ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th August 2014, 03:59 PM   #361
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I'm guessing I knew that before you did, as while I started my analysis by scanning Radford's emails, you were concentrating on Stollznow's blog post.

Because no woman has ever been confused about sexual assault, nor lied to themselves as a coping mechanism.

... and that's it? Your entire defense to this is "no woman could possibly be confused about her sexual assault or substitute a different narrative in self-denial?" You're not even trying anymore.

Or perhaps she didn't want to break character. I mean, what do you do if the person you're mocking doesn't realize you're mocking them? Do you immediately turn around and go "just kidding, I mean as if creepo?" Or do you continue to play along, and see how long it'll take for them to realize what you're doing?

I already pointed out that he did, during a time he now claims they were in a sexual relationship. Here it is again, emphasis added by me:

Why should I even bother? Radford's case is so riddled with holes that it should have been tossed out months ago, and yet even after I've repeatedly pointed out some of those holes the lot of you have closed your eyes and pretended they don't exist. It's telling that no-one has called out Brive1987 for quote-mining or lies by omission, when his infographics reduce entire email threads to sentence fragments, and yet I get chastized for it if I leave out an irrelevant paragraph.

Obvious double-standards are obvious. Radford has been deemed innocent by "skeptics," and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
HJ you are getting riled. Stay on target and stop turning broadside into the fire.

When we started I said that SA had to be the crux. Not because that fed into "my" strengths but because any credible case had to accommodate it. You have ignored this well meant advice.

Instead your pitch is "Radford is a liar, therefore SA". You have hitched your wagon to rebutting any hint there was deviation from the SA words. You have done this in three ways - creating a general sense of FUD about Radford as a credible witness, looking for hints of discomfort in the email trail and weaving that into unstated underlying harassment and finally by trying to turn SF et al into the exact opposite of what they came across as.

This was been a torturous approach:

So you know KS quite likely used her CC yet you pitch that SF was somehow innocent or non consensual or something. That won't fly.

You acknowledge KS did not complain posthoc and was in fact quite positive - but that was because she was was confused and didn't realise she had been assaulted?

You acknowledge KS was unambiguous with the "I asked" line - but it was some sort of bizarro game only she was in on?

You acknowledge she wanted to hang in Alb. But on the basis of a future BR email you cast this into the friend zone. As if friends and lovers are exclusive concepts. Despite Ben immediately knocking it back as inappropriate. As if even a friend zone liaison isn't anathema to SA.

This pitch will not carry a skeptical audience over the line.


There is a reason I have relentlessly drilled "the SA Narrative" - and a reason my analysis started by closely defining what SA "said".

It was to establish a series of breakers upon which literalist interpretations of SA would break. And the simple explanation will carry the day over the convoluted.

So here you go. Drop the literalist approach. Treat SA as an honest emotional summary, a retrospective, one woman's conclusions based on her personal experiences and feelings. Not a narrative or strict timeline opus. Acknowledge it was couched in literalist terms - but blame the reader for failing to acknowledge context or genre. And that this literalism actually reflects the clear emotional resonance the events had on Karen.

Accept that the SJL may have run with the literalist line as being objective truth - and may need to back-track a tad. I would couch it as them jumping at the opportunity to crucify an ideological enemy. But whatevers.

Give yourself space to embrace consensual SF, while not throwing KS under the bus. Was she under stress at the time. Given her problems should Ben have shown restraint? If he didn't is that a building block of harassment? Does it matter if she slept with him under this interpretation - or suggested liaisons next time she and Baxter had a blue? Does it matter whether she truly recognised this as harassment at the time (2010) - or only 'realised' after having the opportunity for a full retrospective 3 years later ....

Highlight the SA claims and key them into specific events in the emails. Try and make SA somewhat credible so it can't be simply dismissed.

Spin a line that the "stop order" was a progression of intensity starting with the 'get over it's' in 2009 and ending with the June teleconference. That it was less a "signed order" and more an implicit boundary setting in confused 2010 morphing into the explicit in 2011. Or something.

