Sexual misconduct allegations against Radford, Shermer, et al. Part 2

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

You're getting better, but this is still "something." There's probably a set of incriminating out there that aren't fully revealed, but you've got the owner wrong.

If you've read through Stollznow's emails (like I have), you'll note that she prefers to sign her emails with her first name, "Karen." If we buy into the idea that Radford's KS-Docs-15 and -16 are copies of an email Stollznow sent out (which is almost certainly the case), then we'd expect to find the text "Karen" sitting at the bottom.

But we don't. Now, there are quite a few other explanations out there (that email's been through a lot if Baxter's to be believed, and an accidental omission is plausible), but when you combine that with the fact that the second page is completely full, and Radford refers to emails that aren't on that list several times on his webpage (see "error" in 2009, for instance), those small bits of evidence make it likely there's at least a third page to that document.

That's an extremely thin reed to base an argument on. I think if you examined any set of emails closely enough you could, as the 9/11 deniers do, discover "anomalies" that you could read things into. The question is whether the "anomalies" you are collecting and curating point clearly to some particular conclusion.

Quote:

And that's rather significant. Harassment is repeated unwanted communication, after all, so by not sharing all the evidence with someone you raise the chances they'll think it isn't harassment. Radford could have dodged that by being clear about the number of emails Stollznow considered harassing, but he didn't, instead preferring vague terms like "at least six" (complaint) or "a dozen or so" (website). By not filling in the blanks he's making us fill them in for him, which suits him just fine; we walk away thinking there were only ten harassing emails, and he doesn't have to worry about perjury changes for lying about the exact number.

That or he's not the most precise writer in the world, or he changes his terms for the sake of variety. Again if you apply this level of analysis to most people's writing you can find meaningless "anomalies".

Quote:

Compounding that is the fact that Radford has no justification for saying those are all the harassing emails sent. He may have read some of the investigator's documents (Declaration, 23), but he hasn't seen the full document (Declaration, 33). That means he has no idea which emails were deemed "harassing" by the investigator, let alone whether or not there are more he doesn't have copies of.

Radford has been manipulating and lying to all of you, whether accidental or on purpose, allowing you to think those ten emails are all the evidence of harassment there is. And rather than challenge the claims of someone who's got a vested interest in keeping you misinformed, and could even earn millions of dollars from bamboozling a jury, you've looked exactly where the magician pointed.

Here's an alternative for you: Radford is writing informally and hasn't had expert proofreaders go over everything he has said about the matter.

The information he has released might also be intended merely to prove that Stollznow faked up some evidence, not to absolutely rule out any possibility that he ever sent any harassing emails to Stollznow. The second is a much higher bar which would involve much more work and would only be of interest to people who consider him guilty until proven innocent anyway.

Overall this still looks to me like conspiracy theory thinking with a predetermined conclusion. The magician here is you, but you aren't pointing at anything interesting.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I can only go by what you post. If you post things I'm just going to have to believe that they are your actual position.

Except you've provided no evidence I posted anything like that, despite me explicitly asking you to. I'll give you one more chance to redeem yourself before I write you off as yet another boring griefer.

[Brive1987]

HJ said:

Quote:

Uhm, Stollznow has done little more than make assertions. Can you point to a place where I assume anything about what Stollznow has?

That's the sound of falling bamboo. She may have her box of dox, unseen by investigator and public alike, but her front facing case sure as hell isn't framed by it.

And that's the case that was designed to nail BR in the court of public opinion.


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

At least Patterson–Gimlin actually submitted something to back their claims. With "always believe the victim .... 'cause patriarchy" we have dispensed with even this nicety.

[Brive1987]

Here is a bit of micro fisking of my own.

Stollznow complained to JREF only that:

Quote:

My complaints go back to 2009, not 2012, and I don’t know what Barry means by “retaliation”.

She doesn't say "I provided evidence that goes back .." This PROVES she doesn't have any. Case closed.

That's how it works isn't it?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Except you've provided no evidence I posted anything like that, despite me explicitly asking you to. I'll give you one more chance to redeem yourself before I write you off as yet another boring griefer.

Brive1987 quoted the relevant passage.

You have been evasive when asked to state your actual conclusion, but either everything you have posted is pointless or Radford is deliberately hiding evidence that he harassed Stollznow with some kind of sleight of hand.

The problem with this conclusion is that if Radford really did harass Stollznow, where is the positive evidence for that conclusion? Where are the actual harassing emails, texts or whatever? Why didn't Stollznow release them first, instead of falsifying evidence and releasing it while sitting on the good evidence?

The idea that Stollznow has good evidence but released fake evidence is extremely bizarre. In fact, it's far more bizarre than any of the forced "anomalies" you have mined from Radford's words, which is a profound problem for you.

Imagine you see some torn up turf in your back yard which you can't immediately explain, and you conclude that it must be leprechauns. The proposed mechanism (leprechauns) is far more unlikely than the supposed evidence for it (some torn-up grass which could have gotten torn up any number of ways). Hence leprechauns are a bad explanation.

A good piece of detective work is one that makes the world less mysterious, not more. Your "work" takes a bunch of minor anomalies that might well mean nothing, and tries to use them to establish a conclusion which is far more improbable than any of the anomalies. Reason doesn't work that way.

[Octavo]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

A good piece of detective work is one that makes the world less mysterious, not more. Your "work" takes a bunch of minor anomalies that might well mean nothing, and tries to use them to establish a conclusion which is far more improbable than any of the anomalies. Reason doesn't work that way.

As you mentioned earlier this is classic CT behaviour. It's fascinating to watch.

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Congratulations, you've demonstrated Stollznow claims she was sent harassing emails. That means the current situation is:

1) Stollznow claims she was sent harassing emails.
2) Radford claims that Stollznow claims that a specific set of emails were harassing, and implies it was that set of emails exclusively.

I was asking you to show me where Stollznow claims that specific set of emails were the harassing ones. You failed.

Because set b (the specific set of harassing e-mails) is a subset of set a (all e-mails sent to Stollznow by Radford). What you believe that Radford implied is irrelevant.

Quote:

I asked for clarity on that, twice. Each time, you dodged the question.

You omit the sentences immediately following the ones you quoted, which actually replied to your question: “I disagree because I have seen no evidence that the e-mails are harassing” and “You’re making no sense. Both (1) and (3) say “even if we have evidence”. We *don’t* have evidence, that's the whole point.”.

You’ve been setting up elaborate hypothetical arguments rather than discuss the actual e-mails. You could have saved all this discussion by saying “There are more e-mails and more parts of e-mails that we haven’t seen yet and they show harassment”. Fine, if you find more e-mails that *do* show harassment then come back. That is going to be difficult, though, since they are going to have to be e-mails or cut-off sections of e-mails from Stollznow saying “you have been harassing me, please never contact me again” while the previous e-mail (or any e-mail where the end was cut off) was saying “hello beautiful” or “lets be sure to chat every week” or thanks for the Christmas card or thanks for the birthday card or suggesting that she come and visit him. Can you actually have harassment by “incessant communication of a sexual nature” if you’re replying to each of them? From the e-mails I saw she was making just as many sexual suggestions as he was.

