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 3rd July 2014, 01:12 PM   #41
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
So his legal case is but an (expensive) pretext, a false flag operation for his website? The one that has Google search robot.txt'ed away .....
Dang, got me there. With search engines blocked from spidering the website, Radford looks like he's playing fair. Fortunately for him, there's no subset of skeptics eager to do the dirty work on his behalf, spreading the information on that website via forums and Twitter to other skeptics in the tight-knit skeptic community. Because that would allow him to maintain a squeaky-clean image and some degree of legal protection, while still trashing her reputation in the community she cares about the most.

*Sigh*, I think I said something once about hatred being predictable and thus easily exploited....

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
... And there you are sitting on infrastructure that proves your aggressor is themselves a fraud..... A pathway to immediate public redemption in those circles prepared to reconcile ambit claim vs actual data.
I have considered that hypothesis, and found it lacking. That's a big reason why I'm doing this shared analysis with you, in fact, is to challenge my rejection of it by placing my analysis against someone else's expert analysis.
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 3rd July 2014, 01:17 PM   #42
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
If Stollznow has denied flat-out that her legal fees are being paid by an insurance policy, I haven't seen it.
She posted a denial to her fundraising site, sometime before April 13th:

Quote:
They claim that my insurance is covering my costs so this money is fraudulently requested. Not true. My harasser was clever in his lawsuit and included things that my insurance could not cover, like claims of fraud.
For his part, Radford has shifted from uncertainty:

Quote:
March 27, 2014: Framing the lawsuit against her for defamation and fraud as "Giving a Voice to Harassment Victims," Stollznow raises nearly $50,000 (and counting) for her legal fees. In fact Stollznow may not need the money; she has asked her homeowners insurance to pay for her legal defense.
To certainty:

Quote:
March 27, 2014: Framing the lawsuit against her for defamation and fraud as ”Giving a Voice to Harassment Victims,” Stollznow raises $62,000 (and counting) for her legal fees. In fact Stollznow’s legal defense is being paid for by her homeowners insurance company.
How he could have gained that certainty since April 2nd? Maybe breaking into her house isn't that far-fetched, after all.

Last edited by hjhornbeck; 3rd July 2014 at 01:27 PM. Reason: Premature submit.
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 3rd July 2014, 01:34 PM   #43
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
In short, most homeowner's insurance policies and some renter's insurance policies cover the costs of a defense and settlement in the case of a libel lawsuit, but virtually all also have some pretty broad exemption clauses in cases where said libel stems from something said or written in the course of a "business pursuit" (especially if any money is made for writing the thing deemed libelous).
Iiiinteresting, especially since he's suing for defamation, fraud, and interference in beneficial contractual relations. I also see that site mentions high punitive damage claims, and Radford's request of 10:1 more than qualifies.

Looks like Stollznow's story is more credible. Thanks, A'isha!
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 3rd July 2014, 03:39 PM   #44
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Excellent. With your permission, I'll make the document public. I myself will be away from the computer for a few days, so you'll have the floor for a bit.

Call me a fool, then; with one or two minor exceptions, Radford's evidence supports the rough sketch of the situation Stollznow gave in her SciAm blog post.


Read more carefully, I said that CFI has tonnes of evidence, as they have that report they commissioned. Giving them even more evidence doesn't make sense, hence why I was arguing with Christina's request to give CFI more evidence.

I'm kinda flattered, though, that you'd know of comments I made eleven months ago. I thought the 'Pit had stopped monitoring me, but I guess I'd thought wrong. *shrug*
I have the floor? I'll wear feathers in my hair.

I don't have a problem with post modern analysis either. Until an innocent man's brand is rendered toxic by fluid definitions and the suspension of rules of evidence. Until then of course a circle can be a square.

Given that the "tonnes of evidence" translated into Gramigna's very limited (and still questionable) findings, I think Greta was quite right to apply the sieve once more. Pity for her no nuggets were forthcoming.