Take advantage of the lack of detail in SA - "relentless" could this not describe Ben wanting to continue in 2010 despite her problems, reactivating in 2011 in some form, doing 'something' at TAM2012 and then going code red in 2012 all with plausible work related innuendo emails in between? Yes SA suggests all this happened prior to TAM2010 - but you are clever, leverage the idea. Stress SA wasn't a Tolkienesque appendix, but rather communicated themes.


Make a case. Because this literalist non-nuanced weed fight is boring.

But I suspect you wont. Because at heart you are right there with the hammers and nails.

But even if you do. It still won't fly. No matter what KS felt, SA in my mind does not pass the reasonable 'man in the street' reality test - and it was not written as a diary entry. Her failure to convince the independent investigator demonstrates what happens when the pragmatic hits po-mo emotion based constructs.

And even if we were to accept that SA operated on multiple levels of perceived reality, it was IMO, at least partially a tool of punishment to finish the job CFI and JREF had botched. Ian Murphy at least agrees with me on this.

Last edited by Brive1987; 7th August 2014 at 05:35 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2014, 04:12 PM   #362
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
. . . and yet it wasn't. Why do you suppose that is? Either everyone else, including skeptics, lawyers, and judges are wrong, or you are.

Ever heard of Ockham's Razor?
Ever heard of PZ's Porcupine?
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2014, 04:19 PM   #363
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
Ever heard of PZ's Porcupine?
Rusty?! I know Rusty!
SinisterBen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2014, 08:36 PM   #364
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
Ever heard of PZ's Porcupine?
surlyramic_porcupine.jpg
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2014, 11:12 PM   #365
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I'm guessing I knew that before you did, as while I started my analysis by scanning Radford's emails, you were concentrating on Stollznow's blog post.

Strangely my research on this topic predated that analysis. But yes you have hit the nail on the head here on why your approach failed.

.................................................. ....

Because no woman has ever been confused about sexual assault, nor lied to themselves as a coping mechanism.

... and that's it? Your entire defense to this is "no woman could possibly be confused about her sexual assault or substitute a different narrative in self-denial?" You're not even trying anymore.

Are they my quotes? Nope. They aren't. Do you have evidence of rape or assault? Beyond the word "encouraged"? Now would be a good time for the reveal.

.................................................. ....

Or perhaps she didn't want to break character. I mean, what do you do if the person you're mocking doesn't realize you're mocking them? Do you immediately turn around and go "just kidding, I mean as if creepo?" Or do you continue to play along, and see how long it'll take for them to realize what you're doing?

Mocking was it? How many days was it from this email to her renewed request for a week away with Radford as a shoulder to cry on? lets start the count down: 9 days, 8 days, 7, 6 .. Even if there was an edge far more likely it came from his rejection of Alb a mere 7 days before.

.................................................. ....

I already pointed out that he did, during a time he now claims they were in a sexual relationship. Here it is again, emphasis added by me:

This was his attempt in April 2011 to rebase the relationship on simple friendship. But the whole damn relationship was friends with benefits.

.................................................. ....


Why should I even bother? Radford's case is so riddled with holes that it should have been tossed out months ago, and yet even after I've repeatedly pointed out some of those holes the lot of you have closed your eyes and pretended they don't exist. It's telling that no-one has called out Brive1987 for quote-mining or lies by omission, when his infographics reduce entire email threads to sentence fragments, and yet I get chastized for it if I leave out an irrelevant paragraph.

Obvious double-standards are obvious. Radford has been deemed innocent by "skeptics," and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.


When I came here the general consensus seemed to be anti-Radford, or at least fence-sitting. I actually believe there is a lurking audience, myself included, who wants to see a credible KS case.

Re my "lies". The major difference here is that I am assuming KS means what she says. Its you that's having to practice e-alchemy.


.................................................. ....


