM talk on 'alien languages'? Is that even worth the time? I've concluded that TAM and JREF are largely a waste of time, just a 'Ha ha, we're so superior to History Channel viewers' circle-jerk.

Most skeptics & atheists I know have never even heard of these incestuous little orgs and their conferences.

[HoneyWagon]

Came across this.
Can this be added to the list of FTBloggers that are still stating Ben is guilty (at least of lying)?
http://i.imgur.com/RxJYPHG.png

https://www.facebook.com/mgafm/posts/10100553458995557

She assumes she is correct.
She DOES have access I assume to FTB related hidden channels as she blogs there.
We will see more of this if she felt safe to post this.

[HoneyWagon]

Stollznow is likely radioactive at this point, and deservedly. Also, a TAM talk on 'alien languages'? Is that even worth the time? I've concluded that TAM and JREF are largely a waste of time, just a 'Ha ha, we're so superior to History Channel viewers' circle-jerk.

Most skeptics & atheists I know have never even heard of these incestuous little orgs and their conferences.

That last part is likely true.
But TAM is pretty fun.
And now that the FTBloggers and Skepchicks no longer attend, it is a lot funner.

I have no idea how this Karen/Ben issue will affect TAM.
Ben used to attend, but could not last year related to this. And Karen CURRENTLY is listed as a speaker for this year's TAM.
This latest news as the dust settles (if it ever does) may change that.

[CommanderTuvok]

Came across this.
Can this be added to the list of FTBloggers that are still stating Ben is guilty (at least of lying)?
http://i.imgur.com/RxJYPHG.png

https://www.facebook.com/mgafm/posts/10100553458995557

She assumes she is correct.
She DOES have access I assume to FTB related hidden channels as she blogs there.
We will see more of this if she felt safe to post this.

It's now gone. I think. Anyone else tried the link?

[Really?]

Stollznow is likely radioactive at this point, and deservedly. Also, a TAM talk on 'alien languages'? Is that even worth the time? I've concluded that TAM and JREF are largely a waste of time, just a 'Ha ha, we're so superior to History Channel viewers' circle-jerk.

Most skeptics & atheists I know have never even heard of these incestuous little orgs and their conferences.

That last part is likely true.
But TAM is pretty fun.
And now that the FTBloggers and Skepchicks no longer attend, it is a lot funner.

I have no idea how this Karen/Ben issue will affect TAM.
Ben used to attend, but could not last year related to this. And Karen CURRENTLY is listed as a speaker for this year's TAM.
This latest news as the dust settles (if it ever does) may change that.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/wp-conte ... talong.jpg

[Lsuoma]

Came across this.
Can this be added to the list of FTBloggers that are still stating Ben is guilty (at least of lying)?
http://i.imgur.com/RxJYPHG.png

https://www.facebook.com/mgafm/posts/10100553458995557

She assumes she is correct.
She DOES have access I assume to FTB related hidden channels as she blogs there.
We will see more of this if she felt safe to post this.

Oog. I don't like Donald Prothero's comment. Sounds like a NAMALT comment to me. He wrote a fantastic book on evolution and palæontology, and I don't like to think that he might be a mangina/fellow traveler. :( :( :(

[HoneyWagon]

Came across this.
Can this be added to the list of FTBloggers that are still stating Ben is guilty (at least of lying)?
http://i.imgur.com/RxJYPHG.png

https://www.facebook.com/mgafm/posts/10100553458995557

She assumes she is correct.
She DOES have access I assume to FTB related hidden channels as she blogs there.
We will see more of this if she felt safe to post this.

It's now gone. I think. Anyone else tried the link?

Still works for me.

[Lsuoma]

Came across this.
Can this be added to the list of FTBloggers that are still stating Ben is guilty (at least of lying)?
[bimg]http://i.imgur.com/RxJYPHG.png[/bimg]

https://www.facebook.com/mgafm/posts/10100553458995557

She assumes she is correct.
She DOES have access I assume to FTB related hidden channels as she blogs there.
We will see more of this if she felt safe to post this.

It's now gone. I think. Anyone else tried the link?

Showing as unavailable for me.

I'm guessing that lots of SJLers are posting stuff willy-nilly then getting messages from various quarters telling then to STFU and pull that shit they've posted since it's inflammatory. If-you've-posted-inflammatory-shit-then-memory-hole-it seems to be in Part Two Orders all around SJLville today.

[HoneyWagon]

Came across this.
Can this be added to the list of FTBloggers that are still stating Ben is guilty (at least of lying)?
http://i.imgur.com/RxJYPHG.png

https://www.facebook.com/mgafm/posts/10100553458995557

She assumes she is correct.
She DOES have access I assume to FTB related hidden channels as she blogs there.
We will see more of this if she felt safe to post this.

Oog. I don't like Donald Prothero's comment. Sounds like a NAMALT comment to me. He wrote a fantastic book on evolution and palæontology, and I don't like to think that he might be a mangina/fellow traveler. :( :( :(

I think he may be trying to play the fence.
He works for Michael Shermer, and hasn't said any stuff about him last I heard.

[HoneyWagon]

Ashley's post is still there.
I guess evil misogynists can't see it.

Sorry.

[Really?]

Ashley's post is still there.
I guess evil misogynists can't see it.

