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

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

So roll up your sleeves and give me something more useful than "I don't believe you."

I'm not sure how you propose to do hypothesis testing here, but here are the competing hypotheses:

Ho: Two occasional lovers arranged a weekend in SF over e-mail, with their eyes open and enthusiastic consent in mind.

Ha: One of those two people cooly manipulated the other one into arranging a hotel room, and while she had no liaisons in mind, he was looking forward to subverting her consent by plying her with drink.

Can we put this to a vote?

[Amazer]

I'm going for option Ho.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

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.

Oh dear. I'd hoped someone else would reply to this before.

As it is, just before my bedtime, I feel compelled to make a statement.

Your claims are ambiguous and almost never stated explicitly. Your logic is not merely tortuous, it is absent. I've seen credible cases from 9/11 truthers, creationists and Bijlmermeer disaster conspiracy theorists. Your claims however, lack even a hypothesis thus far, beyond 'somehow, Stollznow must be right'. 9/11 truthers would hold you in righteous contempt.

ALL your assertsions so far on this forum are without supporting evidence. ALL the logic you've shared thus far is beyond merely strained and well into crazy conspiracy theorist territory.

You cast aspersions based upon nothing more than details of phrasing, you hand wave around evidence, implying the evidence must somehow be wrong. You imply without stating it outright that something other, something sinister must have been going on, without even specifying what you think that might be.

I'm very disappointed. Seriously, if your case is the best one that can be made for Stollznow, she's lost.

I'm sure others who are more into detailed explication than I am will inform you in detail of all the myriad fallacies you've committed so far. If they don't, ask and I'll do the work myself.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

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.

Meh, still not in bed and this one triggered me as a perfect example. You accuse Radford of having malicious motives in not sharing the background emails that might or might not ascribe a personal meaning to the word "crash"?

I don't want to appear ableist*, but are you seriously unaware of how crazy your position here is? Stollznow has shared NOTHING of any evidence that might support her case and you're accusing Radford of maliciously withholding possible evidence of the personal meaning of this particular word?

I had some hopes for you, but really mate, please have a break and think things over before your next post.

_{*beyond my actually being ableist in terms of holding irrational arguments in contempt.}

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

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?

No. Your carefully edited quotes show Stollznow proposing to get together. They show Stollznow asking to "crash" with Radford (you), before Radford mentions staying at relatives. You either have some serious reading comprehension problems, or you are being dishonest here.

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

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.

Right now, it is looking like the one misleading people here is hjhornbeck. You are ignoring the known information about this situation, while proposing secret, unknown information that will vindicate your theory. Conspiracy theory forum is that way. ===>

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

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.

According to your own earlier post, Stollznow asked to crash at Radford's place before she knew he was staying with relatives, and Radford's response was to say that it might be awkward for her to crash with him on the Friday because he was at a relatives' place that night. So your framing of this event is deeply weird, because now you are trying to make it sound as if Stollznow knew he was staying with relatives when she asked. Whereas Radford's response makes it clear that Friday was only unavailable as nookie night because he didn't have a hotel room booked.

Also you are really reaching by trying to cast doubt on whether "crash" in the context of an ongoing friends-with-benefits situation implies a sexual liaison. When your FWB wants to crash with you in a hotel room that means sex is extremely highly likely. Demanding that Radford somehow prove this by releasing even more personal emails looks to me like an attempt to declare Radford guilty until proven innocent beyond unreasonable doubt.

Look, I think there's a reason why nobody here buys any aspect of your theories. It's because they are a tangled, confused mess of poorly-formed arguments with a predetermined conclusion.

I don't think the community here is entirely made up of pro-Radford zealots. If you look at previous discussions of the Shermer accusations there were lots of people on both sides of that one. It's simply not the case that these forums are exclusively inhabited by misogynist dinosaurs who think that old, white, male skeptics can do no wrong. If absolutely nobody here thinks you are making sense it is highly likely that you're just not making sense.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You are ignoring the known information about this situation, while proposing secret, unknown information that will vindicate your theory.