In red above
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2014, 11:43 PM   #366
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
Ever heard of PZ's Porcupine?
No, but I've seen all the little pricks he hangs out with.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 04:26 AM   #367
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
So here you go. Drop the literalist approach. Treat SA as an honest emotional summary, a retrospective, one woman's conclusions based on her personal experiences and feelings. Not a narrative or strict timeline opus. Acknowledge it was couched in literalist terms - but blame the reader for failing to acknowledge context or genre. And that this literalism actually reflects the clear emotional resonance the events had on Karen.
Well said, I agree wholeheartedly.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 04:35 AM   #368
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Why should I even bother? Radford's case is so riddled with holes that it should have been tossed out months ago, and yet even after I've repeatedly pointed out some of those holes the lot of you have closed your eyes and pretended they don't exist. It's telling that no-one has called out Brive1987 for quote-mining or lies by omission, when his infographics reduce entire email threads to sentence fragments, and yet I get chastized for it if I leave out an irrelevant paragraph.

Obvious double-standards are obvious. Radford has been deemed innocent by "skeptics," and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
As has been pointed out, the paragraph you left out was not irrelevant. It was damaging to your claim.

If you feel Brive1987 has omitted pertinent information, please point it out so that (if you are correct) I can "call Brive1987 out".
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 01:11 PM   #369
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
HJ you are getting riled.
You know you're winning an argument when your opponent, out of the blue, accuses you of being emotional.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
There is a reason I have relentlessly drilled "the SA Narrative" - and a reason my analysis started by closely defining what SA "said".

It was to establish a series of breakers upon which literalist interpretations of SA would break. And the simple explanation will carry the day over the convoluted.
This emphasis on Stollznow's account is entirely backwards. Stollznow' claims are housed in a few paragraphs of a blog post, plus a few scattered Tweets; Radford's claims are housed in three dozen pages of legal documents plus a website. He's obligated to be as clear and transparent as possible, for his legal case; she's under no such obligation. Why would you deliberately focus on a fuzzy, easy-to-misinterpret dataset, when there's one that claims to be precise and sufficient sitting next to it?

For that matter, "did Radford assault and harass Stollznow?" is a tougher question to answer than "did Radford provided sufficient evidence to show it was more likely he didn't assault/harass Stollznow than that he did?" It's entirely possible for Radford to be innocent as snow, yet fail to meet the court's burden of proof. The latter question also has money on the line, while the former doesn't. Finally, the two questions are correlated. If Radford did assault/harass Stollznow, it should be impossible for him to show defamation on Stollznow's part. This means that by answering the easier question, you get insight into the tougher question.

Yet you'd rather aim for the tougher question, via a fuzzy dataset. Why?

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Give yourself space to embrace consensual SF, while not throwing KS under the bus.
That is the best counter in your entire comment. You do not reference any evidence, let alone build up a supporting case based on it, you merely assert. You're not here for an argument, you're here for reassurance. Why else would you hastily delete you half of our shared analysis, but carry on in a forum where you're surrounded and comforted by people with similar beliefs? Why else would fixate on a dataset where you can easily read your own interpretation in, and avoid the one with clearer claims that you cannot?

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Spin a line that the "stop order" was a progression of intensity starting with the 'get over it's' in 2009 and ending with the June teleconference. That it was less a "signed order" and more an implicit boundary setting in confused 2010 morphing into the explicit in 2011. Or something.

Take advantage of the lack of detail in SA - "relentless" could this not describe Ben wanting to continue in 2010 despite her problems, reactivating in 2011 in some form, doing 'something' at TAM2012 and then going code red in 2012 all with plausible work related innuendo emails in between? Yes SA suggests all this happened prior to TAM2010 - but you are clever, leverage the idea.
You explicitly ask me to do exactly what you've done, to "take advantage of a lack of detail" to read my own interpretation in. But fuzzy data leads to fuzzy conclusions, so pretending they're actually sharply defined only makes it easier to kick them away. You want me to be an easy target, so much so that you keep inventing positions I've never held.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Instead your pitch is "Radford is a liar, therefore SA". You have hitched your wagon to rebutting any hint there was deviation from the SA words.
Why would you skip out on debunking my actual arguments, and instead pretend I've made other ones, or assert, assert, assert your own via solid-looking infograghics? There is literally nothing I can say that would change your mind, because you're not here to have your mind changed.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Make a case. ....