Sorry.

FTB won't work for me in one browser, but will in another. Perhaps the browser is part of the Patriarchy.

[Skep tickle]

Ms. Benson tweeted a contribution to #UpForDebate w/in the past day. I've been following that hashtag, out of interest.

Her tweet said something like (and this is only from memory, may not be verbatim):

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights is WRONG because it's not #UpForDebate".

I puzzled a bit over that, then decided she was probably trying to say that it would be ridiculous to try to debate, or call "wrong", the UDHR, probably because it's assumed that it's clearly such an important & impressive document. (Obviously that's a guess on my part.) Normally I wouldn't reply to one of her tweets, but this one seemed to call for it.

My reply is below...but now it hangs solo, because she deleted her tweet after my reply.

From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

1) In Article 2, "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are IMO notably absent:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

(one could say they're covered under "other status" - but not every country that's endorsed this document would agree)

2) Male terms are used throughout to refer to all people. Article 1 ends with "spirit of brotherhood". "He", "his", "him", and "himself" are used at least 13 times in the document, with no female or fluidly-gendered pronouns not appearing at all.

Not mentioned in my tweet, the UDHR elsewhere pretty clearly endorses heteronormativity and is breeder-centered (Articles 16 & 25). It seems to endorse charter schools (Article 26).

Perhaps she's taken the opportunity today to read it more closely...or maybe she just didn't want to have anything to do with me. :lol:

[James Caruthers]

"We need more women in skepticism(atheism/feminism/MRM/science/etc etc etc)" trumps every single other concern. Every single one.

Nowadays all of the communities relevant to my hobbies are facing a wave of this nonsense. I don't see why it matters what reproductive organs are the majority in your community. The important thing to have in any hobby community is people who care passionately about the hobby. All these feminists or college gender studies majors like Anita go around looking for hobbies they think exclude people like themselves, so they can barge in and preach feminist party lines pulled from their last term at university. If Anita had gone into gaming with a genuine desire to experience video games and enjoy them as art, she would have found many, many people on her side, welcoming her with open arms. BUT... She wouldn't have become e-famous or get 100k for free for starting drama and playing up her victim narrative. Same for Adrea Richards. If she had asked those guys politely to shut up, they probably would have. She could even have used it at as a chance to talk about her concerns regarding gender (in a non-confrontational way, keeping the jokesters anon, of course) and maybe even make her company look good by building bridges in the face of what she saw as sexist behavior.

http://i.imgur.com/J8VPG.jpg

When I look at communities I'm not a part of (like war gaming), where people care passionately about their hobby, I can see that, even if there are mostly penis-owners there, women are not being treated badly. Everyone is there to enjoy their hobby. There will unfortunately be assholes in every group, but when you genuinely care about a subject and learn all you can, others will accept and welcome you. No hobby is or should be a "safe space" for precious feelings. Not everyone will be nice, but most will. Because I think most people in hobby communities are generally decent.

Except for my Nazi Rape Club. Because we're all rapists, and we worship Hitler.

[James Caruthers]

I've missed the letter incident, but it appears to me that one side denies that the letter is legit and Karen Stollznow's tweet (posted a page or two ago) to be more skeptical refers to this. The letter was posted by Radford, but sounds like a joint statement. Striclty speaking, we don't know if Stollznow supports it. She would have to release it as well, and did she? If not, it's possibly not a joint statement and thus not to be taken seriously.

She has not responded to any of the many tweets sent by myself and others asking her to clarify her position.

In my opinion, Stollznow is trying to have it all ways. She wants the benefit of the apology (Radford not kicking her arse in court) while retaining the advantage of her friends assuming Radford faked the letter.

I mean, how hard would it be to confirm or deny the validity of the letter? One sentence on twitter would bring everything to light. So... Why is Radford the only one talking? Why wouldn't Stollznow, who was happy to publicize accusations against Radford before, now refuse to accuse Radford of forging an apology?

It's probably legit, in my humble opinion.

[James Caruthers]

"Why WOULD Stollznow now refuse to accuse Radford."

I keep raping my edit button with the mouse cursor, but nothing happens!

[JacquesCuze]

Ms. Benson tweeted a contribution to #UpForDebate w/in the past day. I've been following that hashtag, out of interest.

Her tweet said something like (and this is only from memory, may not be verbatim):

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights is WRONG because it's not #UpForDebate".

I puzzled a bit over that, then decided she was probably trying to say that it would be ridiculous to try to debate, or call "wrong", the UDHR, probably because it's assumed that it's clearly such an important & impressive document. (Obviously that's a guess on my part.) Normally I wouldn't reply to one of her tweets, but this one seemed to call for it.

My reply is below...but now it hangs solo, because she deleted her tweet after my reply.

From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

1) In Article 2, "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are IMO notably absent:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

(one could say they're covered under "other status" - but not every country that's endorsed this document would agree)

2) Male terms are used throughout to refer to all people. Article 1 ends with "spirit of brotherhood". "He", "his", "him", and "himself" are used at least 13 times in the document, with no female or fluidly-gendered pronouns not appearing at all.

Not mentioned in my tweet, the UDHR elsewhere pretty clearly endorses heteronormativity and is breeder-centered (Articles 16 & 25). It seems to endorse charter schools (Article 26).