Quote:

I won't bother arguing with someone who invents details out of thin air, needs every argument spoon-fed to them in the most primitive form possible, and doesn't have the courage to stand by their words. Life's too short, and I've got a document to write.

I think you’re just being dishonest now and adopting the lawyers’ tactic of accusing people of things that you’re actually guilty of to muddy the waters, same as your accusations of magicians’ handwaving.

Quote:

If you've read through Stollznow's emails (like I have), you'll note that she prefers to sign her emails with her first name, "Karen." If we buy into the idea that Radford's KS-Docs-15 and -16 are copies of an email Stollznow sent out (which is almost certainly the case), then we'd expect to find the text "Karen" sitting at the bottom.

In that document you’ve cut off the sign-offs of *all* of those letters – none of them end with ‘Karen’ or ‘Ben’. Interesting that you conclude that Radford was “manipulating and lying” to all of us because of things like missing the name off the bottom of the e-mails, when your defence would presumably be that you were just saving space.

It’s a bit like when you accuse Radford of editing and memory-holing his document “with impunity” because he’d not allowed search robots to access the document, then accusing him of “aiming at Stollznow’s reputation after all” when he ... allows search robots to access the document. Eta: you give other possible reasons for him not doing it and then for him doing it, but it's clear these are the conclusions you want to leave your reader with.

You’re right, though, this is getting nowhere. Brive, I wish you good luck with document, as I say I think your contributions need to be short and to the point because of all the Hornbeck magician type handwaving. Something like the six words: "how do those e-mails show harassment?". If you need any practice in replying to him pm me your address and I’ll send you the jelly and some nails.

[Michael Gray]

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for Rules 0 and 12.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think if you examined any set of emails closely enough you could, as the 9/11 deniers do, discover "anomalies" that you could read things into. The question is whether the "anomalies" you are collecting and curating point clearly to some particular conclusion.

But of course. Why do you think I was so eager to collaborate with Brive1987? As the most knowledgable person to oppose me, he's the best placed to poke holes in my theories and expose any conspiracy thinking.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Here's an alternative for you: Radford is writing informally and hasn't had expert proofreaders go over everything he has said about the matter.

So your explanation is that Radford is a poor writer, as using an informal style to persuade people about his own legal case is a rather poor choice, and lacked a good proof-reader? How do you square that with the fact that Radford has a minor in professional writing, a Masters in education, been an editor for multiple magazines, and earned money as a writer for over 15 years (Wikipedia)? If your strongest argument is gross incompetence, you might not be much of a supporter after all.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The information he has released might also be intended merely to prove that Stollznow faked up some evidence, not to absolutely rule out any possibility that he ever sent any harassing emails to Stollznow.

You haven’t read his complaint, have you?

Quote:

.... While CFI’s conclusions were surprising, given its rejection of most of Stollznow’s allegations, it was clear that Stollznow, by falsifying the dates on the supposedly “inappropriate” emails, and by fabricating the circumstances associated with the events at the conference, had deceived CFI’s investigator, resulting in CFI’s findings, which in turn resulted in the suspension of Radford, without pay, for two weeks. (41)

In the course of CFI’s investigation of Radford, Stollznow maliciously and intentionally provided false information to CFI’s investigator, including, without limitation, providing CFI with numerous fraudulently-dated emails to make it appear to CFI that Radford had been sending Stollznow “harassing” emails in 2012 when, in fact, he had sent the emails in 2009 and 2010 in the course of a sexual relationship with Stollznow that she had initiated and perpetuated. (58)

CFI and its investigator relied on the falsified documents and fraudulent statements provided to them by Stollznow. (59)

There are three ways to read those passages; either Radford cannot contest that he sent harassing emails (there were "repeated requests for his personal communication to cease"), and wishes to distract from that by substituting the email forgery claims; he's read CFI's report (and thus lied in paragraph 33 of his Declaration) and knows the dates were key to the harassment claims; or he thinks the raw documents he has (Declaration, 23) are equivalent to the report, and has convinced himself that Stollznow fudged the dates without having full proof.

Con-man, liar, or deluded. No matter which one you pick, Radford is left with dirty hands.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Overall this still looks to me like conspiracy theory thinking with a predetermined conclusion. The magician here is you, but you aren't pointing at anything interesting.

If it is, then I should be making some highly implausible leaps of logic. The easiest way to show me the error of my ways is to come up with plausible hypotheses, better supported by the evidence, or point out the logical errors I'm making.

Demonstrating you've never read the legal complaint and throwing Radford under the bus don't accomplish that.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Brive1987 quoted the relevant passage.

So, your evidence for this:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

There's no solid evidence for Stollznow's assertions, and you acknowledge this.

is my statement here:

Quote:

Uhm, Stollznow has done little more than make assertions. Can you point to a place where I assume anything about what Stollznow has?

Slight problem: who said I was only allowed to use Stollznow's evidence to back Stollznow's claims? I'm warming up right now by looking primarily at Radford's complaints, and even in the early stages I've managed to show:

1. Radford misrepresents the word "authenticated," as a consequence misleading casual readers and lying in his Declaration.
2. Radford fails to do the minimum necessary to demonstrate fraud, even though he had the means, motive, and opportunity to hit that bar.
3. Radford's claim that there is no plausible explanation to fraud are demonstrably false, and I do so.
4. Radford's claim that it's "completely false" he earned a big settlement from an auto accident via lawsuit is itself mostly false; the only portion that isn't proven by the public record is the big settlement in his favor, and I show even that is plausible.

By the time I get around to Stollznow's claims, I'll have memorized all the background info I need to properly sift through Radford's incomplete and/or misleading evidence and apply it to Stollznow's claims. I only hope Brive1987 can poke holes in most of my work.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Brive, I wish you good luck with document, ... If you need any practice in replying to him pm me your address and I’ll send you the jelly and some nails.

I want the record to show that I heartily endorse this.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

But of course. Why do you think I was so eager to collaborate with Brive1987? As the most knowledgable person to oppose me, he's the best placed to poke holes in my theories and expose any conspiracy thinking.

So your explanation is that Radford is a poor writer, as using an informal style to persuade people about his own legal case is a rather poor choice, and lacked a good proof-reader? How do you square that with the fact that Radford has a minor in professional writing, a Masters in education, been an editor for multiple magazines, and earned money as a writer for over 15 years (Wikipedia)? If your strongest argument is gross incompetence, you might not be much of a supporter after all.

You haven’t read his complaint, have you?