But even if you do. It still won't fly.
I trust my ability to argue and reason well enough to stick my neck out in a hostile forum. You don't have that same level of trust. Either you know you don't have a case, or you've convinced yourself that you do but need some reassurance to fend off those nagging doubts.

I have my suspicions.
hjhornbeck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 01:21 PM   #370
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Porcupines, now? Either my arguments are so solid there is no effective rebuttal, or they are so ridiculous the best responses are to mock or ignore them.

I'll let others judge that one.

Last edited by hjhornbeck; 8th August 2014 at 01:22 PM. Reason: Auto-correct
hjhornbeck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 01:32 PM   #371
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Porcupines, now? Either my arguments are so solid there is no effective rebuttal, or they are so ridiculous the best responses are to mock or ignore them.

I'll let others judge that one.
I'm not sure the porcupines are directed at you, but rest assured, people have been judging your arguments. Can you find even one person who found merit in your arguments?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 01:38 PM   #372
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
There is literally nothing I can say that would change your mind, because you're not here to have your mind changed.

Whereas you are taking a totally open-minded approach?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 02:59 PM   #373
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
There is literally nothing I can say that would change your mind, because you're not here to have your mind changed.
My mind isn't made up and I want to view the case from as many valid viewpoints as possible.

In case you hadn't picked up on this, my complaints against you aren't against what you're trying to do, it's against how incredibly badly you're doing it. Logic and reason matter.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 03:02 PM   #374
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,822
Just to make sure there is no hanging chad on this ...

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
<...> or they are so ridiculous the best responses are to mock or ignore them.

I'll let others judge that one.

Done and done.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 04:08 PM   #375
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I trust my ability to argue and reason well enough to stick my neck out in a hostile forum.
Hostile forum? Are you cross posting this somewhere else?

Pointing out the issues with your arguments is not hostility, it's a method of educating you on the basic points of logic and evidence.

The issue is that your arguments are not only not right, they are not even wrong.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2014, 11:18 PM   #376
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,337
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
You explicitly ask me to do exactly what you've done, to "take advantage of a lack of detail" to read my own interpretation in.
Lack of data or not, fuzzy detail or not, most of your argument does seem to be based on reading your own interpretation in to words. As an example, just your last post contained a paragraph in which you dismissed things Stollznow had explicitly said by saying that if we assume that she had been assaulted then maybe her words were her lying to Radford, herself, or both. If that's not reading your own interpretation in to the evidence, then I don't know what is.

And, if you want to count me as a Brieve shill, you can look back over this thread and it's parent and view some of our interactions. If you want to count me as a blind Radford supporter you can look back over this thread and it's parent and see some of the arguments I've put forward and see how I've been labelled a blind Stollznow supporter. IIRC, one of the people who has done so is Brieve...

I have also been labelled a blind Radford supporter, too. Whether or not my arguments are right or reasonable, I think the fact that both sides have labelled me a blind advocate of the other is, at least, an indication that I'm not as partisan as either side would paint me.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2014, 06:11 AM   #377
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
You know you're winning an argument when your opponent, out of the blue, accuses you of being emotional.
Well, no. You don't, and you're not.

You know you're losing an argument when you start making up hilarious little rules.
John Nowak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2014, 06:55 AM   #378
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
HJ I will respond tomorrow a bit better but a couple of quick points.

This forum has been an enjoyable slog for me, pretty much 336 posts on one topic. And that quantity was not because I was amongst "friends". Quite the opposite. Anyone with firm ideas on this topic was, and is, subjected to suspicion and scrutiny.

If some here support my views then it has been through months of hard work refining my points to varying degrees of acceptability.

I stopped the forensic analysis of benrlegal when it got pulled. I had put a reasonable amount of time in the work to date and my views have not changed. It was not clear to me what the implications were on the site going down. It was one thing closely trawling when Ben was more or less saying "look here at this". Quite another when he wasn't.

I still don't know quite what my position on this should be.

But no, I don't need a cheer squad - it's actually the parry and thrust that helps focus your thoughts. I want someone to tell me how SA and the salient points from benrlegal can be reconciled.