Perhaps she's taken the opportunity today to read it more closely...or maybe she just didn't want to have anything to do with me. :lol:

I am a terrible student of history, but I believe we can see that recognition of human rights grows over time, but I guess if the UDHR is not up for debate, well, I have to consider it fixed and infallible, much like the Church(?).

[Skep tickle]

I don't care about you or your irrelevant opinions, and here is my several-thousand-word-eight-part-soliloquy-plus-a-post-script (starting at comment 99) explaining as much.

- Louis

:lol:

LOOK AT ME! I'M IGNORING YOU! SEE! SEE!

Oh, ha ha. And Chas' reply:

23 March 2014 at 9:26 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Louis: Bite me.

Charles

[James Caruthers]

No, what you are doing is assuming that someone who did something as vindictive passive-aggressive as Stollznow, shocked into reality by lawyers words on paper, suddenly became a rational actor.

She was pissed at Radford for slights real and imagined and expended quite a bit of effort to totally screw with him. Mostly by plying bullshit conduits like Carrie Poppy under the table. You think now that she's been exposed she took a deep breath and has gotten over it? No, if anything, she's fuming that what was planned to harm Radford might actually, in the worst "life is not fair to me" manner, actually harm her a bit.

On the other hand, I'm happy for you that your relationships have been all sunshine, marshmallow peeps and pink kitten assholes and you've never had to deal with a sick fucker like this.

/victim cred.

This guy knows what's up.

That said, I am open to Stollznow changing my mind. All she has to do is type a single sentence into her goddamn twitter to settle the issue for all time.

Hmm, wonder why she isn't doing that?

[DeepInsideYourMind]

No, what you are doing is assuming that someone who did something as vindictive passive-aggressive as Stollznow, shocked into reality by lawyers words on paper, suddenly became a rational actor.

She was pissed at Radford for slights real and imagined and expended quite a bit of effort to totally screw with him. Mostly by plying bullshit conduits like Carrie Poppy under the table. You think now that she's been exposed she took a deep breath and has gotten over it? No, if anything, she's fuming that what was planned to harm Radford might actually, in the worst "life is not fair to me" manner, actually harm her a bit.

On the other hand, I'm happy for you that your relationships have been all sunshine, marshmallow peeps and pink kitten assholes and you've never had to deal with a sick fucker like this.

/victim cred.

This guy knows what's up.

That said, I am open to Stollznow changing my mind. All she has to do is type a single sentence into her goddamn twitter to settle the issue for all time.

Hmm, wonder why she isn't doing that?

A woman scorned.... oh wait, is that sexist?

[Skep tickle]

I am a terrible student of history, but I believe we can see that recognition of human rights grows over time, but I guess if the UDHR is not up for debate, well, I have to consider it fixed and infallible, much like the Church(?).

Not #UpForDebate = sacrosanct, I figure.

But, yeah, the UDHR is pretty amazing for its time but now appears dated in parts, not surprising since it was written in the late 1940's.

[Garlic]

That said, I am open to Stollznow changing my mind. All she has to do is type a single sentence into her goddamn twitter to settle the issue for all time.

Hmm, wonder why she isn't doing that?

The obvious possibility is that lawyering is actually still ongoing behind the scene.

Come to think of it, that would also explain the curious silence from PZ, and Ashley Miller's FB post.

[Michael J]

That said, I am open to Stollznow changing my mind. All she has to do is type a single sentence into her goddamn twitter to settle the issue for all time.

Hmm, wonder why she isn't doing that?

The obvious possibility is that lawyering is actually still ongoing behind the scene.

Come to think of it, that would also explain the curious silence from PZ, and Ashley Miller's FB post.

I think that Radford did a bum deal which didn't require Stollznow to publicly acknowledge the letter. So she can keep her mouth shut and all of her allies can start yelling fake.

[Really?]

That said, I am open to Stollznow changing my mind. All she has to do is type a single sentence into her goddamn twitter to settle the issue for all time.

Hmm, wonder why she isn't doing that?

The obvious possibility is that lawyering is actually still ongoing behind the scene.

Come to think of it, that would also explain the curious silence from PZ, and Ashley Miller's FB post.

I think that Radford did a bum deal which didn't require Stollznow to publicly acknowledge the letter. So she can keep her mouth shut and all of her allies can start yelling fake.

Either way, we're all looking forward to TAM. We need a 'Pitter livetweeting it.

[DownThunder]

Either way, we're all looking forward to TAM. We need a 'Pitter livetweeting it.

Phil Giordana is putting out the signal now:

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs20/i/2007/ ... OnLine.jpg

[Steersman]

Again, I’m most definitely not saying that “what she says must be true”, only that there are any number of plausible scenarios of what actually “went down”, any number of possible events underlying her accusations and his responses:
a) she was assaulted as she described;
b) she misconstrued some or all of the events;
c) Radford was a spurned lover obsessed with loss of “privilege” and was far too pushy in trying to recover it;
d) she was a mean and vindictive woman seeking revenge for being “taken advantage of”;
e) she’s a ditzy broad who doesn’t know her own mind and was brain-washed with PZ’s fem-speak.