I guess a tonne of Radford documentation could net off against a tonne of lost emails, broken hard disks and erroneously dated messages and leave us at square one?

The Pit as Stasi. Damn, I've already used my snoopy pic. No, I simply, you know, read the evidence. Unlike PZ and the horde who immediately memory holed Radford's rebuttal with 'double plus good' haste.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015

Last edited by Brive1987; 3rd July 2014 at 03:40 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 3rd July 2014, 04:15 PM   #45
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
How he could have gained that certainty since April 2nd? Maybe breaking into her house isn't that far-fetched, after all.
This makes me laugh. Try as you might, it won't make any difference: Stollznow is a Luser - the case against he is just too strong. I doubt this case will make it to court for I believe Stollznow will be forced to settle. Then, her so-called "Friends" will turn on her and eat her alive, and the rest of the Skeptic Community will Pile On. It will be so sweet.
Jules Galen 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 3rd July 2014, 05:13 PM   #46
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
She posted a denial to her fundraising site, sometime before April 13th:

For his part, Radford has shifted from uncertainty:


To certainty:

How he could have gained that certainty since April 2nd? Maybe breaking into her house isn't that far-fetched, after all.

Ah, the hanging question, as popularised on "In Search of"

Just to clarify this point, it is true that BR edited his timeline from "may not need" to a bolded "is" - I have an April 9 cache of the site which has the former.

This change indicates:

+ Radford made a specific malicious claim that KS can easily disprove AGAIN - and yet ... or
+ Radford broke into her apartment and checked the fine-print ... or
+ Radford has some other source of info or advice that justified the clarification.

I'd go with three as most likely YMMV, he had nothing more to gain by being more specific and, if malicious, far more to lose.
.................................................. ....

The article provided suggests that KS is stuffed only if:

a) she directly received money for her article or
b) posting evidence free character assassinations could be seen as part of [her] main occupational "business pursuit"

Given the claims sprayed at the Australian Skeptics, I guess b) may be an issue ....



KS indicated her possible problems were none of these, rather she claims there was the ambiguity of bundled complaints (a cunning plan of Radford's no less). Can anyone comment on whether the entire case would be seen as libel by an insurance company - with "fraud and interference with beneficial blah blah blah" stemming from the defamation itself?

Would an insurance company pay a proportion that related to the 30% direct libel charges?

Does anyone believe BR actually crafted these three charges specifically to cruel KS insurance - rather than them forming a logical suite of complaints?

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

HJ - you have an interest in the micro-accuracy of minutiae in this case, at the expense (IMO) of the wider picture.

Maybe you would like to address the AVfM update on KS's funding site and possibly PZ's rumour mongering re Radford's so called 'big settlement'. Both of these claims have been as strenuously denied by Radford as this insurance item has been by Karen. And in the case of AVfM - with direct corroboration from the principals involved.

Or maybe you wouldn't.

Really, I understand.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015

Last edited by Brive1987; 3rd July 2014 at 06:08 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 3rd July 2014, 06:03 PM   #47
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Dang, got me there. With search engines blocked from spidering the website, Radford looks like he's playing fair. Fortunately for him, there's no subset of skeptics eager to do the dirty work on his behalf, spreading the information on that website via forums and Twitter to other skeptics in the tight-knit skeptic community. Because that would allow him to maintain a squeaky-clean image and some degree of legal protection, while still trashing her reputation in the community she cares about the most.

+ He makes his case, does more than he needs to in order to 'clean up' afterwards and he is damned.
+ He makes his case, maximises the 'harm' with SEO and he'd be damned.

Just be honest. You don't want the man to make his case at all.

Quote:
Radford:
Nonetheless I have both a right and a duty to respond to her claims and to defend myself against her false accusations ...

Following Karen’s very public accusations, the public has a right to expect some sort of answer or response ...

Unfortunately because of the personal nature of her claims, it is necessary to reveal personal details about our private life. There is no way around it; when one person raises questions or makes claims about their personal and sexual situation with another person, discussing some details of their lives is unavoidable to refute or address those claims.

