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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th July 2014, 06:39 PM   #201
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 10,015
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
My impression was either there was a demand from another action to take it down, or he was given advice from a lawyer which he decided to take, or IIRC there has been some movement on revenge-porn laws in the news lately ,and (relevant or not), maybe he felt they were a bit too close to home?
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim
Denver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 06:51 PM   #202
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Denver View Post
My impression was either there was a demand from another action to take it down, or he was given advice from a lawyer which he decided to take, or IIRC there has been some movement on revenge-porn laws in the news lately ,and (relevant or not), maybe he felt they were a bit too close to home?
I'm going with HJ's view that there was a C/D backed by cash which Ben couldn't match - a drain on the main game. In any case benrlegal had done its job as a rebuttal, all we have left are those with sight who cannot see.

There's no indication the primary case has been withdrawn.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 06:59 PM   #203
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I'm going with HJ's view that there was a C/D backed by cash which Ben couldn't match - a drain on the main game.
A cease and desist letter typically has to be based on some legal theory, e.g. cease and desist from doing X or we'll sue you for Y under law Z.

Assuming a C&D for the sake of argument, I'm still puzzled as to Y and Z.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 07:55 PM   #204
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
How about something simple like "if you don't take down your site which makes libellous allegations I will counter sue and phase 1 will cost you 10K or 20K"

If this is a war of attrition with limited means you would need to establish priorities.

A bit like bleeding your energy to lasers from shields in x-wing. (Shields spun up faster than lasers didn't they? 1994 seems a long time ago now).

Naturally this is my guess only. Maybe he is closing down entirely, in which case I'd expect a pacer update.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 08:10 PM   #205
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
How about something simple like "if you don't take down your site which makes libellous allegations I will counter sue and phase 1 will cost you 10K or 20K" If this is a war of attrition with limited means you would need to establish priorities.
That's my guess as well. If it's true that KS's insurance company is paying her legal defence bills, then that frees up the 60K or whatever she raised to fund a countersuit too dear for him to defend (unless he too has insurance for that). One must pick one's battles in this "war of attrition."
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 08:26 PM   #206
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
How about something simple like "if you don't take down your site which makes libellous allegations I will counter sue and phase 1 will cost you 10K or 20K"
Ben didn't plan for that (highly foreseeable) possibility when he first filed suit?

It's called a "countersuit" for the love of Blackstone, not exactly a non-obvious counter to a suit.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 25th July 2014 at 08:29 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 08:39 PM   #207
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Ben didn't plan for that (highly foreseeable) possibility when he first filed suit?

It's called a "countersuit" for the love of Blackstone, not exactly a non-obvious counter to a suit.
I answered your question.

Now the convo has moved on, no, the risk of a CS was not obvious until 60k of support aligned itself with KS 'evidence'.

One would expect KS would celebrate Ben's "lived experience" - much as she expected Lindsay to do with hers. (Ref her tweet to RL re the request for clarifications on the SA article.)

Now that a CS threat has possibly happened, BR's done the sensible thing and lowered his target profile. I don't see any complaints flying from him.

If this is the correct scenario of course.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 08:42 PM   #208
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Alternate hypothesis: Box o' dox.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2014, 10:48 PM   #209
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Could be. You want another week of pacer watching before conceding? Heck, take two. I'll put a note in my diary.

Last edited by Brive1987; 25th July 2014 at 10:49 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2014, 02:28 AM   #210
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
I am genuinely interested in where you have concerns with the rebuttal case to SA.

ust 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.
My main issue is that we don't have very much evidence about a situation in which two (ex-)lovers were in a complex and dynamic situation. I'm taking it as highly probable that those emails we know are unaltered in both content and dating. However as you say, there may have been bursts of unwanted emails in between, maybe other forms of unwanted communication that could be classified as 'harassment'.