Very good, Steers-dick, especially d) and e), packed as they are with loaded language. Which is quite odd for someone who so parses everyone else's every phrase. Here d) portrays her as "mean and vindictive", but as it gives with one hand it takes away with the other in that the rationale was her being "taken advantage of". That is, she is just giving out just desserts for being a victim in some way or another. Whereas e) still portrays her as a victim. Sure she's "ditzy" and "doesn't know her own mind". Set aside having to buy into the complex question part of the use of those premises, but here she's been "taken advantage of" again.

Why not try f) She's a woman with agency who chose to vilify Ben Radford not only as "blowback" from a failed relationship, but because within the insular FTB/Secular Woman part of the skeptical community she was attempting to make inroads into, claims of sexual assault give one automatic golden victim credibility. ….

Top form and cogent analysis there Mykeru - bonehead. I’ll concede that there was an element of “the poor waif who was taken advantage of” in several of those scenarios of mine – maybe a bit of bias of my own seeping in. Although I had thought that the “mean and vindictive” suggested a disproportionate response that might hypothetically and reasonably be laid at her doorstep and her agency – which seems more or less consistent with your “vilify Radford as blowback”.

However, my argument, and one really broached first by Skep Tickle, was that there are any number of possible scenarios that could have taken place, and any number of motivations for the principle players – both Radford and Stollznow. Which you’ve elaborated on or added to - there and later. And to which we might now add a few more given the “pregnant” silence from Ms. Stollznow, and some questionable aspects of the “dissemination” of the supposed agreement by Mr. Radford. But the point is still, I think and absent sufficient evidence to quantify the probabilities of all of those possibilities, that it is wise to withhold judgement as long as possible or as long as necessary.

You see, dear Steers, maybe where there's smoke there's fire, but be careful how the wind shifts.

Indeed. Why I think it generally pays to be as fair as one possibly can – making noisy demands for the application of some principle or some judgement, particularly of a draconian nature, to someone else when it might well turn out to apply more to oneself tends to make for a particularly sticky wicket. Sort of a "You cut the cake, I choose" - or vice versa - approach to morality.

[Dick Strawkins]

I am a terrible student of history, but I believe we can see that recognition of human rights grows over time, but I guess if the UDHR is not up for debate, well, I have to consider it fixed and infallible, much like the Church(?).

Not #UpForDebate = sacrosanct, I figure.

But, yeah, the UDHR is pretty amazing for its time but now appears dated in parts, not surprising since it was written in the late 1940's.

The 'Not-Up-For-Debate' policy as regards abortion sticks in my craw for the simple reason that it highlights the parochial nature of the US secular/atheist movement in regards womens rights.

The principle behind their inflexible stance appears to be that the rights of women to have an abortion have been secured by the Roe versus Wade ruling. Any open discussion of this topic risks hardening the public opinion against this decision and in turn increases the chances of overturning Roe v Wade in the future.

So don't talk about abortion rights, about limitations, about personhood, about viability, about any of the things that can be legitimately viewed differently amongst the population based on their own value judgements - all of which really boil down to the question of which point along the developmental pathway from fertilized egg to birth, does a fetus gain any rights whatsoever.
Instead claim that these are univerally decided questions - of the same sort as whether slavery is wrong.

This is where I have a problem.
IF we say that abortion rights are universally fixed at this point - that there should be not only no chance of changing them in any way, but no chance of even discussing the topic, then what happens when women from Ireland ask "what about us?" Indeed women from most Catholic majority countries face similar problems with access to abortion services.

In Ireland the right to an abortion in a medical emergency became law only within the past few months, following the death of Savita Halappanavar who died of a severe infection after she was refused a termination. The reason the law changed was due to Irish people taking exactly the opposite stance to that advocated by the SJWs. In other words they insisted that abortion was not a topic beyond the pale of public discussion. It was something that could be debated by adults in an open way.

Even now the provisions for abortion in Ireland are almost non-existent. The only way that first trimester abortions are ever going to become a right for Irish women is that the subject is allowed to be discussed. At present the anti-choice side in Ireland and other majority Catholic countries tend to behave in the same way that the SJWs do - insist that the abortion question is decided, and that it is immoral to even bring it up.

Ophelia Benson frequently covers the Irish abortion stories. She must know that her stance of supporting the status quo (the questioon is decided - nothing to see here, move along now) is harmful to Irish women and yet she continues to do so.

[Mykeru]

On the other hand, I'm happy for you that your relationships have been all sunshine, marshmallow peeps and pink kitten assholes and you've never had to deal with a sick fucker like this.

/victim cred.

LOL.

Mykeru's ex-wife. :lol:

[/Cunt]

As always, Mykeru, you are a voice of (always honest and well-considered) reason. No bullshit. I have something of a mancrush on you. Would you sign the papers to become my daddy? We could do it in public, and publish the video on YouTube.

Plus, you write beautifully, which is a skill much in evidence here on the Pit (Ape+Lust, Apples, Gumby, Jan Steen, that Glomerulus fella). We are indeed lucky to have evaded Meyers's grasp, where the sparkling main attractions are Louis with his 5,000-word essays describing how little he cares about someone, and Nerd of Redhead who has still not been proven to be a human, rather than a Turing-test-entry algorithm.

Thank you. I should note, though, before any Cunt-level confusion results, that my ex-wife and my psycho-ex girlfriend were completely different kettle of fish.