There are three ways to read those passages; either Radford cannot contest that he sent harassing emails (there were "repeated requests for his personal communication to cease"), and wishes to distract from that by substituting the email forgery claims; he's read CFI's report (and thus lied in paragraph 33 of his Declaration) and knows the dates were key to the harassment claims; or he thinks the raw documents he has (Declaration, 23) are equivalent to the report, and has convinced himself that Stollznow fudged the dates without having full proof.

Con-man, liar, or deluded. No matter which one you pick, Radford is left with dirty hands.

If it is, then I should be making some highly implausible leaps of logic. The easiest way to show me the error of my ways is to come up with plausible hypotheses, better supported by the evidence, or point out the logical errors I'm making.

Demonstrating you've never read the legal complaint and throwing Radford under the bus don't accomplish that.

Only three ways huh? Sounds like CS Lewis level "lunatic, liar, lord".

Radford accepted the emails would be harassing if they had in fact been sent in 2012. They weren't so they aren't. Hence his qualifying use of quotes. I really don't see the point of getting in knots over this. So no, point 1 is not in play.

I don't believe Radford was given the report. He was however deposed by the investigator, got his letter of findings and received info sent by Stollznow to would be supporters. I reckon he has a pretty good idea what the specific charges are he is defending against, and the basis for them. Enough so that he spent his money (from his big payout? bwhahahah) and has demanded public disclosure of what is in his CFI shame file.

But wait up. What exactly are you trying to prove? That Radford has the report? That he is fishing without bait and KS did not use the dud dated emails? That he is shifting attention (via his fraud claims) away from .... ummm yet to be presented evidence? Evidence which if it exists for 2010 and 2011 did little to excite the investigator? What is the argument here?

On the other hand, as I noted above, none of these shenanigans are necessary to more plausibly explain Radford's confident claims. And let's not forget. A legal document presents a clear argument with no ifs or buts. It is purpose written for a specific narrow task. If you want studious nuance and qualification you're reading the wrong genre.

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

Here's truth or dare x7


Do you really believe KS was raped in SF despite her organising a shared room in the expectation they would be tipsy? And given she posed for selfies the next morning? And given her "especially close" email a few days later?

Do you accept KS proposed a weekend away in Alb on 10 Sept 2010?

Do you accept KS turned to BR in Sep 2010 for comfort and advice after "fighting" with Baxter?

Do you accept the "Stollznow 10" emails (regardless of source) were largely incorrectly dated?

Given Baxters FB post, do you accept the "Stollznow 10" are likely the emails he was speaking about?

Do you accept Baxter was unaware of any incessant sexual harassment (and by then assault) of his girlfriend / fiancée when he turned to Radford for support in July 2010? This despite having dated her for 10 months during the peak of Radford's obsessive campaign?

Do you accept that KS in Oct 2009 - a month after "breaking up" - expressed frustration that Radford had unfriended her? And that by Dec 2012 she had re friended him (so as to cut him off in turn while he was on the JREF cruise)?

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

You really owe it to all of us interested in your argument to issue simple clear one or two line yes or nos to these, just so we know where we stand. We can then discuss the implications and basis for your position. But really. Let's at least be clear on what we think of basic "anchor" facts, and why.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Do you really believe KS was raped in SF despite her organising a shared room in the expectation they would be tipsy?

I must have nodded off for a bit. Where did this brand-new and arguably defamatory allegation come from?

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I must have nodded off for a bit. Where did this brand-new and arguably defamatory allegation come from?

No room for your hyper-skepticism. We're talking about RAPE here! Stop asking questions and listen.


P.S. It seems to me a corollary of having had KS naked in his bed as shown in the picture, if he was at that time pressing his unwanted attentions on her.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

No room for your hyper-skepticism. We're talking about RAPE here! Stop asking questions and listen.

That sounded like parody, but then I remembered the morewillbenamed Tumblr...

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1405714315.227584.jpg

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

So your explanation is that Radford is a poor writer, as using an informal style to persuade people about his own legal case is a rather poor choice, and lacked a good proof-reader? How do you square that with the fact that Radford has a minor in professional writing, a Masters in education, been an editor for multiple magazines, and earned money as a writer for over 15 years (Wikipedia)? If your strongest argument is gross incompetence, you might not be much of a supporter after all.

I think you have fallen into the trap of black and white thinking. You are assuming that either I am a "Radford supporter" who thinks Radford is infallible and walks on water, or presumably a "Stollznow supporter" who thinks that she is without sin and that the oddities with her email dates are the work of Satanic forces.

I realise that you can't have any conspiracy theory fun unless you allow yourself to read Radford as uncharitably as possible, but rational people just don't interpret every ambiguity and/or error as evidence of a conspiracy.

Quote:

You haven’t read his complaint, have you?

There are three ways to read those passages; either Radford cannot contest that he sent harassing emails (there were "repeated requests for his personal communication to cease"), and wishes to distract from that by substituting the email forgery claims; he's read CFI's report (and thus lied in paragraph 33 of his Declaration) and knows the dates were key to the harassment claims; or he thinks the raw documents he has (Declaration, 23) are equivalent to the report, and has convinced himself that Stollznow fudged the dates without having full proof.

Con-man, liar, or deluded. No matter which one you pick, Radford is left with dirty hands.

That doesn't follow at all.

If someone says "I have proof Kevin is a goat molester, here is proof!" then no reasonable person expects me to do more to prove my innocence than show that the claimed proof is false or otherwise faulty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

If all Radford can do is show that the evidence Stollznow has produced to establish that the claimed harassment campaign ever happened is falsified, that's enough, surely? Why does he have to prove more than that?

Quote:

If it is, then I should be making some highly implausible leaps of logic. The easiest way to show me the error of my ways is to come up with plausible hypotheses, better supported by the evidence, or point out the logical errors I'm making.

Demonstrating you've never read the legal complaint and throwing Radford under the bus don't accomplish that.

We have been pointing out your logical errors and presenting you with a more plausible hypothesis, which is just that Radford writes without ultimate precision and consistency, and Stollznow falsified some evidence. When we do that you ignore it completely and assert that we haven't read something-or-other.

It's also rather weird that you are talking about "throwing Radford under the bus". It looks rather like you've got that black-and-white thinking again. If we are "throwing Radford under the bus" that must mean we are "throwing Radford under the bus" in the service of some greater goal, and I'm not sure what that could possibly be unless you've decided in your own mind that anyone who disagrees with you is part of some secret Sexual Harassment Denial Brigade throwing men under buses to cover up sexual harassment.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I must have nodded off for a bit. Where did this brand-new and arguably defamatory allegation come from?

I was responding to a sentence in the Google doc by HJ - that was not fully fleshed and has now been removed. Namely that the best explanation for SF was that Radford took advantage of an inebriated KS. I believe my surprise at this concept was evident in my question.