And I would be more than happy to discuss this over at Lousy's - except he banned / moderated me after I pointed out he had published Brian Dunning's home address (he banned and redacted in one go).

Also it's typically uncharitable to suggest that I told you to be misleading with Karen's lack of detail. I suggested that without detail you were free to investigate less literal meanings of "incessant", "obsessive" and the stop order. Interpretations that actually worked with the available data rather than denied it.

It is clear by now that SA is not the whole story - but a distilled version of the whole.

KS's ongoing coms, Alb., SF, the week long stay request, porn presents, FB buddies in 2012 - these are real actual things to be accommodated. This doesn't mean KS is a liar and made up SA from whole cloth. It means she delivered an edited version. The real question is: was this her honest historical summary (a picking out of the eyes of her lived experience), a carefully constructed hatchet job or a mixture of the two? Even if KS believed in hindsight that she had been harassed and abused, should we - based on available evidence? And should this distilled SA be allowed to stand as Ben's reputational legacy?

Your persistent and dogmatic demand that SA isn't distilled, that it's the full literal truth is what's marginalising you from being taken seriously. If fact you haven't even done this except by default. All you do is pick away at the scab of the actual data that has been presented.

Last edited by Brive1987; 9th August 2014 at 07:00 AM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2014, 09:27 PM   #379
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
You know you're losing an argument when you start making up hilarious little rules.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2014, 01:41 PM   #380
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
HJ I will respond tomorrow a bit better but a couple of quick points.
(checks watch)... Yeah, that's a long enough wait.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I want someone to tell me how SA and the salient points from benrlegal can be reconciled.
It's pretty easy, all you have to do is consider the hypothesis "Radford is a jealous, obsessive ex-lover," and things pop into place nicely. You did that, right? A good analysis considers as many hypotheses as reasonable, and that one qualifies.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Also it's typically uncharitable to suggest that I told you to be misleading with Karen's lack of detail. I suggested that without detail you were free to investigate less literal meanings of "incessant", "obsessive" and the stop order. Interpretations that actually worked with the available data rather than denied it.
And you're also free to consider the possibility that Stollznow was straightforward. I mean, she claimed she was sent gifts and correspondence, and Radford provided plenty of evidence of gifts and correspondence. They disagree on the nature of those things, but nonetheless that partly backs up what Stollznow was saying. She mentions invitations to exotic places? In Item C of the Flashback report, Radford proposes they spend time in a cabin.

The data is there, and it backs up Stollznow's claims. It also backs up Radford's claims, of course, but rather than dig down into the details on both sides, you've focused exclusively on challenging Stollznow's fuzzy claims, rather than Radford's specific ones.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Your persistent and dogmatic demand that SA isn't distilled, that it's the full literal truth is what's marginalising you from being taken seriously. If fact you haven't even done this except by default. All you do is pick away at the scab of the actual data that has been presented.
Wow. Not half a dozen posts ago, I took you to task for falsely claiming that I took her SciAm blog as the "full literal truth," and your response is to blindly repeat the claim again, as if I'd said nothing. I don't think you could have made it plainer that you're arguing by assertion.

And dealing with that gets tiring. I've got other things on my plate, and while hanging around here has been fun, I'm content to leave the discussion as it sits and let the court case settle itself out.

Which it did.

Quote:
Conclusion

Defendant does not have sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico to confer personal jurisdiction over her. First, the contacts alleged by Plaintiff are not commercial in nature and are related to Plaintiff himself, rather than to the State of New Mexico. Second, the fact that Defendant knew that her allegedly tortious conduct would cause harm to a New Mexico resident is not sufficient for jurisdictional purposes. Finally, the allegedly tortious conduct does not connect Defendant to New Mexico.