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of electronic communications between the two parties have yet to be publicly disclosed, in fact, I can count the e-mails released by the defendant without resorting to my toes. Given such a surfeit of publicly unknown, privately held information, maybe conspiracy theories aren't exactly the best comparison to be making here. Especially when considering the utterly mundane nature of an unpleasant breakup.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of electronic communications between the two parties have yet to be publicly disclosed, in fact, I can count the e-mails released by the defendant without resorting to my toes. Given such a surfeit of publicly unknown, privately held information, maybe conspiracy theories aren't exactly the best comparison to be making here. Especially when considering the utterly mundane nature of an unpleasant breakup.

Yes, I agree that breakups becoming unpleasant are quite routine. That certainly fits with known information.

I know you just like to argue, even with those you agree with, but hjhornbeck is falsely representing the info we do have, ignoring the bits (s)he doesn't like, while asserting their implausible interpretation will be proven correct by information that isn't demonstrated to even exist, much less agree with them. If that's not a CT, what is it?

[d4m10n]

A full-blown CT would be more like Karen, Matthew, Carrie, and Ian meeting in secret and engineering a plot to destroy Ben's reputation by making allegations and manufacturing evidence.

[wareyin]

Ok. Or one where all/most men deviously plan to trick poor, helpless, innocent women into extensively planning out get-togethers where said innocent women will book a hotel room to be drunk and alone with a man in. You know, like hjhornbeck's CT.

[d4m10n]

HJH's theory doesn't require a conspiracy, it requires only hyperagency on the part of the male actor and hypoagency on the part of the female, so that the male party can be presumed responsible even when the female clearly takes the initiative. This is of course a terribly sexist way to view the world, but it's not a conspiracy unless somehow enforced by an invisible cabal.

[wareyin]

An invisible cabal like "The Patriarchy"? (Cue sinister music)

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

HJH's theory doesn't require a conspiracy, it requires only hyperagency on the part of the male actor and hypoagency on the part of the female, so that the male party can be presumed responsible even when the female clearly takes the initiative. This is of course a terribly sexist way to view the world...

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1406225352.949826.jpg

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'm not sure how you propose to do hypothesis testing here, but here are the competing hypotheses:

Ho: Two occasional lovers arranged a weekend in SF over e-mail, with their eyes open and enthusiastic consent in mind.

Ha: One of those two people cooly manipulated the other one into arranging a hotel room, and while she had no liaisons in mind, he was looking forward to subverting her consent by plying her with drink.

I'm impressed, you'd make a great creationist.

1. The term "H0" is associated with the "null hypothesis," or the hypothesis best supported by a null observation. But the best supported hypothesis about the April 2010 encounter, given no observations related to the relationship of Radford and Stollznow, is not that it was done with "enthusiastic consent." It's that there is insufficient evidence to establish what happened that night. You should know about this third hypothesis, as you were camping on it before I started posting here; now, however, you are slyly taking Radford's interpretation to be the default, requiring no evidence.

2. "HA" is supposed to represent my hypothesis, yet you wrote it from scratch rather than copy-paste my actual phrasing of that hypothesis:

Quote:

That April 2010 sexual encounter is most plausibly explained as Radford badgering Stollznow into having sex, with the aid of alcohol.

But writing it yourself gave you the opportunity to add phrases like "coolly manipulated" and "looking forward to subverting her consent," which make my hypothesis seem far more radical than it is and drops a little poison in the well.

3. You've put forward an alternate hypothesis, but done nothing to defend it. If I step in and do your job for you, by writing another long post where I critically examine that claim, all you have to do is claim I'm misrepresenting you or stacking the evidence in your favor to send me on another snipe hunt.

Finish the job, Reinhardt; either show how your "Ho" is a better fit for the evidence than my actual hypothesis, or point to the logical fallacies in my reasoning.

[d4m10n]

Seems like a pretty decent null hypothesis to me, what with them being lovers and adults and all. Maybe plying with drink and badgering are much more common than I had previously supposed, but it seems reasonable to me to put the burden of proof on the one who makes accusations of such nefarious (some would say rapey) behaviour.

Maybe I'm being too Polyanna, presuming innocence instead of guilt?