There is a heading remaining What really happened on April 16 2010? Indeed.

Given the original statement has been withdrawn, I will rephrase the first of my list of 7 clarifications to:

"Do you acknowledge that Stollznow helped organise a night of consensual sex in April 2010?"

Note my seven questions don't demand an explanatory scaffold. I'm simply keen to see whether each item is accepted as a stand alone fact or not. And if not, why not. Then we can move onto theories.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That sounded like parody, but then I remembered the morewillbenamed Tumblr...

Attachment 31315

You don't need to even leave the eminent presence of Carrie Poppy:

Quote:

I am not going to say more on this on public forums– No doubt, people will press me for evidence and take the side of the organization and individual in power.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...ppy-tells-all/

Oh how crass are calls for evidence to back specific claims that impact real people in the real world. Now back to Stollznow, as if we ever left.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Oh how crass are calls for evidence to back specific claims that impact real people in the real world. Now back to Stollznow, as if we ever left.

Remind me again when was it that the anti-Stollznow side called for public evidence to be presented rather than calling for millions of dollars in reparations?

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Remind me again when was it that the anti-Stollznow side called for public evidence to be presented rather than calling for millions of dollars in reparations?

The demand for supporting evidence has been a constant refrain from the 'anti-uncorroborated sexual assault allegation' brigade.

The only one having to articulate damages (due to being forced into last resort legal antics) is Radford. He left the option for 'put up or shut up' on the table until retraction-gate.

Stollznow could at any time from Aug 2013 to April 2014 have made demands for retraction moot by ..... yep you guessed it.

However it appears KS learnt the limits of her 'evidence' during the investigation. Once burnt twice shy.

[Brive1987]

Interesting. Ben legal is down.

If it remains down the possibilities range from BR acknowledging fraud in his evidence through to KS threatening to burn some of the 60k on a possible counter suit (per her fundraising comment). I'll leave you to ponder the probabilities.

It leaves me in a quandary though. I am only happy analysing evidence in the public domain, provided by the stakeholders. No public evidence, no analysis. I am not interested in idyl whimsy. If the evidence has been withdrawn, for any reason, then the public court must once more adjourn. No doubt the legal one will grind on.

It will be interesting to wait and see.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

It leaves me in a quandary though. I am only happy analysing evidence in the public domain, provided by the stakeholders. No public evidence, no analysis. I am not interested in idyl whimsy. If the evidence has been withdrawn, for any reason, then the public court must once more adjourn. No doubt the legal one will grind on.

My thoughts are very similar. Radford posted that website so everyone could look at his evidence; by removing it, he's signalling he no longer wants us to. I'm happy to leave things here and move on to something else, assuming the change is permanent of course.

Problem is, a number of people have been lobbing questions at me about the case, some of which I've left hanging because they'd be covered in the shared analysis. If I drop this case cold-turkey, it opens me up to charges of evading questions.

So I tell you what: I'll keep answering questions until Radford clarifies why the site is down, or it becomes obvious this change is permanent. I figure two weeks of silence is about enough for the latter. And this time, I'll answer as if there was no shared analysis.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

I was responding to a sentence in the Google doc by HJ - that was not fully fleshed and has now been removed. Namely that the best explanation for SF was that Radford took advantage of an inebriated KS.

You mean this statement here?

Quote:

Radford himself insists on September 18th, 2010, but a close look at his emails reveals both had called it off on January 13th, 2010. While relationships require mutual consent to start, they do not require the same to stop, and so their sexual relationship ended sometime around January 2009. That April 2010 sexual encounter is most plausibly explained as Radford badgering Stollznow into having sex, with the aid of alcohol.

I checked the revision history, and it's been sitting there with no changes since late late late July 13th, when I added it to the document.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

You mean this statement here?

That is somewhat confusing to me. Do you really mean to say it ended in Jan 2009 or Jan 2010?

ETA: Anyone have any idea why the site is down and whether an agreement is in the works?

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

You really owe it to all of us interested in your argument to issue simple clear one or two line yes or nos to these, just so we know where we stand.

I don't, actually. My preferred methodology is to examine one specific and well-sourced claim made by person X, pull apart the underlying assumptions, and look for evidence pro or con. As I go, I keep an eye out for evidence that effects other claims I've looked at, and revisit them with the new info. Occasionally, if I see a pattern in the evidence, I'll start forming hypotheses around it and treat them as well-sourced claims.

Since that's a reactive approach, I spend much of my time without a firm conclusion or even a most plausible hypothesis in mind. Quite frequently, I'm still forming and challenging hypotheses as I'm writing about them. A clear "yeah or nay" only comes when I'm convinced no new evidence will roll in, and the evidence is crystal clear.

But with the shared analysis on hold, this is now my primary outlet for discussing these hypotheses. So, let's play truth or dare.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Do you really believe KS was raped in SF despite her organising a shared room in the expectation they would be tipsy?

No. Look carefully at what I wrote: I said the most plausible explanation has "Radford badgering Stollznow into having sex, with the aid of alcohol." Stollznow probably didn't head to SanFran with the intent of having sex with Radford; she did intend to get drunk, however, and apparently trusted Radford enough to ask if he could provide a place to sleep off the booze. Radford likely took advantage of that.

So far, so rapey. But here's the difference: we have the ability to retroactively grant consent during periods where we had none. Say I got drunk at a bar, tried to get into my car to drive home, you noticed, and you stuck me in your car and drove me to my house. At the time, that was a clear case of kidnapping; when I later sober up, I have the option of saying it wasn't, and even if the police have you in custody and are prepping a slam-dunk criminal case against you, they're obligated to drop the case.

Likewise, even if what Radford was engaged in looks exactly like date rape, Stollznow has the ability to retroactively declare it consensual.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

And given she posed for selfies the next morning? And given her "especially close" email a few days later?

Did she make him breakfast, too? You underestimate the power of denial. You keep forgetting these lines from Stollznow's blog post, too:

Quote:

He would find opportunities for me within the company and recommend me to television producers, but only if I was nicer to him. One day the company offered me an honorary position that I’d worked hard for, but he warned me that he had the power to thwart that offer. I threatened to complain to his employer, but he bragged that another woman had accused him of sexual harassment previously and her complaints were ignored. According to him, she had been declared “batshit crazy”.

The fact she was nice to him could be explained by the fact that she liked him, or it could be explained by the fact that she thought not being nice would cost her financially and damage her career. You can't just look at one of those hypotheses in isolation, otherwise you're almost guaranteed to come to a biased conclusion.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Do you accept KS proposed a weekend away in Alb on 10 Sept 2010?

I accept she wanted to "hang out," in her words.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Do you accept KS turned to BR in Sep 2010 for comfort and advice after "fighting" with Baxter?