Because the Court finds that Defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts to confer personal jurisdiction, the Motion will be granted on that ground. Thus, the Court need not proceed to the question of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, see Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1080, nor to the question of venue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUGED, AND DECREED that Defendant Karen Stollznow‘s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14] is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Stollznow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
That's not a very satisfying ending, as it doesn't rule on the merits of either side's arguments and Radford might be able to appeal, but it'll do for now. A shame Radford pissed away $10,000 to $15,000 to get this null result (Mattke claimed his total expenses were almost $40,000, and his Declaration stated he spent $25,000 on legal action against CFI), but hopefully his parents will forgive him.
hjhornbeck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2014, 09:22 PM   #381
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
I must have missed your post where you acknowledged KS filtered out inconvenient facts in order to produce a non literal account.

Maybe it was in your promised fisking of SA?

My commiserations to Karen. Given her relentless and unsuccessful efforts to enact justice on Ben via CFI and JREF and given that her efforts in the the court of public opinion have foundered on the rocks of Benrlegal, I assume she is fuming that a publicly funded & transparent legal opportunity to redeem her story has been denied.

Maybe she could split her fund 50/50 to ensure resolution?

Last edited by Brive1987; 15th August 2014 at 10:20 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2014, 09:34 PM   #382
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
I don't need to have an opinion on Radford outside the context of SA. I do need to have an opinion on whether Karen's claims hold up to basic skeptical analysis.

I really shouldn't have to remind you of the clear SA narrative. But you have mischaracterised it as some sort of foggy nebulous thing.

+ Predator and red flags
+ Breakup

Then a twisted sustained and escalating campaign stemming from this rejection starting mid-late 2009:

+ Immediate & incessant unwanted sexual communication and harassment
+ Baxter arrives
+ Harassment escalates to obsessive stalking
+ Stop order late 2009 - bilateral personal coms to cease
+ Harassment however escalates to threats
+ Threats then escalate to assault at TAM Jul 2010

Circle & repeat for 4 years - and there you have the essential nature of the man.

..............

HJ,

This is the account you have refused to engage with, and yet this is the premise upon which all this to-ing and fro-ing is built. This is not a "fuzzy, easy-to-misinterpret dataset". It is clear accusation missing the customary supporting evidence.

And they are accusations and character descriptions which have to withstand the detail contained in Benrlegal. Radford only has to pull one plank from this self supporting edifice for the whole lot to come down and have to be re-evaluated.

I suspect you are in a very small minority here if you think this isn't exactly what has happened.

Actually, come to think, you have conceded that:

+ coms flowed (she was too scared to stop). Strike 1
+ she slept with Radford in a hotel she booked (or was it consensual rape, I forget) Strike 2
+ she did want to hang in Alb for a weekend in late 2010 Strike 3
+ she did ask for a weeks emotional support and accom again in late 2010 (before what? Waking up?) ....

Strike 4- even with my charitable rules - You're out! and so is SA in its current form.

Last edited by Brive1987; 15th August 2014 at 10:44 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2014, 09:40 PM   #383
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
I have been content to sit back and watch everyone completely dismantle your arguments and illuminate your clear bias, but this one made me chuckle:

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Stollznow' claims are housed in a few paragraphs of a blog post, plus a few scattered Tweets; Radford's claims are housed in three dozen pages of legal documents plus a website. He's obligated to be as clear and transparent as possible, for his legal case; she's under no such obligation. Why would you deliberately focus on a fuzzy, easy-to-misinterpret dataset, when there's one that claims to be precise and sufficient sitting next to it?
I love that you agree that Stollznow has presented precious little data to support her moving-target and increasingly serious claims.

Radford presented "three dozen pages of legal documents plus a web site." You seem to think that this is a bad thing. Why is evidence to support a claim a bad thing? Why don't you seem to feel Stollznow has an obligation to support her claims?

Why is Radford "obligated to be as clear as possible?" Could it be because he was accused of serious crimes without evidence? Don't you think the burden of evidence should be on the person making the claim? Geez...if only there were some kind of movement that insistent that the person making a claim of specific sexual assault or Bigfoot's existence bore the burden of proof? (And have you stopped scouring the TAM footage in which Stollznow, she of the sharp teeth and claws and mugshot who got away with domestic abuse, claims she was assaulted by Radford? It must be there because she said it was, right? Believe the victim and all that.)