KS started this fight using the exact same subversive tactics you criticise. BR is reacting, his case is a rebuttal - that is understood no?

You can't characterise a relationship as being defined by harassment from Sept09 leading to assault in July10 when you are organising trysts in April10 and offering affairs in Sep10!

If BR's reactive rebuttal sheds a poor light on KS - well that goes with the territory. Sux for Radford that the evidence that underpins his push back is by definition unsavoury.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015

Last edited by Brive1987; 3rd July 2014 at 07:16 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 3rd July 2014, 10:06 PM   #48
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
How he could have gained that certainty since April 2nd? Maybe breaking into her house isn't that far-fetched, after all.
Well, there you have it: Stollznow denies her legal bills are being paid by her insurance company, and Radford states that they are. One of them is lying (or wrong). Which do you think it is?

As Brive1987 points out: Note that in the same statement you pulled the quote from, Stollznow explicitly accuses Radford of "recruiting" the support of a mens rights "hate group". On his Web site Radford states that this is a flat-out false claim, and backs it up with quotes from two other people stating for a fact that Radford never contacted the mens rights group at any point for any reason. Once again either three people (who don't know each other) are lying, or Stollznow is lying. Which do you think it is?

Last edited by FreddyEH; 3rd July 2014 at 10:20 PM. Reason: clarification
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 3rd July 2014, 10:59 PM   #49
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
This makes me laugh. Try as you might, it won't make any difference: Stollznow is a Luser - the case against he is just too strong. I doubt this case will make it to court for I believe Stollznow will be forced to settle. Then, her so-called "Friends" will turn on her and eat her alive, and the rest of the Skeptic Community will Pile On. It will be so sweet.
I think that Stollznow will come off second best, but this revenge fantasy of yours is distasteful. Why revel in the personal destruction of another? Isn't that exactly what you dislike about the SJW's?
Octavo 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 3rd July 2014, 11:55 PM   #50
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
I think that Stollznow will come off second best, but this revenge fantasy of yours is distasteful. Why revel in the personal destruction of another? Isn't that exactly what you dislike about the SJW's?
Yeah...I am looking forward to the utter destruction of Stollznow and watching it happen will make me feel mighty good - it will give me a warm-giggly feeling all over. I will celebrate!

And...ya' know why? It's because this type, this Stollznow and her nasty-stinky Feminists Ilk, are no different than Madeline Murray O'Hare and her ilk - the people who hijacked the Atheist Movement back in the 1960s.

Had there been no Madeline Murray O'Hare, the Atheist movement would be decades ahead of where it is today. However, along came that nasty Madeline in the 1960s and claimed credit for Court Judgements that were not hers (he case was just a rider) and she monopolized media access for the Atheist cause - and made all us Atheists look bad....for decades. Madeline Murray O'Hare hijacked the Atheist Movement and ruined it....and now a group of nasty Feminists are trying to do the same.

Make no mistake about it: this is a WAR between people in the Atheist/Skeptic Movements and the Radical, Nasty Feminists who are trying to Hijack the movement. It is bigger than Stollznow and will rage for quite awhile longer until all those hate-mongers over at Freethought Blogs and their friends have been discredited and shunned in the Skeptic and Atheist Communities.

Last edited by Jules Galen; 4th July 2014 at 12:11 AM.
Jules Galen 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 5th July 2014, 06:21 AM   #51
pchams
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 818
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Yeah...I am looking forward to the utter destruction of Stollznow and watching it happen will make me feel mighty good - it will give me a warm-giggly feeling all over. I will celebrate!

And...ya' know why? It's because this type, this Stollznow and her nasty-stinky Feminists Ilk, are no different than Madeline Murray O'Hare and her ilk - the people who hijacked the Atheist Movement back in the 1960s.

Had there been no Madeline Murray O'Hare, the Atheist movement would be decades ahead of where it is today. However, along came that nasty Madeline in the 1960s and claimed credit for Court Judgements that were not hers (he case was just a rider) and she monopolized media access for the Atheist cause - and made all us Atheists look bad....for decades. Madeline Murray O'Hare hijacked the Atheist Movement and ruined it....and now a group of nasty Feminists are trying to do the same.