This is misleading. It seems likely she wanted someone to talk to on the 10th, but there's no mention of that on the 18th and she seems openly hostile to Radford. Three weeks after Stollznow's and Baxter's big fight and after a phone call with Radford, however, she suddenly wants to meet him in person. I can accept that claim for the period between September 10th and 18th, but find it unlikely for any period after then.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Do you accept the "Stollznow 10" emails (regardless of source) were largely incorrectly dated?

Radford has provided some evidence that six of the ten emails were incorrectly dated, of high enough quality that I consider it convincing. I can accept "some were incorrectly dated," but "largely incorrectly" smells of trying to stack the deck.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Given Baxters FB post, do you accept the "Stollznow 10" are likely the emails he was speaking about?

Do you accept Baxter was unaware of any incessant sexual harassment (and by then assault) of his girlfriend / fiancée when he turned to Radford for support in July 2010? This despite having dated her for 10 months during the peak of Radford's obsessive campaign?

Radford's provided no proof of authenticity, even though he's capable of taking screen shots and willing to share personal info (see Flashback report), and the fact that he refers to it as a "Facebook email" when Facebook didn't start their email service until November 2010, makes me highly suspicious of that document.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Do you accept that KS in Oct 2009 - a month after "breaking up" - expressed frustration that Radford had unfriended her?

Radford does not provide an original email for that, and he has blatantly quote-mined emails at least once in this legal case (compare paragraph 39 of the complaint to Smith's words in the MonsterTalk email Radford shared). I cannot say either way.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

And that by Dec 2012 she had re friended him?

The only source we have for that is Radford, in a single email. I won't make a solid "yeah" or "nay" on that one until further evidence comes in.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Let's at least be clear on what we think of basic "anchor" facts, and why.

"Anchor" facts? Some of them I have no conclusive stance on, yet I'm comfortable stating most of Stollznow's claims in her blog post are more likely true than not. Some of them are misleadingly phrased to stack the deck towards your conclusions.

You should reconsider their importance.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That is somewhat confusing to me. Do you really mean to say it ended in Jan 2009 or Jan 2010?

It looks like Radford made it mutual in January 2010. However, relationships don't end when both partners agree to end it, they end when one person says it's ended. So a strong case can be made that their sexual relationship ended between January 2009 and January 2010, depending on when Stollznow first told Radford it was over, making the April 2010 encounter a one-night stand at best.

In other words, Radford is wrong two times over.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

ETA: Anyone have any idea why the site is down and whether an agreement is in the works?

Thibeault heard a rumour the site was taken down by a C&D. Other than that, I've got nothing. Does anyone have a PACER account, and is willing to update us on Radford's case? They're free for US citizens, and if you're willing to provide a credit card number you can get instant access.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

It looks like Radford made it mutual in January 2010. However, relationships don't end when both partners agree to end it, they end when one person says it's ended. So a strong case can be made that their sexual relationship ended between January 2009 and January 2010, depending on when Stollznow first told Radford it was over, making the April 2010 encounter a one-night stand at best.

Never had a one-night-stand myself, but I hear they can be the best.

What you seem to be saying here is that a relationship characterized by friendly missives and the occasional fling ended well before the missives and flings actually did. This seems a bit off. The natural end point should be whenever they stopped doing the sort of things that characterized the relationship in the first place.

As to PACER updates, probably Loren is your best best.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Never had a one-night-stand myself, but I hear they can be the best.

What you seem to be saying here is that a relationship characterized by friendly missives and the occasional fling ended well before the missives and flings actually did. This seems a bit off. The natural end point should be whenever they stopped doing the sort of things that characterized the relationship in the first place.

As to PACER updates, probably Loren is your best best.

It seems that hjhornbeck does not discount the likelihood of Stollznow's claims being true just because she has clearly falsified evidence to support her claims. Instead Stollznow's claims are taken to be true, or at least to always be the most plausible hypothesis, unless and until there is absolutely watertight evidence that each specific claim is false. Even then all her other claims remain the default truth until disproven.

The lack of non-falsified, contemporaneous evidence for any of her claims doesn't seem to matter.

[FreddyEH]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If Radford really did harass Stollznow, where is the positive evidence for that conclusion? Where are the actual harassing emails, texts or whatever? Why didn't Stollznow release them first, instead of falsifying evidence and releasing it while sitting on the good evidence? The idea that Stollznow has good evidence but released fake evidence is extremely bizarre.

EXACTLY this. It's astonishing to see how Karen has carefully avoided offering any evidence or proof of Radford's harassment at all, anywhere, and few people seem to have noticed. Where are the mountains of raunchy e-mails from him 2009-2012? Where are all the sexually harassing voice mails and e-mails and inappropriate gifts and messages?

Because nobody seems to have seen them, including the CFI investigator--with the exception of the handful of "harassing" messages, most of which had forged dates (and frankly weren't what most people would consider harassing--including Karen if you read them). There's no reason in the world why she can't make them public--if they exist.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

It looks like Radford made it mutual in January 2010. However, relationships don't end when both partners agree to end it, they end when one person says it's ended. So a strong case can be made that their sexual relationship ended between January 2009 and January 2010, depending on when Stollznow first told Radford it was over, making the April 2010 encounter a one-night stand at best.

In other words, Radford is wrong two times over.

Thibeault heard a rumour the site was taken down by a C&D. Other than that, I've got nothing. Does anyone have a PACER account, and is willing to update us on Radford's case? They're free for US citizens, and if you're willing to provide a credit card number you can get instant access.

There never was a sustained sexual relationship. They hooked up 4 or so times, the relationship was based more on friendship with benefits.

KS canned this when she couldn't get commitment. She got disappointed in Nov 08,after her NM visit, cooled it while in Oz till April and came back promising more hookups down the track, threw it when she still didn't get commitment, hooked up in April 2010, cooled it, then asked for more in Sep and got rebuffed. That's what her prev. published emails tell us. And that says there is no clear 'normal' relationship line in the sand to draw.

The Jan 2009 comment came as a retrospective reflection once she realised her post OZ committed relationship wouldn't fly.

It refers to when she *should* have realised it was Radford's way or no way.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

I don't, actually. My preferred methodology is to examine one specific and well-sourced claim made by person X, pull apart the underlying assumptions, and look for evidence pro or con. As I go, I keep an eye out for evidence that effects other claims I've looked at, and revisit them with the new info. Occasionally, if I see a pattern in the evidence, I'll start forming hypotheses around it and treat them as well-sourced claims.

Since that's a reactive approach, I spend much of my time without a firm conclusion or even a most plausible hypothesis in mind. Quite frequently, I'm still forming and challenging hypotheses as I'm writing about them. A clear "yeah or nay" only comes when I'm convinced no new evidence will roll in, and the evidence is crystal clear.

But with the shared analysis on hold, this is now my primary outlet for discussing these hypotheses. So, let's play truth or dare.