[Jan Steen]

201
hjhornbeck

24 March 2014 at 2:05 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Does anyone have a copy of this comment?

“Amy Stoker: It’s signed by Karen and notarized. Ben was over at my house tonight. I’m sure Ben will address this in the morning or at some point. For tonight he wanted to focus on those family and friends that have been by his side.”

Because when I went back to Radford’s page, I didn’t see it there. If it was truly deleted, and I’m not missing something, it might be evidence Radford was making false statements about his legal case. Some confirmation would be nice, triply so if it then winds up in the hands of Stollznow’s lawyers.

Take note. The three following words are rarely seen together and in this order without being followed by a question mark. Hornbeck is right.

Well, at least about the comment having disappeared.

I still think that if Stollznow did not in fact retract her accusations, this would make Radford the most stupid liar since Greg Laden, who in his review of <i>The Happy Atheist</i> stated that it is not a collection of blog posts. That is setting a high bar indeed.

[guest]

201
hjhornbeck

24 March 2014 at 2:05 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Does anyone have a copy of this comment?

“Amy Stoker: It’s signed by Karen and notarized. Ben was over at my house tonight. I’m sure Ben will address this in the morning or at some point. For tonight he wanted to focus on those family and friends that have been by his side.”

Because when I went back to Radford’s page, I didn’t see it there. If it was truly deleted, and I’m not missing something, it might be evidence Radford was making false statements about his legal case. Some confirmation would be nice, triply so if it then winds up in the hands of Stollznow’s lawyers.

Take note. The three following words are rarely seen together and in this order without being followed by a question mark. Hornbeck is right.

Well, at least about the comment having disappeared.

I still think that if Stollznow did not in fact retract her accusations, this would make Radford the most stupid liar since Greg Laden, who in his review of <i>The Happy Atheist</i> stated that it is not a collection of blog posts. That is setting a high bar indeed.

it's been deleted. But enough eeyes saw it to note it.

A screenshot. You should keep records if people are deleting evidence

Dr barbara dresher looks to be pulling out but Rachael Dunlop will make the next TAM a lot of fun

http://www.anony.ws/i/2014/03/24/ia79X.th.png

[justinvacula]

Either way, we're all looking forward to TAM. We need a 'Pitter livetweeting it.

Phil Giordana is putting out the signal now:

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs20/i/2007/ ... OnLine.jpg

I see the signal!

[justinvacula]

Scathing criticisms of Alcoholics Anonymous:

There is a large body of evidence now looking at AA success rate, and the success rate of AA is between 5 and 10 percent. Most people don't seem to know that because it's not widely publicized. ... There are some studies that have claimed to show scientifically that AA is useful. These studies are riddled with scientific errors and they say no more than what we knew to begin with, which is that AA has probably the worst success rate in all of medicine.

It's not only that AA has a 5 to 10 percent success rate; if it was successful and was neutral the rest of the time, we'd say OK. But it's harmful to the 90 percent who don't do well. And it's harmful for several important reasons. One of them is that everyone believes that AA is the right treatment. AA is never wrong, according to AA. If you fail in AA, it's you that's failed.

[justinvacula]

Oderus Ungerus of GWAR is reported dead :(

[youtube]xhKuo7dhcm4[/youtube]

[Hunt]

201
hjhornbeck

24 March 2014 at 2:05 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Does anyone have a copy of this comment?

“Amy Stoker: It’s signed by Karen and notarized. Ben was over at my house tonight. I’m sure Ben will address this in the morning or at some point. For tonight he wanted to focus on those family and friends that have been by his side.”

Because when I went back to Radford’s page, I didn’t see it there. If it was truly deleted, and I’m not missing something, it might be evidence Radford was making false statements about his legal case. Some confirmation would be nice, triply so if it then winds up in the hands of Stollznow’s lawyers.

Take note. The three following words are rarely seen together and in this order without being followed by a question mark. Hornbeck is right.

Well, at least about the comment having disappeared.

I still think that if Stollznow did not in fact retract her accusations, this would make Radford the most stupid liar since Greg Laden, who in his review of <i>The Happy Atheist</i> stated that it is not a collection of blog posts. That is setting a high bar indeed.

I'm not sure what use there would be leaving things as they are. If Radford is on the up and up, it's pretty obvious that a jpeg of a retraction letter isn't going to convince his enemies, and even most of those who hope he's for real but don't know him are a little confused by this ambiguity. That's not an environment that is going to repair anyone's reputation. I have a feeling another shoe is going to drop. On the other hand, as much as I'd like to think there's nobody dumb enough to publish a picture of a bogus retraction letter, people never fail to surprise me...

[Brive1987]

Wait, Amy's comment has been deleted? Well that's concerning considering it was the only direct link we had to the document having (independently sourced) merit.

So all we are left with is:

The retraction is real, and Karen has agreed to it.

"Agreed" is a pretty piss weak term.

Plus a letter with no header / footer or even a place to sign/date.

Radford and his team really need something that looks and operates like a damn PLAN. This is a PR guys, and right now you are confusing the troops.

[guest]

http://www.anony.ws/i/2014/03/24/3wyzj.png

[guest]

Image no work.

http://www.anony.ws/kyma

seriously if you want evidence lighten up on teh spam blockin guys

[ROBOKiTTY]

I saw the image in your first post.