One possible scenario is that when KS split up the first time in 2009, BR felt affronted and, knowing she still had feelings for him, took advantage of her vulnerability, playing with her affections. This could have been very painful for KS if she still felt drawn to him on one level and she may well have repeatedly communicated her desire for him to stop. She would have felt harassed and taken advantage of, especially if on a few occasions she gave in to the feelings she was trying to get over. In this scenario I can also imagine how she felt she was telling an 'essential truth' in the SA story, while choosing to hide her own weaknesses and occasional compliance. I'm not saying this is a particularly probable scenario, just one of many possible ones that would sort of fit (parts of) the SA narrative.

I agree that the narrative of SA taken as a whole, is broken. Unless it turns out that very stupidly, BR changed those emails after they'd been vetted, before sharing them, KS' story of a predatory BR sexually harassing a woman who kept clearly communicating her disinterest for years, is at the very least extremely misleading.

He may still be guilty of sexual harassment (not per se in a legal sense, but in a generally agreed upon meaning of the term sense)
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2014, 03:00 AM   #211
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Yes as you're saying Radford may well have harassed or Stollznow may have harassed or they both may or neither may - it just seems that we don't have the e-mails that show any of it yet.

I also feel somewhat uncomfortable on having involved myself with all of this. It's a bunch of e-mails between two people that should really have remained private between them if it hadn't all come out in the open because of the court case. And two people that I don't know, and had never heard of before this thread.

I have no real idea what happened apart from they were in a relationship which had a messy breakup. I've had similar and the last thing I'd have wanted was for personal letters or e-mails written during a breakup to have been distributed across the web for all to see.
Henry Bannister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2014, 06:07 AM   #212
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
It's a bunch of e-mails between two people that should really have remained private between them if it hadn't all come out in the open because of the court case.
Even without any court case, once the SciAm piece and Ian's revelatory tweet came out, there would have been strong public interest in what happened.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2014, 06:57 AM   #213
Scopedog
Muse
 
Scopedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 527
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
If I remember correctly, Ben Radford stayed quiet publicly for almost a year while privately threatening to publish all that info in order to encourage a settlement. Now that he's become quiet again it seems possible that they're back in settlement negotiations and he took it down to show good faith.
Scopedog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2014, 07:20 AM   #214
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
Yes as you're saying Radford may well have harassed or Stollznow may have harassed or they both may or neither may - it just seems that we don't have the e-mails that show any of it yet.

I also feel somewhat uncomfortable on having involved myself with all of this. It's a bunch of e-mails between two people that should really have remained private between them if it hadn't all come out in the open because of the court case. And two people that I don't know, and had never heard of before this thread.

I have no real idea what happened apart from they were in a relationship which had a messy breakup. I've had similar and the last thing I'd have wanted was for personal letters or e-mails written during a breakup to have been distributed across the web for all to see.
I'd generally agree, though I knew of them both pre all this. My main interest stems from this case being aggressively leveraged, uncritically, by the SJ proponents in their fight to depose the leadership of "Big Tent" Skepticism. Without that, it's true that this would be 'just' another unseemly relationship spat.

But here we have the opportunity to both redress a wider wrong and expose the dangerous agenda at play within parts of the extended movement. But I recognise not everybody is as concerned about this issue as I, nor sees it in quite the same terms.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2014, 07:32 AM   #215
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Yes, fair play. And once that tweet had come out Radford had to do something or look like he was accepting it as true.
Henry Bannister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2014, 05:12 PM   #216
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Scopedog View Post
Now that he's become quiet again it seems possible that they're back in settlement negotiations and he took it down to show good faith.
Could be. If that's true then presumably that means that KS has agreed to (or will agree to) the retraction and admit she lied about him after all. That's the only "settlement" that makes sense, since we know that BR had previously agreed to drop the lawsuit if she retracted. There's really no "middle ground" at this point, he wants his name cleared and she has so far refused to retract the SA claims. I can't imagine any sort of "we've agreed to disagree" flavor of joint statement being negotiated. If some sort of negotiations are going on it means that Stollznow's lawyers realise her narrative and evidence are in deep trouble and unlikely to win in court IMHO.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2014, 08:39 PM   #217
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Sexual Harassment: Joint statement by Ophelia Benson and Richard Dawkins

I'll just leave this here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfl...chard-dawkins/

Quote:
It’s not news that allies can’t always agree on everything. People who rely on reason rather than dogma to think about the world are bound to disagree about some things.