[d4m10n]

Just to be clear, Hornbeck, do you believe that badgering and alcohol would or could negate sexual consent? I want to be clear on what you're accusing Radford of doing in SF.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I know you just like to argue, even with those you agree with, but hjhornbeck is falsely representing the info we do have, ignoring the bits (s)he doesn't like, while asserting their implausible interpretation will be proven correct by information that isn't demonstrated to even exist, much less agree with them. If that's not a CT, what is it?

This seems to be a common thread around here; I'm misrepresenting the information, yet no-one is capable of actually demonstrating any misrepresentation. I've bent over backwards to make that as easy as possible, yet no-one's bothered. Here, I'll bend even further:

1. Ben Radford has repeatedly mischaracterized the meaning of "authenticate" to benefit himself.
2. As a result of 1, he has almost certainly lied in a legal document.
3. Despite suggesting the April 2010 encounter was part of a mutual sexual relationship (website, timeline, April 11 2010), there is no evidence Stollznow intended to have sex with Radford that evening, and even Radford concedes he invited Stollznow to visit him (complaint, 26i).
4. Despite repeatedly claiming Stollznow offered to have an affair in September 2010 (complaint, 26q), this interpretation is implausible and it is instead more likely Stollznow was mocking Radford's "hot and cold," perpetually shifting approach to relationships.

There. You have four points to attack, with the first two being defended by me in the shared analysis and the last two done in this thread, all of which contain full citations.

Go on, start acting like a skeptic. Defend your claims about me.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Seems like a pretty decent null hypothesis to me

... Did you even read what I wrote?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

... Did you even read what I wrote?

Did you read what you wrote? If there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, we say that we failed to reject the null hypothesis. We do not create a third hypothesis called insufficient evidence. That is simply not how hypothesis testing works.

Feel free to rewrite the alternate hypothesis as you see fit, then explain how you got there and whether you would call it rape.

[tsig]

I see it's still he said/she said/internet speculates wildly.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

3. Despite suggesting the April 2010 encounter was part of a mutual sexual relationship (website, timeline, April 11 2010), there is no evidence Stollznow intended to have sex with Radford that evening, and even Radford concedes he invited Stollznow to visit him (complaint, 26i).

We were just discussing point 3, and it's manifestly obvious that Stollznow asked to crash with Radford. Calling that "no evidence she intended to have sex" is nonsense, unless you meant to write "conclusive proof" and somehow wrote "evidence" instead, especially in the contest of an ongoing affair. What do you think is implied when two people who are having an affair get a hotel room together?

The problem with trying to discuss this with you is that your points are like whack-a-moles. We whack them down, but you just pop them back up again as if nothing had happened. It doesn't feel like we're making any progress.

[FreddyEH]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

Your claims are ambiguous and almost never stated explicitly. Your logic is not merely tortuous, it is absent. I've seen credible cases from 9/11 truthers, creationists and Bijlmermeer disaster conspiracy theorists. Your claims however, lack even a hypothesis thus far, beyond 'somehow, Stollznow must be right'. 9/11 truthers would hold you in righteous contempt.

You cast aspersions based upon nothing more than details of phrasing, you hand wave around evidence, implying the evidence must somehow be wrong. You imply without stating it outright that something other, something sinister must have been going on, without even specifying what you think that might be. I'm very disappointed. Seriously, if your case is the best one that can be made for Stollznow, she's lost.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who recognised this. Well put.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

This seems to be a common thread around here; I'm misrepresenting the information, yet no-one is capable of actually demonstrating any misrepresentation. I've bent over backwards to make that as easy as possible, yet no-one's bothered. Here, I'll bend even further:

1. Ben Radford has repeatedly mischaracterized the meaning of "authenticate" to benefit himself.
2. As a result of 1, he has almost certainly lied in a legal document.
3. Despite suggesting the April 2010 encounter was part of a mutual sexual relationship (website, timeline, April 11 2010), there is no evidence Stollznow intended to have sex with Radford that evening, and even Radford concedes he invited Stollznow to visit him (complaint, 26i).
4. Despite repeatedly claiming Stollznow offered to have an affair in September 2010 (complaint, 26q), this interpretation is implausible and it is instead more likely Stollznow was mocking Radford's "hot and cold," perpetually shifting approach to relationships.