Make no mistake about it: this is a WAR between people in the Atheist/Skeptic Movements and the Radical, Nasty Feminists who are trying to Hijack the movement. It is bigger than Stollznow and will rage for quite awhile longer until all those hate-mongers over at Freethought Blogs and their friends have been discredited and shunned in the Skeptic and Atheist Communities.
Beneath all your nastiness is a kernel of truth. These attention seekers and their ilk are one very visible facet of atheism and skepticism unfortunately. They are what a lot of the world sees as representative of the movement or uses as an excuse to dismiss it.
__________________

pchams 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 5th July 2014, 10:34 AM   #52
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Make no mistake about it: this is a WAR between people in the Atheist/Skeptic Movements and the Radical, Nasty Feminists who are trying to Hijack the movement.

Let us all pause in memoriam for the all those poor souls lost in the Atheist Rift Wars. Their sacrifices will never be forgotten.
__________________
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 5th July 2014, 12:13 PM   #53
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by pchams View Post
Beneath all your nastiness is a kernel of truth. These attention seekers and their ilk are one very visible facet of atheism and skepticism unfortunately. They are what a lot of the world sees as representative of the movement or uses as an excuse to dismiss it.
It's a WAR, and it's going to be nasty, and it's going to go on and on until those maniacs over at Freethought Blogs are shut down. Any attempt to pretend that this WAR is going to be anything other than protracted and nasty is just wishful thinking. Unless these people are stopped, they will continue to sling poo over the entire community and make more, and worse, groundless accusations.

Things are not going to get better by themselves.
Jules Galen 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 5th July 2014, 01:14 PM   #54
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
It's a WAR, and it's going to be nasty, and it's going to go on and on until those maniacs over at Freethought Blogs are shut down. Any attempt to pretend that this WAR is going to be anything other than protracted and nasty is just wishful thinking. Unless these people are stopped, they will continue to sling poo over the entire community and make more, and worse, groundless accusations.

Things are not going to get better by themselves.
Your using this type of ridiculous language isn't helping. In fact, you seem to be looking forward to it . . . like it plays perfectly into your own personal agenda.
__________________
"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 6th July 2014, 06:56 AM   #55
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,584
If it's going to be a war... Will a draft be imposed? Or volunteers only?
Amazer is online now   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 6th July 2014, 07:19 AM   #56
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
If it's going to be a war... Will a draft be imposed? Or volunteers only?
It will be - IS - an undeclared Guerilla War.
Jules Galen 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 6th July 2014, 08:43 AM   #57
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
It will be - IS - an undeclared Guerilla War.
So the chimps on the forum won't be involved?
__________________
"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 6th July 2014, 11:51 AM   #58
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
So the chimps on the forum won't be involved?
I'm willing to provide the needed intellectual Orangutillery!
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 6th July 2014, 02:33 PM   #59
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
First it was Michael Shermer, and then it was Ben Radford....of course, who could have seen this coming after Becky Watson pulled that Elevatorgate Crap at the TAM in 2011, huh?

Who is next?

What poor guy are they going to single out and Persecute Next, huh? Whose the next Rapist-Harrasser?

Any ideas?
Jules Galen 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 6th July 2014, 03:29 PM   #60
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Evan Bernstein seems pretty rapey to me.

"Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark [present] there is only war. There is no peace amongst the [blogs], only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

http://youtu.be/7_1rs1n-RLU
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015
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 6th July 2014, 10:14 PM   #61
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
I'm willing to provide the needed intellectual Orangutillery!
Great! If we can get the Bonobo marines through basic we should be able to repel the Gorilla hordes.
__________________
"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 7th July 2014, 03:49 AM   #62
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,584
You guys should stop monkeying around.
Amazer is online now   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 July 2014, 06:45 AM   #63
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
You guys should stop monkeying around.
I was just aping Qayak!
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 7th July 2014, 02:10 PM   #64
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,968
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Evan Bernstein seems pretty rapey to me.

"Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark [present] there is only war. There is no peace amongst the [blogs], only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

http://youtu.be/7_1rs1n-RLU
When you're reduced to quoting Warhammer 40k fluff; the entire situation has reached cartoonish levels of ridiculousness
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 7th July 2014 at 02:12 PM.
luchog 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 July 2014, 02:18 PM   #65
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
When you're reduced to quoting Warhammer 40k fluff; the entire situation has reached cartoonish levels of ridiculousness
Quite. I'm glad my point was clear.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015
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 July 2014, 07:18 PM   #66
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
First it was Michael Shermer, and then it was Ben Radford....of course, who could have seen this coming after Becky Watson pulled that Elevatorgate Crap at the TAM in 2011, huh?
It's just awful how she singlehandedly ruined that poor Irishman's promising career as a public intellectual, and totally relevant too.

ETA: Let's not besmirch the good name of TAM. The infamous incident actually happened here.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 7th July 2014 at 07:23 PM. Reason: ETA
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 9th July 2014, 12:40 AM   #67
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Sorry for staying silent, but I've been plowing my spare time into that collaboration. Brive and I have reached a consensus on the formatting (in fact we reached it a while ago), so as promised I'm sharing the document itself:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oqx8TFEKtRUQXTruVT29MDyrDAoEpTfjdkr2NmQ0iv8/edit?usp=sharing

It's very much in flux, with huge gaping holes and filler text, but Brive's put a lot of work into a section on when Radford and Stollznow terminated their sexual relationship, and I just added a much-expanded version of my earlier work on those falsified emails. I need to catch up a bit, so I'll focus more on responding to comments over here instead of pushing more content into that document.

In the meantime, download the thing and enjoy!
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 9th July 2014, 01:48 AM   #68
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Sorry, there are far too many words there to gain any sort of clarity. You both seem to be concentrating on making minor points that may or may not show what you want them to show. Your section on the falsified e-mails, hjhornbeck, for example I think should just concentrate on the e-mails that you don't dispute are fabricated (if there are any, I couldn't really tell).

Reading the bits of it I have read makes me wonder what's the point. Two people fell out acrimoniously after having had a relationship. It's happened to a lot of us, and a huge wall of text makes it all seem somewhat overblown.

"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition."

Last edited by Henry Bannister; 9th July 2014 at 02:21 AM.
Henry Bannister 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 July 2014, 07:37 AM   #69
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
Sorry, there are far too many words there to gain any sort of clarity. You both seem to be concentrating on making minor points that may or may not show what you want them to show. Your section on the falsified e-mails, hjhornbeck, for example I think should just concentrate on the e-mails that you don't dispute are fabricated (if there are any, I couldn't really tell).

Reading the bits of it I have read makes me wonder what's the point. Two people fell out acrimoniously after having had a relationship. It's happened to a lot of us, and a huge wall of text makes it all seem somewhat overblown.

"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition."
Points taken, I am keen to tighten some parts and lose the Latin filler.

Re what's been covered. I've personally found it interesting to pull apart the way SA was constructed. This article really is the core of the issue. I'm starting to see how certain motifs there were mapped back to real events, but also how the use of language formed a new reality.

The email section, well I reckon I've laid out pretty simply Radford's email trail, which had seemed to cause HJ a measure of confusion.

Why bother? Well on the one hand it's an old fashion skeptical puzzle - interpretation of evidence. On the other you have the whole SJ dimension, which I'll grant is of peripheral concern to some.

I'd assume though that anyone on this thread has some level of 'weird' interest in the topic.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015
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 9th July 2014, 08:01 AM   #70
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Fair play, and perhaps the introduction summarizing just the key stuff, with links to the most important information might solve the issues.