No. Look carefully at what I wrote: I said the most plausible explanation has "Radford badgering Stollznow into having sex, with the aid of alcohol." Stollznow probably didn't head to SanFran with the intent of having sex with Radford; she did intend to get drunk, however, and apparently trusted Radford enough to ask if he could provide a place to sleep off the booze. Radford likely took advantage of that.

So far, so rapey. But here's the difference: we have the ability to retroactively grant consent during periods where we had none. Say I got drunk at a bar, tried to get into my car to drive home, you noticed, and you stuck me in your car and drove me to my house. At the time, that was a clear case of kidnapping; when I later sober up, I have the option of saying it wasn't, and even if the police have you in custody and are prepping a slam-dunk criminal case against you, they're obligated to drop the case.

Likewise, even if what Radford was engaged in looks exactly like date rape, Stollznow has the ability to retroactively declare it consensual.

Did she make him breakfast, too? You underestimate the power of denial. You keep forgetting these lines from Stollznow's blog post, too:

The fact she was nice to him could be explained by the fact that she liked him, or it could be explained by the fact that she thought not being nice would cost her financially and damage her career. You can't just look at one of those hypotheses in isolation, otherwise you're almost guaranteed to come to a biased conclusion.

I accept she wanted to "hang out," in her words.

This is misleading. It seems likely she wanted someone to talk to on the 10th, but there's no mention of that on the 18th and she seems openly hostile to Radford. Three weeks after Stollznow's and Baxter's big fight and after a phone call with Radford, however, she suddenly wants to meet him in person. I can accept that claim for the period between September 10th and 18th, but find it unlikely for any period after then.

Radford has provided some evidence that six of the ten emails were incorrectly dated, of high enough quality that I consider it convincing. I can accept "some were incorrectly dated," but "largely incorrectly" smells of trying to stack the deck.

Radford's provided no proof of authenticity, even though he's capable of taking screen shots and willing to share personal info (see Flashback report), and the fact that he refers to it as a "Facebook email" when Facebook didn't start their email service until November 2010, makes me highly suspicious of that document.

Radford does not provide an original email for that, and he has blatantly quote-mined emails at least once in this legal case (compare paragraph 39 of the complaint to Smith's words in the MonsterTalk email Radford shared). I cannot say either way.

The only source we have for that is Radford, in a single email. I won't make a solid "yeah" or "nay" on that one until further evidence comes in.

"Anchor" facts? Some of them I have no conclusive stance on, yet I'm comfortable stating most of Stollznow's claims in her blog post are more likely true than not. Some of them are misleadingly phrased to stack the deck towards your conclusions.

You should reconsider their importance.

I appreciate you addressing these points.

You say:

Quote:

Stollznow probably didn't head to SanFran with the intent of having sex with Radford; she did intend to get drunk, however, and apparently trusted Radford enough to ask if he could provide a place to sleep off the booze. Radford likely took advantage of that.

I find this amazing and have two comments to make.

Firstly, I think you are wrong. Coming off a sexual relationship, one simply doesn't propose an innocent (tipsy) sleepover in a hotel room, to what? Save half a room rate? Did Stollznow request a twin single? She accepts her request could (should) be seen as 'presumptuous' - now why would that be? And the gushy emails that followed? And the 'cute' photo snaps? No, this is a linear line of join the dots.

Lets compare the theories. I believe, based on the evidence, that Stollznow accepted an offer of a date, organised a hotel room, set some parameters for the occasion by mentioning Baxter, slept with Radford, enjoyed the experience, wrote emails in that light and later got cranky when Radford had his own clingy turn.

You believe Stollznow wanted to only room share with her ex-lover, got raped (per the SJ definition) annulled the crime and then pandered to her attacker(?) out of fear of retribution. The nicer she is the more you can smell the fear. But wait, come the next morning did she consentualise the experience or was she cowing in submissive horror? I can't really keep up. And if he was threatening per SA would you really date night him? Or did the threats come post sleep-over? If so they are invisible in Radford's, let's be honest, rather sad May emails which Stollznow had no problem slapping down.

What would Occam say?

Secondly, even if you were right. What does an even retrospectively consensual one night stand mean for SA? I mean April 2010 is right darn smack in the middle of the narrative between the nightmare escalation post-Baxter and the climatic sexual assault .......


OK, you accept the majority of the "Stollznow 10" meet even your own exacting tests and were incorrectly dated. However you didn't answer my next point directly - are these the same emails Baxter refers to when he admits to submitting incorrectly dated correspondence to the investigation? Or are there more potential fraudulent troves in play?

Re the Facebook post complaint. There is a form of print screen in benrlegal. Moreover Baxter was asked point blank did he write the post / email whatever. And bless his heart, the answer was "yes". I have the print screen of this dialog. So my question remains, do you accept Baxter had no knowledge of his Fiancee's travails even as they proceeded in their incessant and escalating ways? I remind you she had already been allegedly assaulted prior to this exchange between buddies in arms.

I accept the Facebook friend/defriending comes from Radford. You are as free to dismiss his explicit claims (which will be tested in court), as you are to blithely accept Stollznow's so far fact-free assertions. But I don't see a conspiracy. Radford did not leverage the implications (or even acknowledge them) - that was my small contribution.

You accept that Stollznow wanted to "hang-out" together in Alb as (another) friendly innocent excursion. You would think Stollznow would have learnt after SF! You will have to forgive my skepticism here and my belief that (like Radford) I saw more in that request than simple japes.

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

Where does all this leave us?

I believe you offered misdirection with regards Baxter and his very clear ownership of "some" trove of poorly dated rubbish.

I also believe you offered us misdirection with regards Baxter and the implications of his 'call a friend' to Radford in July 2010.

But we do agree most (at least) of the 10 emails were falsified - just not the ownership of them.

We agree there was sex in 2010 concurrent with the height of Stollznow's alleged abuse and it was mutually considered consensual - though you dismiss it as a simple "one night stand".

We have post-tryst bonhomie which you think actually proves the the exact opposite - fear and loathing.

We agree that at the end of the SA narrative Karen wanted to "hang out". At a hotel. Interstate. All weekend.

We also agree Stollznow wanted to meet us with Radford for at least a week in September .... 1/4 of the way through her 4 years of sexual harassment.


All in all, and even with just our agreed points, I'd say that the SA narrative was pretty much case closed.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What you seem to be saying here is that a relationship characterized by friendly missives and the occasional fling ended well before the missives and flings actually did. This seems a bit off.

Within Radford’s narrative, it certainly is. He claimed to be in a sexual relationship with Stollznow until September 18th, 2010.