But I am extremely entertained by the way that you think you weave out of any necessity to prove any of your or Stollznow's claims. Please continue hurting her already flimsy case. A little advice: if several people tell you that you're flailing and sound desperate and are ignoring important points...they're probably right.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2014, 03:14 AM   #384
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Well the silver lining for Karen in all this will be the handing over of her war chest to a Boulder charity...
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2014, 04:19 PM   #385
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Well the silver lining for Karen in all this will be the handing over of her war chest to a Boulder charity...
Care to bet that she finds a way to syphon off the war chest beforehand?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2014, 06:45 PM   #386
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Well the silver lining for Karen in all this will be the handing over of her war chest to a Boulder charity...
Either that, or she'll be handing it over to Radford as (a tiny fraction of) the judgment against her when she loses. When PZ realises that was money he helped her raise, I expect he'll have an apoplectic stroke that will be heard across the oceans.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2014, 07:41 PM   #387
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
Either that, or she'll be handing it over to Radford as (a tiny fraction of) the judgment against her when she loses.
You are confidently expecting Ben will refile in Colorado?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2014, 10:01 PM   #388
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've not read this thread exhaustively, but my general recollection is that most people seem to be of the opinion that the relationship between Radford and Stollznow seems like it was pretty skeevy from both sides, and that neither comes out of this whole mess well. Furthermore, the general opinion, as far as I recall, is that that's neither here nor there when the specific allegations that are the subject of this thread are under discussion.
That's pretty accurate.

There's also the underpinning that such an, as you put it, "skeevy" situation is suitable not only for public entertainment but also for comic-book, chest-beating side-taking.
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2014, 08:58 AM   #389
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You are confidently expecting Ben will refile in Colorado?
If he can afford it, yes. The merits of the case are the same, whether the venue is Colorado or New Mexico. I assume filing in Colorado is more difficult and expensive, but how far would you go to clear your name if it was you? IIRC he tried to settle this without further harm to anyone's reputations last year (and costing Stollznow nothing), for a retraction.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2014, 09:13 AM   #390
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 10,015
Is the counter-suit being filed in Colorado?
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim
Denver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2014, 05:27 PM   #391
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Denver View Post
Is the counter-suit being filed in Colorado?
What counter-suit? For what?
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2014, 05:31 PM   #392
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 10,015
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
What counter-suit? For what?
The one she mentioned on her legal defense fund page. Assuming it happens.
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim
Denver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2014, 09:07 PM   #393
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Has the court case been settled yet?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2014, 07:12 AM   #394
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Has the court case been settled yet?

Dismissed without prejudice. We are back at square one.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2014, 07:29 AM   #395
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 5,943
It is often observed that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but it should be noted that, when given their preference, they don't turn at all.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2014, 07:43 AM   #396
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
It is often observed that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but it should be noted that, when given their preference, they don't turn at all.

I don't see it as a flaw in the system that plaintiffs are expected to file suit in a jurisdiction that has sufficient minimum contacts with the defendant. As Loren said, the legal team for the defence should feel obligated to litigate this issue.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2014, 08:29 AM   #397
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Denver View Post
The one she mentioned on her legal defense fund page. Assuming it happens.
Oh, that. Haven't heard any more about that, I doubt there's any basis for a counter-suit since Radford hasn't legally defamed Stollznow. She will have to find some other way to spend the $60K she raised, as her legal bills are being paid by her insurance company.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2014, 09:13 AM   #398
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 10,015
Whether there is a counter suit is one thing I am waiting to see. I never heard why Radford's website (the one with all his claims regarding this suit) disappeared one day. So I had assumed that he was forced to take it down by some part of this counter-suit process, but I really don't know.
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim
Denver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2014, 09:28 AM   #399
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,501
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Dismissed without prejudice. We are back at square one.
I'd say he more clearly has a claim of malpractice against his local counsel than he does against her, which is kinda funny really.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2014, 09:30 AM   #400
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,501
Originally Posted by Denver View Post
Is the counter-suit being filed in Colorado?
I would assume that she will only counter-sue if he re-files in a proper venue. Her filing first would be silly, and wouldn't be a counter-suit, if we are being pedantic.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.