There are only a few points that really seem to matter to me - two which come to mind being whether he posted that photograph of them in bed without her permission, which seems a very creepy thing to do, and whether she faked the e-mail dates. Faking the e-mail dates would to me be the clincher, particularly since she's referring to those dates as proof that he's stalking her.

Overanalyzing her e-mails seems over the top to me, though, since as I say you don't expect people to behave rationally when they break up. Unless he's demonstrably acting rationally all the way through and she isn't, but even so you could half expect that in a relationship breakup, too.

I'm just wondering whether your time and analysis skills might be more profitably employed elsewhere since this is all presumably going to be tested in court as the authoratitive version. But of course that's totally your choice .

Last edited by Henry Bannister; 9th July 2014 at 08:03 AM.
Henry Bannister 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 July 2014, 01:13 PM   #71
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
Sorry, there are far too many words there to gain any sort of clarity.
My apologies, I didn't realize my in-depth analysis was too in-depth for you. If only I'd posted some sort of "summary," where I gave a short preview of what was to come... oh wait, I did write one of them! I'm tempted to call up Michael Bay to see if he has any idea how to water things down further, but I suspect that won't have much effect:

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
Two people fell out acrimoniously after having had a relationship. It's happened to a lot of us, and a huge wall of text makes it all seem somewhat overblown.
Indeed, it's fairly common for former lovers to sue one another for fraud and create websites about one another. Nothing special to see here, I guess, your opinion is better formed than the ones Brive and I have developed over months.

Snark aside, you do bring up a point: I didn't say much about the two emails that were left. It's a rather minor point, as what surrounds it is far more important, but I'll see if I can think of something worth saying.

"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition."[/quote]
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 9th July 2014, 03:41 PM   #72
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
Fair play, and perhaps the introduction summarizing just the key stuff, with links to the most important information might solve the issues.

There are only a few points that really seem to matter to me - two which come to mind being whether he posted that photograph of them in bed without her permission, which seems a very creepy thing to do, and whether she faked the e-mail dates. Faking the e-mail dates would to me be the clincher, particularly since she's referring to those dates as proof that he's stalking her.

Overanalyzing her e-mails seems over the top to me, though, since as I say you don't expect people to behave rationally when they break up. Unless he's demonstrably acting rationally all the way through and she isn't, but even so you could half expect that in a relationship breakup, too.

I'm just wondering whether your time and analysis skills might be more profitably employed elsewhere since this is all presumably going to be tested in court as the authoratitive version. But of course that's totally your choice .
I'd argue that a technical legal 'testing' and a testing based on a combo of logic and 'most likely' outcomes are two quite different things. I'm not a lawyer so I tend to approach this from a lay perspective. BR's legal claims need to obviously have the legal process applied. SA and benrlegal are open to the court of public opinion.

Re the photo. I think you can assume everything posted on Benrlegal was done without KS' s permission. Given SA is predicated on the relationship ending and harassment starting in late 2009, I think Ben was quite right to assume that evidence of consensual sex in 2010 *should* be a smoking gun against that account. And therefore likely to be strenuously denied. The photo and the email authentication was a shock and awe approach to breaking through this nay-saying. Unfortunately it was a miscalculation, the pic provided an excuse for PZ and the usual suspects to shut their eyes to all the evidence and chant "la la la la la la". If the pic (which is not explicit) is in poor taste, then consider the nature of that which it was reacting against ....

Re the emails, we have indications KS was circulating email based claims of harassment in 2012 to third parties. We have a document listing these claims apparently sent to Radford by one of these third parties. We have Baxter confirming they stuffed up the dating of emails. We have the original emails from Ben. We have some sort of expert confirmation of these emails. I think that issue is pretty will sorted.

To a lay person.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015

Last edited by Brive1987; 9th July 2014 at 03:50 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 9th July 2014, 05:58 PM   #73
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
I would be keen to read somewhere in HJ's analysis an opinion or conclusion as to whether on balance of probability:
  • The emails should be dated to 2010 or 2012
  • Karen circulated them, dated 2012, as part of her case against Ben
  • Karen also submitted them to Gramigna as part of the investigation (per Baxter)

I would also be interested to hear his opinion re which specific 2012 emails the Gramigna investigation found to be "inappropriate".