There. You have four points to attack, with the first two being defended by me in the shared analysis and the last two done in this thread, all of which contain full citations.

Go on, start acting like a skeptic. Defend your claims about me.

If you are walking down the street and notice a "common thread" of people telling you that your zipper is down, it would be a good idea to check your zipper. If you are posting on this site and the common thread is people telling you that you're misrepresenting things, maybe, just maybe, you're misrepresenting things. I have not only said you are misrepresenting things, but I have pointed out what you are misrepresenting, with explanations as to how. So has Kevin_Lowe. So has Lorentz. So has Brive1987. So have others. You have ignored every detailed criticism.

Based on your ability to prove your point in this thread, it is not at all worth my time to read your efforts on the google document.

So go on, start acting like the intellectual you clearly believe you are, and respond to the many detailed explanations of what you have gotten wrong, rather than ignoring them.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

What do you think is implied when two people who are having an affair get a hotel room together?

Aye, there's the rub.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did you read what you wrote? If there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, we say that we failed to reject the null hypothesis. We do not create a third hypothesis called insufficient evidence. That is simply not how hypothesis testing works.

I'm away for the next few days, but I must take one last shot at this one. Do you seriously think that before we consider any evidence related to the April 15th 2010 encounter, the hypothesis most likely to be true (and therefore stands as the null hypothesis) is your H0,

Quote:

Two occasional lovers arranged a weekend in SF over e-mail, with their eyes open and enthusiastic consent in mind.

and that in contrast the hypothesis

Quote:

There is insufficient evidence to conclude what happened on April 15th, 2010.

can only become more likely than that null hypothesis via the examination of at least one piece of evidence?

[hjhornbeck]

All right, all right, one last one. It makes for a good homework assignment anyway:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

What do you think is implied when two people who are having an affair get a hotel room together?

I quoted the majority of the emails sent back and forth between Radford and Stollznow leading up to April 15th 2010 back here, and if you insist on seeing the entire exchange in the raw I'm happy to oblige that, too.

Can you point me to the part where Stollznow says she wants an affair with Radford? Especially in light of his agreement on January 13th, 2010 that their sexual relationship was over?

[Brive1987]

HJ: let me bellow my voice in the wilderness again.

Two adults end up in a hotel room together after a date night amidst the very height of the alleged abuse. And all you can come up with is a quibble over the etymology of the word 'crash'.

I call **** on SA.

Baxter turns to Radford as a friend after, and in the same month as, his fiancé is supposedly sexually assaulted - and this after an escalating campaign of abuse ....

I call **** on SA.

Stollznow proposes a weekend away in Alb. three months after being allegedly sexually assaulted and 6 months after her supposed date rape ....

I call **** on SA.

Three months after being 'sexually assaulted' by Radford, Stollznow turns to him for comfort and support re Baxter. Has long personal convos with Radford. Seriously plans a week with him before changing her mind.

I call **** on SA.

Stollznow claims she brought down a communications ban in late 2009 yet we have multiple instances of her sending and responding to personal emails.

I call **** on SA.

Stollznow makes all her allegations to CFI and a third party investigator checks her evidence and then flicks the 2010 and 2011 core elements of the story.

I call **** on SA.

Stollznow makes her public claim without a skeptic sliver of actual corroboration. The only evidence, albeit indirectly obtained, is at least 60% fake / wrong and far less than a smoking gun.

I call **** on SA.

You can huff, puff, investigate photocopiers, fisk implied subtext, debate what professional "authentication" of emails means (will full account access) and generally flail. But really.

Game over man.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

All right, all right, one last one. It makes for a good homework assignment anyway:



I quoted the majority of the emails sent back and forth between Radford and Stollznow leading up to April 15th 2010 back here, and if you insist on seeing the entire exchange in the raw I'm happy to oblige that, too.

Can you point me to the part where Stollznow says she wants an affair with Radford? Especially in light of his agreement on January 13th, 2010 that their sexual relationship was over?

I'm not doing "homework" assigned by someone who clearly doesn't understand the subject material they are trying to teach.