[ROBOKiTTY]

I see, rather. Silly edit button.

[welch]

No, what you are doing is assuming that someone who did something as vindictive passive-aggressive as Stollznow, shocked into reality by lawyers words on paper, suddenly became a rational actor.

She was pissed at Radford for slights real and imagined and expended quite a bit of effort to totally screw with him. Mostly by plying bullshit conduits like Carrie Poppy under the table. You think now that she's been exposed she took a deep breath and has gotten over it? No, if anything, she's fuming that what was planned to harm Radford might actually, in the worst "life is not fair to me" manner, actually harm her a bit.

On the other hand, I'm happy for you that your relationships have been all sunshine, marshmallow peeps and pink kitten assholes and you've never had to deal with a sick fucker like this.

/victim cred.

This guy knows what's up.

That said, I am open to Stollznow changing my mind. All she has to do is type a single sentence into her goddamn twitter to settle the issue for all time.

Hmm, wonder why she isn't doing that?

Because at this point, she has to decide who she wants hating her forever, and who's potentially more dangerous. We've already seen how FTB/Skepchicks react to such things.

[justinvacula]

I pop in on Miller's thread to say that Radford fibbing is highly improbable. This follows.

[Scented Nectar]

Wait, Amy's comment has been deleted? Well that's concerning considering it was the only direct link we had to the document having (independently sourced) merit.

So all we are left with is:

The retraction is real, and Karen has agreed to it.

"Agreed" is a pretty piss weak term.

Plus a letter with no header / footer or even a place to sign/date.

Radford and his team really need something that looks and operates like a damn PLAN. This is a PR guys, and right now you are confusing the troops.

The header/signature issue has been fully explained. It would have been doxxing had he included signatures (privacy issue / identity theft risk). The header also would be risky. It would have Karen's full legal name and possibly her address. Ben already explained that it is signed and that he is not showing the signatures for privacy reasons. Had he done it differently, he'd have brought on a legitimate complaint upon himself.

And if Ben had faked the letter, Karen would have immediately yelled/typed very loudly that it's a lie. At the least, she would have said something like "my lawyer's on it; I can't discuss any details however".

The letter being a fake is probably the most unlikely explanation. The idiot feminists can't see how illogical they are for hoping that it's fake. They have rationalized it into a possibility for no better reason than it's what they WANT to be true.

[Dick Strawkins]

Wait, Amy's comment has been deleted? Well that's concerning considering it was the only direct link we had to the document having (independently sourced) merit.

So all we are left with is:

The retraction is real, and Karen has agreed to it.

"Agreed" is a pretty piss weak term.

Plus a letter with no header / footer or even a place to sign/date.

Radford and his team really need something that looks and operates like a damn PLAN. This is a PR guys, and right now you are confusing the troops.

The header/signature issue has been fully explained. It would have been doxxing had he included signatures (privacy issue / identity theft risk). The header also would be risky. It would have Karen's full legal name and possibly her address. Ben already explained that it is signed and that he is not showing the signatures for privacy reasons. Had he done it differently, he'd have brought on a legitimate complaint upon himself.

And if Ben had faked the letter, Karen would have immediately yelled/typed very loudly that it's a lie. At the least, she would have said something like "my lawyer's on it; I can't discuss any details however".

The letter being a fake is probably the most unlikely explanation. The idiot feminists can't see how illogical they are for hoping that it's fake. They have rationalized it into a possibility for no better reason than it's what they WANT to be true.

Radford has left the letter up on his facebook page. If he'd jumped the gun on this one and released a retraction before Stollznow had agreed to it, I think he might have taken down the facebook post by now.

Reading between the lines I get the impression that Radford's lawyers presented this retraction to Stollznow's lawyers who wrote back to say their client had agreed to it.
There may not actually be a notarized retraction letter with her signature on it.

What seems strange is that the retraction letter wasn't released in a more formalized way - such as a joint post on a more neutral site (for example the CFI or some other well known skeptic's site.)

[Scented Nectar]

The header/signature issue has been fully explained. It would have been doxxing had he included signatures (privacy issue / identity theft risk). The header also would be risky. It would have Karen's full legal name and possibly her address. Ben already explained that it is signed and that he is not showing the signatures for privacy reasons. Had he done it differently, he'd have brought on a legitimate complaint upon himself.

And if Ben had faked the letter, Karen would have immediately yelled/typed very loudly that it's a lie. At the least, she would have said something like "my lawyer's on it; I can't discuss any details however".

The letter being a fake is probably the most unlikely explanation. The idiot feminists can't see how illogical they are for hoping that it's fake. They have rationalized it into a possibility for no better reason than it's what they WANT to be true.

Radford has left the letter up on his facebook page. If he'd jumped the gun on this one and released a retraction before Stollznow had agreed to it, I think he might have taken down the facebook post by now.

Reading between the lines I get the impression that Radford's lawyers presented this retraction to Stollznow's lawyers who wrote back to say their client had agreed to it.
There may not actually be a notarized retraction letter with her signature on it.

What seems strange is that the retraction letter wasn't released in a more formalized way - such as a joint post on a more neutral site (for example the CFI or some other well known skeptic's site.)