He may, in addition, have an opinion on the implications of Gramigna finding no evidence of email harassment in 2010 (or 2011).

This appears to be the crux of the matter, not Radford's attention to micro detail.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015

Last edited by Brive1987; 9th July 2014 at 06:07 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 9th July 2014, 11:59 PM   #74
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I have the floor? I'll wear feathers in my hair.
Oooo, I see what you did there.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Given that the "tonnes of evidence" translated into Gramigna's very limited (and still questionable) findings, I think Greta was quite right to apply the sieve once more. Pity for her no nuggets were forthcoming.
No more public nuggets ("please send them to CFI — and please make them public if you can"), at least until Radford turned on the taps. But now you've got me a'wondering: what were Gramigna's findings? And who was your source?

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I guess a tonne of Radford documentation could net off against a tonne of lost emails, broken hard disks and erroneously dated messages and leave us at square one?
I'm quite comfortable using Radford's documentation alone. He was silly enough to splash it around and ask everyone to examine it, and who am I to turn down that invitation?

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
The Pit as Stasi. Damn, I've already used my snoopy pic.
Godwinning already? Tsk. The Stasi are a poor comparison, anyway; if you're forcing me to stick to the Nazi theme, then the 'Pit is something like the intersection of the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and Hitlerjugend with a watercooler. It's the central hub of an informal media distribution and activism network targeting social justice, which grew out of a bunch of people griping about how bad Rebecca Watson is. The change was so gradual and gentle that most 'Pitters still view the place as a watercooler to gather 'round.

That's quite useful to some people in the skeptic movement. Drop a link into the place, and if it suits the overall theme it'll get blasted out across Twitter, plus a small number of people who are voluminous commenters will venture out into blogs to further spread the message around. No need to reveal who you are, either, anonymous and guest comments are welcome, and so long as the information targets social justice and is juicy enough, no questions will be asked. It's a convenient way to grief those arguing for change within the atheist or skeptic community, without getting your hands dirty.

For instance, an anonymous user posted a link to Radford's then-semi-private fundraiser to the 'Pit. Did anyone think to question who this person was, or how they discovered the fundraiser? Nope, because this viewed as a concrete way to combat social justice. Twitter and blogs were mobilized, and by the time the dust had settled Radford had earned about $7,500 more than he would have without the 'Pit's help.

Or, suppose an anonymous user posted three collections of FtB backroom chatter about Ben Radford to the 'Pit. Did anyone question why the theme was Radford, at a time when the conversation about his case was winding down? Nope, because this was a juicy bit of gossip about "social justice warriors." To the 'Pit's credit, some people were uncomfortable about sharing the info, and this drop wasn't as widely broadcast as the anonymous user probably wanted.

As I've said elsewhere, you're tough to fool if you're a skeptic because you know the right questions to ask. If you're motivated by irrational hate, however, you'll gladly turn a blind eye and allow yourself to be manipulated.

But I've derailed this thread enough. No more 'Pit talk, at least from me.
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 10th July 2014, 12:04 AM   #75
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
And a bonus one:

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I would be keen to read somewhere in HJ's analysis an opinion or conclusion as to whether on balance of probability:
  • The emails should be dated to 2010 or 2012
  • Karen circulated them, dated 2012, as part of her case against Ben
  • Karen also submitted them to Gramigna as part of the investigation (per Baxter)

I would also be interested to hear his opinion re which specific 2012 emails the Gramigna investigation found to be "inappropriate".
Part two of my email analysis will touch on those, for the most part; as mentioned earlier, I might expand my commentary on those two emails were proof was offered, and the bit about dating is in the ballpark. I'm hoping to have the continuation finished this weekend.
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 10th July 2014, 01:24 AM   #76
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Oh really ...

You brought up the 'pit it the context of this 'thing' monitoring your comments on Radford. Which was funny.