Quote:

It is an understatement to say that her allegations came as a complete surprise to Radford, given that their sexual relationship had ended more than two years earlier, had been initiated by Stollznow in the first place, had included sexual encounters arranged by Stollznow as late as April 2010, and included a suggestion by her in September 2010 that they continue their affair, even though she planned to marry another man she had been seeing. (Complaint, paragraph 4)

I’ve already explained why this isn’t the case, but what about April 15th and September 18th, 2010? Doesn’t the fact that Stollznow arranged the April encounter, and suggested an affair in September, contradict my earlier explanation?

They would, if they were true. Radford, for instance, was the one who proposed a get-together with Stollznow, if you follow the email chain (emphasis added by me, some portions dropped for brevity).

Quote:

Radford: As it happens, I will be in SF from April 15 to 18 or so. I'm giving a talk on the 16th, and I have a few other plans, but I should have some free time during my stay. (March 31st, 2010)

Stollznow: I'd still be willing to attend the Friday night dinner with you, if you haven't already found another guest. (March 31st)

Stollznow: On another note, I'm not sure what your hotel arrangements are for Friday night, but if we're to hang out on Saturday, and I'm to have a few drinks during dinner, would it be possible for me to crash with you in the city? If that's not too presumptuous of me to ask. (April 10th)

Radford: You are certainly welcome to crash out with me, though the logistics are a little dodgy. My plan so far is that I'll be at the Four Seasons Hotel SF on Thursnight (so that I'm at the hotel Friday AM when/where I'm speaking), and in Berkeley with my aunt & uncle Frinight and Satnight. Thus the only night I officially have a hotel in the city is Thursnight. I probably should not be out painting the town too much that night if I'm speaking the next morning, though some moderate hanging out would be fine (and you're welcome to crash with me that night). Frinight is our dinner, after which I either need to head back to Berkeley or find a reasonable hotel somewhere (Four Seasons = $500 per night, my one night is free, others are not!) (or crash with you, if that's not too presumptuous of me to ask!). Same with Saturday, though I won't necessarily be in the city unless I'm doing touristy / museum stuff. So we can definitely plan to visit, we just need to figure out what works best for everyone under the circumstances. (April 10th)

Stollznow: Trudging home a little drunk might not be polite as far as your uncle or my roommate are concerned, so how about I find a room in SF? Say the word, and I'll check out Hotwire and reserve a room close to the restaurant. (April 11th)

Radford: Oh, I dunno. I think my uncle would find it endearing if he went into the kitchen for breakfast and tripped over our pissand puke-drenched slumbering bodies curled up next to the dishwasher...

A room in SF sounds fine to me, that makes more sense if you can find something decent and reasonable.(April 11th)

Stollznow: Well, I don't plan to be /that/ drunk!

I booked a room at a joint called Club Quarters in SF, right near the Embarcadero. (April 11th)

Note how Radford steered her towards renting a hotel room on his behalf? That's escalation on his part, pushing her towards a situation where she'd be drunk and alone. Note as well when Radford dished out some innuendo, Stollznow tried to de-escalate. That’s not the act of someone looking to have sex.

What about that September 2010 email where she seems to ask for a fling? Radford is kind enough to provide us with an alternate explanation (emphasis mine):

Quote:

For example one e-mail to Karen apparently dated 7/26/2012 read: “Just got back from a quick jog, and for some reason I wondered: Do you really feel you have more in common with Baxter than me?” and according to Karen she received another on 9/17/2012 reading “Karen, it’s a shame things are strained between us. We could be doing great work together, starting new investigations, collaborating on books, having great sex. Ah well.” (This last sentence was actually a quote that Karen had originally sent to me, and I was quoting it back to her.) (website, fraud)

Radford seems to enjoy doing that, as I emphasized in the March/April email exchange. In fact, Radford does it three times in that September 18th exchange. He assures us of the first, and you can see the second and third for yourself (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Stollznow: Ben, get over all of this. If you're truly developing a new relationship,
I'm happy for you.

Let's get past this! (September 19th, 10:56 AM)

Stollznow: However, if you're ever willing to have an affair… (11:36 AM)

Radford: I don't have affairs, I don't cheat on my partners. If I'm committed, I'm committed. If I'm not, I'm not. You should know that.

Besides, as you wrote: Sex with each other just isn't a good idea anymore. (1:03 PM)

Stollznow: Well, that's not true, but anyway, I offered. Never again.

Radford: Karen, get over all of this. If you're truly developing a new relationship,
I'm happy for you

Let's get past this! (1:09 PM)

If you look at the original PDFs, the colour highlighting gives away that Radford literally copy-pasted Stollznow’s words from an earlier reply then changed the name.

Now if this is a common thing with Radford, maybe Stollznow’s doing the same thing back? Radford’s third repeat referenced the “affair” bit, after all, so this could have been a long chain quote retaliation. In fact, there might actually be a fourth one there: remember that bit where Radford claims that “if I’m committed, I’m committed”?

Radford is polyamorous, and in fact seems to have been in counseling over it:

Quote:

I realized that part of what had been holding me back from exploring relationships was some sort of misplaced loyalty to other people, or their expectations. I didn't want to hurt Patty's feelings, or Jenna's feelings, or anyone's feelings, as if they'd feel betrayed if I dated someone else even though we were not together. This wasn't something they were putting on me, this was something I was putting on myself. In the process I had subconsciously boxed myself in; this was one of the insights that five therapy sessions a few months ago elicited. (Flashback report, Item C)

So he might actually be quoting something of Stollznow's there, which she calls him out for. Interestingly, in the very same email, he proposes a monogamous relationship with Stollznow:

Quote:

I have other thoughts on how it came about and manifested itself that I won't bore you with, but after 45 minutes of serious thinking, I decided that I could not—would not—let it happen any longer. I decided that I wanted to open up and take a chance on things-- on you. …

We never did have a proper relationship. Whether you believe it or not, I saw our planned trip together a year ago as testing the waters for a potential relationship. I was gathering up the courage to make a final break from Jenna and see where it went with you. (Flashback report, Item C)

This is especially shocking, as it’s his reaction to learning that Stollznow is in a committed relationship with Baxter. If Radford keeps flip-flopping between monogamy and polygamy, and has no respect for Stollznow's own declaration of monogamy, how can she trust him to be monogamous? Here's a more blatant flip-flop from Radford, with emphasis by me:

Quote:

Same old capricious hot-and-cold Karen whose moods and decisions change with the wind. I've had enough, thanks. My instincts were right about you. (September 30th, 2010)

You still love me. I can hear it in your voice. (October 7th, 2010)

Stollznow’s sudden offer of an affair, when she seemed to have slammed the door shut on this, makes quite a bit of sense as her mocking Radford by throwing his own behavior back in his face, which triggered Radford to retaliate in kind via quotes. It makes none if treated as a sincere offer.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by FreddyEH

EXACTLY this. It's astonishing to see how Karen has carefully avoided offering any evidence or proof of Radford's harassment at all, anywhere, and few people seem to have noticed.