Ben probably wanted it to be public as soon as legally allowed. I imagine that he would want to clear his name as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the feminutcases are still lalala-I-can't-hear-youuuuuuu. Lousy Canutbar has just posted this, http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-obama/ which is a fake letter he wrote and which is obviously representing his stupid belief that the Radford/Stoolsnow letter is a fake one.

They are so stupid and illogical. How do they tie their shoelaces? How do they cross the road without getting hit by trucks? It boggles my brain. Just when I think they can't possibly be any stupider, they always do something stupider.

[Cliché Guevara]

Apparently L.A. gangster culture is becoming trendy in places like Thailand, Brazil and Japan. I need an SJW flow chart to keep up with who's appropriating whom to what degree here.

[CuntajusRationality]

The header/signature issue has been fully explained. It would have been doxxing had he included signatures (privacy issue / identity theft risk). The header also would be risky. It would have Karen's full legal name and possibly her address. Ben already explained that it is signed and that he is not showing the signatures for privacy reasons. Had he done it differently, he'd have brought on a legitimate complaint upon himself.

And if Ben had faked the letter, Karen would have immediately yelled/typed very loudly that it's a lie. At the least, she would have said something like "my lawyer's on it; I can't discuss any details however".

The letter being a fake is probably the most unlikely explanation. The idiot feminists can't see how illogical they are for hoping that it's fake. They have rationalized it into a possibility for no better reason than it's what they WANT to be true.

Radford has left the letter up on his facebook page. If he'd jumped the gun on this one and released a retraction before Stollznow had agreed to it, I think he might have taken down the facebook post by now.

Reading between the lines I get the impression that Radford's lawyers presented this retraction to Stollznow's lawyers who wrote back to say their client had agreed to it.
There may not actually be a notarized retraction letter with her signature on it.

What seems strange is that the retraction letter wasn't released in a more formalized way - such as a joint post on a more neutral site (for example the CFI or some other well known skeptic's site.)

Ben probably wanted it to be public as soon as legally allowed. I imagine that he would want to clear his name as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the feminutcases are still lalala-I-can't-hear-youuuuuuu. Lousy Canutbar has just posted this, http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-obama/ which is a fake letter he wrote and which is obviously representing his stupid belief that the Radford/Stoolsnow letter is a fake one.

They are so stupid and illogical. How do they tie their shoelaces? How do they cross the road without getting hit by trucks? It boggles my brain. Just when I think they can't possibly be any stupider, they always do something stupider.

I chimed in with "hyperskeptical much?" followed by "always believe the victim, then?"

My favorite part of Lousy Canuck's response, aside from being called an avowed MRA, was being mocked for assuming that political correctness run amok leads to censorship of ideas, followed by having all subsequent comments blocked. :lol:

It surprises me not one whit that an avowed MRA who thinks that “political correctness run amok” on this board leads to fascistic censorship

Then (in the same comment):

GTFO with your binary worldview, dude. I’ll help you out the door.

Followed by:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

[Parody Accountant]

Off topic. But sometimes I feel like the SJW crowd sounds like the last 45 seconds of this.

[youtube]5G00gexQ8Ic[/youtube]

BTW, they don't tie their shoes. Velcro / crocs / moccasins (Inaji) / burkinstocks

[Dave]

201
hjhornbeck

24 March 2014 at 2:05 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Does anyone have a copy of this comment?

“Amy Stoker: It’s signed by Karen and notarized. Ben was over at my house tonight. I’m sure Ben will address this in the morning or at some point. For tonight he wanted to focus on those family and friends that have been by his side.”

Because when I went back to Radford’s page, I didn’t see it there. If it was truly deleted, and I’m not missing something, it might be evidence Radford was making false statements about his legal case. Some confirmation would be nice, triply so if it then winds up in the hands of Stollznow’s lawyers.

Take note. The three following words are rarely seen together and in this order without being followed by a question mark. Hornbeck is right.
[/qupte] :bjarte:

Well, at least about the comment having disappeared.

I still think that if Stollznow did not in fact retract her accusations, this would make Radford the most stupid liar since Greg Laden, who in his review of <i>The Happy Atheist</i> stated that it is not a collection of blog posts. That is setting a high bar indeed.

Thats basically why I (still quite tentatively) believe the retraction is real. The only alternatives I can see invlove Radford being insanely boneheaded and acting against legal advice.

Now, since Stollznow twattered, Im forced to conclude that one or the other of them is acting against legal advice. But I can see someone justifying what they believe to be a vague tweet to themselves far more than making up an apology out of whole cloth. So Im still thinking this is real, but frankly, am not willing to put much more than cup of coffee on it.

As to the letterhead, signatures and all that, I am guessing, and at this point all this is is a guess, that all Radford currently has is a draft of the settlement agreement that his lawyers say Stollznow has agreed to. A portion of that agreement includes a provision that both parties will issue the statement we have seen on their respective social media within a certain timeframe. Naturally, Radford is more anxious to get it out. Thats a big guess, but is an educated guess to the extent that a J.D. is considered education.

[Scented Nectar]

Radford has left the letter up on his facebook page. If he'd jumped the gun on this one and released a retraction before Stollznow had agreed to it, I think he might have taken down the facebook post by now.

Reading between the lines I get the impression that Radford's lawyers presented this retraction to Stollznow's lawyers who wrote back to say their client had agreed to it.
There may not actually be a notarized retraction letter with her signature on it.