And the Stasi were communist secret police so no technical (reverse?) Godwin there.

I note;

FtB were the principle mobilising force behind the Stollznow fund raiser
FtB published privileged emails from JREF to KS without a blush
PZ has done the same deal on DJ before as well
SZ has stated she will doxx anyone whose values she disagrees with.
...... Anonymity sounds like a prudent approach.

You have simply proved a pit adage about FtB - "it's alright when we do it"

You will notice though a major nuance within the pit missing from FtB. The moderator at the site was asked to take down a banner "support Radford" by the regulars because the community does not have a unified voice. Mykeru got frustrated at certain regulars for a lack of, shall we say passion, in the Radford case. As you noted opinion was divided on the leaks.

This is why the community finds the mental lockstep at freethought blogs on the Radford debate so amusing and depressing. Oh that's right. Free thought is really an obscure allusion to some splinter group of intellectuals from the 17C. Right.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015

Last edited by Brive1987; 10th July 2014 at 02:03 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 July 2014, 05:31 AM   #77
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
The email section, well I reckon I've laid out pretty simply Radford's email trail, which had seemed to cause HJ a measure of confusion.
Yes, sorry, it wasn't your part of the email trail section that I was confused by - yours seems clear although I think you need to address hornbeck's statements about 'authentification'.
Henry Bannister 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 July 2014, 05:36 AM   #78
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Re the photo. I think you can assume everything posted on Benrlegal was done without KS' s permission. Given SA is predicated on the relationship ending and harassment starting in late 2009, I think Ben was quite right to assume that evidence of consensual sex in 2010 *should* be a smoking gun against that account. And therefore likely to be strenuously denied. The photo and the email authentication was a shock and awe approach to breaking through this nay-saying. Unfortunately it was a miscalculation, the pic provided an excuse for PZ and the usual suspects to shut their eyes to all the evidence and chant "la la la la la la". If the pic (which is not explicit) is in poor taste, then consider the nature of that which it was reacting against ....
Sorry, I hadn't realised that he only released the photo to show that the relationship hadn't finished when she said he'd finished.

Fair enough that he released it and yes indeed the pic I saw wasnt explicit.
Henry Bannister 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 July 2014, 05:46 AM   #79
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
Yes, sorry, it wasn't your part of the email trail section that I was confused by - yours seems clear although I think you need to address hornbeck's statements about 'authentification'.


I shall. But to be honest I read from a specialist forensics company that:

Quote:
Mr. Bradford provided the credentials necessary to log into his email accounts through Gmail to review and count targeted emails, create screenshots of viewable emails and provide MD5 hash values authenticating the specific email.

And then I read:

Quote:
The account examined shows the emails with the subject lines “just wondering” and “a shame” were sent in 2010 and nothing examined indicated otherwise.

I nod my head and mentally move on.
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015
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 July 2014, 05:51 AM   #80
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
My apologies, I didn't realize my in-depth analysis was too in-depth for you. If only I'd posted some sort of "summary," where I gave a short preview of what was to come... oh wait, I did write one of them! I'm tempted to call up Michael Bay to see if he has any idea how to water things down further, but I suspect that won't have much effect:
No it wasn't too 'in-depth' for me, I found the format confusing. I think now because it's not clear to me what you are both agreeing on before you start disagreeing.

And yes I read your summary, it didn't really help I think because I couldn't see whether you admit that Stollznow falsified the dates on *any* of the e-mails, which to me seems the central point.

Quote:
Indeed, it's fairly common for former lovers to sue one another for fraud and create websites about one another. Nothing special to see here, I guess, your opinion is better formed than the ones Brive and I have developed over months.
No need to be pompous, I'd assumed you were asking people what they thought of the work so far and I was saying that I found it difficult to understand. Reading your post again you didn't ask for comments so if you prefer I'll just pass on my comments to Brive.

Last edited by Henry Bannister; 10th July 2014 at 07:49 AM.
Henry Bannister 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 02:20 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.