That said, the fact that Stollznow asked to "crash" with Radford, then voluntarily got a hotel room for the two of them to share after dinner and drinks strongly implies wanting an "affair".

Sadly, I predict that this will be another explanation of basic human behavior that you ignore.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I'm not doing "homework" assigned by someone who clearly doesn't understand the subject material they are trying to teach.

That said, the fact that Stollznow asked to "crash" with Radford, then voluntarily got a hotel room for the two of them to share after dinner and drinks strongly implies wanting an "affair".

Sadly, I predict that this will be another explanation of basic human behavior that you ignore.

Regardless of your spin they *did* have sex in April and there is not even weak evidence of any immediate post hotel regret by KS until Radford went wistful. She posed for selfies ("cute" ones at that), she enthusiastically responded to emails and went beyond all call of duty with her "special" email and stated desire for weekly communication.

Her Alb. offer is also entirely consistent with her 2008 hookup pattern, 2009 promises of hookups and April 2010 actual hookup.

Further, it is far more than just plausible that KS scuttled her requested weeks sojourn with Radford in September because it would be a self evident sexual bridge too far and she wanted her options left open.

And all this without mentioning the "if you want an affair" email. An offer KS in her responses never got around to clarifying as a joke or ironic tease.

And don't forget. To scuttle SA you really only have to demonstrate KS continued personal emails with BR, never mind offers of sex.

[wareyin]

I'm not sure if you meant that to me, Brive1987, but I don't disagree with you.

[d4m10n]

Statistical hypothesis testing is obviously just an analogy here, but generally speaking the null hypothesis is the baseline assumption that someone (in this case HJ) is trying to disprove using data. In this case, I think it's a totally fair baseline assumption that when occasional lovers arrange for a hotel room together, they quite probably have enthusiastic consent in mind. It would take some major mental gymnastics to recast that scenario as a sexually predatory man manipulating a woman (who has only chaste intentions) into reserving a hotel room for both of them. I understand that some feminists want the baseline assumption in our culture to be predatory males vs. helpless females, but this is an utterly ridiculous and plainly counterfactual approach.

By the way, HJ, you never answered my question here.

[Salerio]

Originally Posted by wareyin

That said, the fact that Stollznow asked to "crash" with Radford, then voluntarily got a hotel room for the two of them to share after dinner and drinks strongly implies wanting an "affair".

Sadly, I predict that this will be another explanation of basic human behavior that you ignore.

If not an affair it certainly suggests a lot more than a few drinks and sleep. When my ex calls me up and says she's in town and can she sleep at my place then sleep is usually the last thing on our minds. Sounds like FWB to me.

[FreddyEH]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

You can huff, puff, investigate photocopiers, fisk implied subtext, debate what professional "authentication" of emails means (will full account access) and generally flail. But really.
Game over man.

I agree. I was giving HJ the benefit of the doubt at first, but I do suspect we're being trolled here. No one can truly be so blind to their own logic and faulty claims after having them repeatedly pointed out to them.

On another matter, recall the SA account in which KS claimed explicitly that BR has a pattern of targeting shy, chubby women (like herself, she said)? Anyone else notice that not a single other woman who matches that description (or any other for that matter) has stepped forward to corroborate her story (despite pleas for them to speak up)? The SJW crowd crows about how important it is to identify harassers upon the premise that it's a pattern of behaviour that other women must be wary of (and not, for example, a one-off incident with an ex-lover). Yet even if KS claims of harassment are true (aside from the SA narrative which clearly is not), there seems no evidence that it happened to anyone else (again, contrary to KS claims).

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

and that in contrast the hypothesis

Quote:

There is insufficient evidence to conclude what happened on April 15th, 2010.

can only become more likely than that null hypothesis via the examination of at least one piece of evidence?

For your enlightenment, "There is insufficient evidence to conclude" is not a hypothesis. At most it's a commentary on competing hypotheses, one of which may be the null hypothesis.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

You can huff, puff, investigate photocopiers, fisk implied subtext, debate what professional "authentication" of emails means (will full account access) and generally flail. But really.

Game over man.

I agree that HJ's game is over, as he/she appeared to have no game to start with.

