|
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. |
![]() |
#121 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
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:
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#122 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#123 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
HJ said:
Quote:
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. |
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#124 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
Here is a bit of micro fisking of my own.
Stollznow complained to JREF only that:
Quote:
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? ![]() |
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#125 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#126 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#127 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
|
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:
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:
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#128 | ||
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
|
|
||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#129 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
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?
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#130 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
So, your evidence for this:
is my statement here:
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#131 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#132 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
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. |
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#133 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,660
|
|
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#134 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#135 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,660
|
That sounded like parody, but then I remembered the morewillbenamed Tumblr... ImageUploadedByTapatalk1405714315.227584.jpg |
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#136 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
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:
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:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#137 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
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. |
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#138 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
You don't need to even leave the eminent presence of Carrie Poppy:
Quote:
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. |
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#139 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,660
|
|
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#140 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
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. |
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#141 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
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. |
__________________
Stollznow's retraction of her claims against Ben Radford - May 2015 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#142 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#143 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
You mean this statement here?
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#144 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,660
|
|
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#145 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
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:
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#146 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#147 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,660
|
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. |
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#148 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#149 |
Student
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#150 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#151 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
|
I appreciate you addressing these points. You say:
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#152 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
Within Radford’s narrative, it certainly is. He claimed to be in a sexual relationship with Stollznow until September 18th, 2010.
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#153 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#154 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
|
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?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#155 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,660
|
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. |
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#156 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,560
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#157 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,560
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#158 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#159 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#160 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|