We've had two high-profile lawsuits in the skeptic community in the last year, and you still haven't the slightest clue how they work? How embarrassing.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

We've had two high-profile lawsuits in the skeptic community in the last year, and you still haven't the slightest clue how they work? How embarrassing.

You have? I don't consider myself a member of such a community, but I have been following things a bit on JREF. I'm aware of a threatened lawsuit from Shermer that didn't come through and of course the one actual lawsuit from Radford against Stollznow. Did I miss some entertainment?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Note how Radford steered her towards renting a hotel room on his behalf? That's escalation on his part, pushing her towards a situation where she'd be drunk and alone.

I'd like to just take a moment here to register my complete and utter incredulity that you have seriously put this theory forward to explain that particular exchange between two intelligent and capable adults.

I've always looked a bit askance at the idea that feminists are hung up with notions of female hypoagency, but you've given such a dazzling display of it here that I'm going to have to start taking Straughan more seriously from now on.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd like to just take a moment here to register my complete and utter incredulity that you have seriously put this theory forward to explain that particular exchange between two intelligent and capable adults.

I've always looked a bit askance at the idea that feminists are hung up with notions of female hypoagency, but you've given such a dazzling display of it here that I'm going to have to start taking Straughan more seriously from now on.

Don't worry. In a few days, weeks at most, any mention of feminists denying that women have agency will again be met with cries of "straw-feminist", and/or demands for evidence that any (true) feminist ever said this.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

They would, if they were true. Radford, for instance, was the one who proposed a get-together with Stollznow, if you follow the email chain (emphasis added by me, some portions dropped for brevity).

Quote:

Radford: As it happens, I will be in SF from April 15 to 18 or so. I'm giving a talk on the 16th, and I have a few other plans, but I should have some free time during my stay. (March 31st, 2010)

Stollznow: I'd still be willing to attend the Friday night dinner with you, if you haven't already found another guest. (March 31st)

Stollznow: On another note, I'm not sure what your hotel arrangements are for Friday night, but if we're to hang out on Saturday, and I'm to have a few drinks during dinner, would it be possible for me to crash with you in the city? If that's not too presumptuous of me to ask. (April 10th)

Radford: You are certainly welcome to crash out with me, though the logistics are a little dodgy. My plan so far is that I'll be at the Four Seasons Hotel SF on Thursnight (so that I'm at the hotel Friday AM when/where I'm speaking), and in Berkeley with my aunt & uncle Frinight and Satnight. Thus the only night I officially have a hotel in the city is Thursnight. I probably should not be out painting the town too much that night if I'm speaking the next morning, though some moderate hanging out would be fine (and you're welcome to crash with me that night). Frinight is our dinner, after which I either need to head back to Berkeley or find a reasonable hotel somewhere (Four Seasons = $500 per night, my one night is free, others are not!) (or crash with you, if that's not too presumptuous of me to ask!). Same with Saturday, though I won't necessarily be in the city unless I'm doing touristy / museum stuff. So we can definitely plan to visit, we just need to figure out what works best for everyone under the circumstances. (April 10th)

Stollznow: Trudging home a little drunk might not be polite as far as your uncle or my roommate are concerned, so how about I find a room in SF? Say the word, and I'll check out Hotwire and reserve a room close to the restaurant. (April 11th)

Radford: Oh, I dunno. I think my uncle would find it endearing if he went into the kitchen for breakfast and tripped over our pissand puke-drenched slumbering bodies curled up next to the dishwasher...

A room in SF sounds fine to me, that makes more sense if you can find something decent and reasonable.(April 11th)

Stollznow: Well, I don't plan to be /that/ drunk!

I booked a room at a joint called Club Quarters in SF, right near the Embarcadero. (April 11th)

Note how Radford steered her towards renting a hotel room on his behalf? That's escalation on his part, pushing her towards a situation where she'd be drunk and alone. Note as well when Radford dished out some innuendo, Stollznow tried to de-escalate. That’s not the act of someone looking to have sex.

Odd, your quote shows the exact opposite of what you claim. It was Stollznow who offered to attend dinner with Radford, and it was Stollznow who suggested drinking at dinner, followed by Stollznow crashing with Radford (a situation where she'd be drunk and alone).

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Odd, your quote shows the exact opposite of what you claim. It was Stollznow who offered to attend dinner with Radford, and it was Stollznow who suggested drinking at dinner, followed by Stollznow crashing with Radford (a situation where she'd be drunk and alone).

Were candy-panties, chains, whips, dildos, Ben-wa balls or cattle prods mentioned?

Did anyone say anything about a visit from a transvestite midget with an over-sexed Chihuahua?

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd like to just take a moment here to register my complete and utter incredulity that you have seriously put this theory forward to explain that particular exchange between two intelligent and capable adults.

You'd also be incredulious if I said someone's reaction, on hearing an old flame was getting semi-engaged to someone else, was to propose having a serious relationship with that. Yet that's exactly what we find in Item C of the Flashback report, albeit in a hilariously transparent passive-aggressive way.

Credulity is a handy heuristic for weighting claims when you don't have all the evidence in front of you. I, however, bent over backwards to share all the evidence for my claim that I could, which means credulity must defer to logic and evidence. If my interpretation is wildly out of alignment with reality, you should have no problems showing an unsupported assertion or logical misstep.

So roll up your sleeves and give me something more useful than "I don't believe you." Otherwise, my hypothesis remains the one best supported by the evidence.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Odd, your quote shows the exact opposite of what you claim. It was Stollznow who offered to attend dinner with Radford, and it was Stollznow who suggested drinking at dinner, followed by Stollznow crashing with Radford (a situation where she'd be drunk and alone).

Except it also shows Radford was the one to propose getting together in the first place, and when she offered to "crash" it was with Radford's relatives. That undercuts the narrative that Stollznow was the one looking for a hook-up, does it not?

There's also a greater problem here. What does "crash" mean? It's possible that during their relationship this came to mean "having sex," but it's also possible it just meant "a place to temporarily sleep." One vital clue to this would be the early correspondence between Radford and Stollznow, when even she agrees she had feelings for him.

Yet, Radford never shares those emails with us.

He has them, as he's quoted from them on his timeline and in the legal Complaint. He has reason to show them, as one of his core premises is that he and Stollznow had a sexual relationship at some point. He has no aversion to sharing private info, either about himself or Stollznow, so that's not an explanation.

But without those emails, all we see is a time when Stollznow has moved on and is dating Baxter. Maybe she was a lot more explicit when she was geniunely into Radford? He does mention one of her emails to him references oral sex, after all. The only good reason he has for holding back on those emails, that I can think of, is that if you compare them to the emails sent after December 2009, they show Stollznow wasn't interested in a sexual relationship after that point.

Yet again, Radford may be misleading us.