However, I'm still somewhat on the fence on the actual issue. One incompetent throwing around terms without knowing their meaning does not mean their conclusion is wrong per se.

I do lean (more strongly by now) towards Radford's version of events.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I'm not sure if you meant that to me, Brive1987, but I don't disagree with you.

No, my apologies, I forgot this forum is the threaded link that couldn't.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

I agree that HJ's game is over, as he/she appeared to have no game to start with.

However, I'm still somewhat on the fence on the actual issue. One incompetent throwing around terms without knowing their meaning does not mean their conclusion is wrong per se.

I do lean (more strongly by now) towards Radford's version of events.

I am genuinely interested in where you have concerns with the rebuttal case to SA.

Just to be clear. For the period in direct question with SA (ie 2009/10) I am happy to concede bursts of annoying or unwanted emails from Radford to KS - but interspersed within a complicated two way relationship that was far from black and white. I am also prepared to concede that BR may have gone full throttle in late 2012 early 2013 with monster-gate.

But this is a very different narrative to the one on the table.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

All right, all right, one last one. It makes for a good homework assignment anyway:

I quoted the majority of the emails sent back and forth between Radford and Stollznow leading up to April 15th 2010 back here, and if you insist on seeing the entire exchange in the raw I'm happy to oblige that, too.

Can you point me to the part where Stollznow says she wants an affair with Radford? Especially in light of his agreement on January 13th, 2010 that their sexual relationship was over?

We've already been over those emails. I don't even see what you think the "homework assignment" might be.

In the context of an ongoing sexual affair, organising to crash at someone's hotel room is highly likely to mean sex, but not absolutely certain to mean sex. This includes scenarios where at some earlier point the relationship was agreed to be over, because it turns out that in the real world sometimes people break up and then get back together again.

I don't see what point you think you are making, unless all you are arguing is that it's not absolutely certain that they were arranging a sexual liaison. If that's all you are saying then sure, it's not absolutely certain. It's just highly likely and totally incompatible with the anti-Radford narrative we've been given.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by FreddyEH

I agree. I was giving HJ the benefit of the doubt at first, but I do suspect we're being trolled here. No one can truly be so blind to their own logic and faulty claims after having them repeatedly pointed out to them.

On another matter, recall the SA account in which KS claimed explicitly that BR has a pattern of targeting shy, chubby women (like herself, she said)? Anyone else notice that not a single other woman who matches that description (or any other for that matter) has stepped forward to corroborate her story (despite pleas for them to speak up)? The SJW crowd crows about how important it is to identify harassers upon the premise that it's a pattern of behaviour that other women must be wary of (and not, for example, a one-off incident with an ex-lover). Yet even if KS claims of harassment are true (aside from the SA narrative which clearly is not), there seems no evidence that it happened to anyone else (again, contrary to KS claims).

I have always found Anderson's bald, un-evidenced claim of other victims ("Those who believe her based on having had similar treatment by her harasser") as a strike against his credibility.

There is a more prosaic basis for KS's explosive accusation of 'Predatory Ben', the woman collector.

There's evidence that BR was seeing two other (named) women in 2009 and this was the breaking point for KS re a committed controlled relationship.

It's likely it was one of these women that KS allegedly aggressively facebooked - precipitating the 2009 "time apart" split as well as Ben defriending KS (which she apparently protested).

It is not clear whether these two women were aware of the overall arrangement. It is however clear that KS was aware, from at least Nov 2008, that Ben intended to be 'open' in their own relationship.

I suspect it was finding out about these women in 2009 that raised KS's 'red flags', caused her to label Ben as some sort of weirdo and in hindsight accommodated her perceived reality of him as a predator who collected women. She was probably especially peeved as she had seemingly embarked on a refreshed start with Ben (her 'let's go away together' email).

Nonetheless SA was hardly a charitable interpretation of Ben's character. Especially as it linked his 'predatory' ways directly to the ensuing harassment/assault narrative. Naturally this is IMHO.

[d4m10n]

Speaking of speculation, does anyone else tend to assume that the current status of www.benrlegal.info is evidence of a certain legal team losing the fight?

ETA: Maybe Brive was right about that money gap.