What seems strange is that the retraction letter wasn't released in a more formalized way - such as a joint post on a more neutral site (for example the CFI or some other well known skeptic's site.)

Ben probably wanted it to be public as soon as legally allowed. I imagine that he would want to clear his name as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the feminutcases are still lalala-I-can't-hear-youuuuuuu. Lousy Canutbar has just posted this, http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-obama/ which is a fake letter he wrote and which is obviously representing his stupid belief that the Radford/Stoolsnow letter is a fake one.

They are so stupid and illogical. How do they tie their shoelaces? How do they cross the road without getting hit by trucks? It boggles my brain. Just when I think they can't possibly be any stupider, they always do something stupider.

I chimed in with "hyperskeptical much?" followed by "always believe the victim, then?"

My favorite part of Lousy Canuck's response, aside from being called an avowed MRA, was being mocked for assuming that political correctness run amok leads to censorship of ideas, followed by having all subsequent comments blocked. :lol:

It surprises me not one whit that an avowed MRA who thinks that “political correctness run amok” on this board leads to fascistic censorship

Then (in the same comment):

GTFO with your binary worldview, dude. I’ll help you out the door.

Followed by:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Either they truly don't see what hypocritical fools they are, or they get off sexually on being publicly humiliated. I really can't figure out which is more likely at this point.

[Ape+lust]

http://imgur.com/pfOwkhG.jpg

[Sulman]

Has anyone looked at the information Carrie has provided in the tweet pictured above?

[Ape+lust]

Oderus Ungerus of GWAR is reported dead :(

Fuck. Bummer.

[Tapir]

Now the man Thibeault was humble, more so than anyone on earth....

I grew up an ostracized geek — far too intelligent, and far too incapable of interacting at a “normal” level with the other kids.

[Jan Steen]

At least it is certain that the Radford/Stollznow case went to court.

radford.jpg

(170.45 KiB) Downloaded 292 times

"Comlaint [sic] for Defamation, Fraud and Interverence [sic] with Beneficial Contractual Relations."

Via https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app, case number D-1329-CV-201400221.

Main conclusion: someone can't spell the word 'interference'.

[mikelf]

No, what you are doing is assuming that someone who did something as vindictive passive-aggressive as Stollznow, shocked into reality by lawyers words on paper, suddenly became a rational actor.

She was pissed at Radford for slights real and imagined and expended quite a bit of effort to totally screw with him. Mostly by plying bullshit conduits like Carrie Poppy under the table. You think now that she's been exposed she took a deep breath and has gotten over it? No, if anything, she's fuming that what was planned to harm Radford might actually, in the worst "life is not fair to me" manner, actually harm her a bit.

On the other hand, I'm happy for you that your relationships have been all sunshine, marshmallow peeps and pink kitten assholes and you've never had to deal with a sick fucker like this.

/victim cred.

This hurts me to say, but I'm with Mykers on this one.

There is a simpler explanation that has both parties acting rationally. But first, everyone (including Elyse "Amy Winebox" Anders) needs to dispense with the conceit that the lawsuit had anything to do with Deep Rifts in the skeptical community. It doesn't. The only thing the lawsuit has to do with is Radford's reputation and his future employment prospects.

With that in mind, two points:

1. Stollznow's silence - Since we know that the case is settled, my assumption is that the settlement agreement includes a provision that Stollznow makes no public comment whatsoever about the situation or settlement with Radford. Any marginally competent attorney would insist on it.

2. Lack of a signature - the actual legal documents finalizing the settlement are signed and the statement Radford posted are an exhibit to that document.

I could be wrong, but I've come to expect that the reality of situations are generally less compelling than what our imagination constructs about them.

[John D]

Scathing criticisms of Alcoholics Anonymous:

There is a large body of evidence now looking at AA success rate, and the success rate of AA is between 5 and 10 percent. Most people don't seem to know that because it's not widely publicized. ... There are some studies that have claimed to show scientifically that AA is useful. These studies are riddled with scientific errors and they say no more than what we knew to begin with, which is that AA has probably the worst success rate in all of medicine.

It's not only that AA has a 5 to 10 percent success rate; if it was successful and was neutral the rest of the time, we'd say OK. But it's harmful to the 90 percent who don't do well. And it's harmful for several important reasons. One of them is that everyone believes that AA is the right treatment. AA is never wrong, according to AA. If you fail in AA, it's you that's failed.

If my drinking ever gets bad (which I could actually see happening), AA would never work for me. I have thought about this at some length. AA did work for my Dad however. He was a very heavy drinker and went to AA once my mom told him she was about to walk out on him. This was when my dad hit bottom and quit, He LOVES the religious and social aspect of the program. It is a good fit for him and I think AA worked extremely well for him. He almost worships Dr. Bill and the other AA dood. He even visited their childhood home or some such shit. Haha.

I always wonder if one of the side effects of AA on my dad is that he is super religious. He always was sort of religious, but I think something changed when he entered into the AA society. One of the main tenants is that you have to "surrender" to a higher power. He definitely did this part well. This is one reason I know AA wouldn't work for me.

I have been looking for my next book to read now that I finished "12 Years a Slave" (which I recommend highly). Perhaps this AA book will be interesting.