Disagreement is inevitable, but bullying and harassment are not. If we want secularism and atheism to gain respect, we have to be able to disagree with each other without trying to destroy each other.

In other words we have to be able to manage disagreement ethically, like reasonable adults, as opposed to brawling like enraged children who need a nap. It should go without saying, but this means no death threats, rape threats, attacks on people’s appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut; no photoshopping people into demeaning images, no vulgar epithets.

Richard adds: I’m told that some people think I tacitly endorse such things even if I don’t indulge in them. Needless to say, I’m horrified by that suggestion. Any person who tries to intimidate members of our community with threats or harassment is in no way my ally and is only weakening the atheist movement by silencing its voices and driving away support.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2014, 09:02 PM   #218
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I'll just leave this here:
Nice statement from Benson and Dawkins on FTB on civility. It would be more meaningful if the vast majority of venom, name-calling, bullying and harassment didn't come from that very web site via PZ Myers, Svan, and many others. Perhaps the Bible is right about this one: "Physician, heal thyself."
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2014, 09:29 PM   #219
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
Nice statement from Benson and Dawkins on FTB on civility. It would be more meaningful if the vast majority of venom, name-calling, bullying and harassment didn't come from that very web site via PZ Myers, Svan, and many others. Perhaps the Bible is right about this one: "Physician, heal thyself."
The vast majority? The vast majority of venom, name-calling, bullying and harassment on the whole web you mean? Including rape and death threats? I think you need to back that up with some links.
Henry Bannister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 12:29 AM   #220
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
The vast majority? The vast majority of venom, name-calling, bullying and harassment on the whole web you mean? Including rape and death threats? I think you need to back that up with some links.
I think it's a bit weird to add something that was not in the original claim in any way, shape or form and then demand that someone else back up the stupid claim you manufactured.

There's a thing called "context", which affects how reasonable people should read a given text. In this context it seems obvious to me that something entirely different was intended by the poster you are replying to.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 08:30 AM   #221
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
"Physician, heal thyself."
A LOT of people in our community, including many on this thread (myself included), should heed this advice.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 11:55 AM   #222
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
A LOT of people in our community, including many on this thread (myself included), should heed this advice.
True. Noting that the statement is good advice that should be widely heeded doesn't address the deep irony that it appeared on FTB, a site which routinely contains the very same name-calling and venom that the statement says should stop.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 11:59 AM   #223
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'm not doing "homework" assigned by someone who clearly doesn't understand the subject material they are trying to teach.
That was a smart move made for a silly reason; there is no such email. Emphasis mine.

Quote:
On April 16, 2010, Radford and Stollznow met in San Francisco, went to the hotel she had booked for the two of them, then to dinner and then back to the hotel. She informed Radford that she was engaged to be married and explained to Radford that she wanted to have sex with him anyway because she and her fiancé had an “open relationship.” Radford and Stollznow engaged in a sexual encounter over the course of the night and Radford left in the morning to visit his relatives. (Complaint, 26k)
Stollznow not only informs Radford of her desire to have sex in person, a desire that's never mentioned in the prior two paragraphs, according to Radford and/or his lawyer she had the full support of her eventual husband. It's not an affair if the other person knows about it and approves!

Yet that doesn't stop Radford and/or lawyer from calling it that, in the same document no less.

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. (paragraph 5)

In early 2013, Stollznow became angered at Radford after he confronted her about her failure to do her share of the work involved in producing their “Monster Talk” podcast. She may also have perceived Radford as a competitor in the Skeptics sub-culture and/or may have been concerned about having conducted an affair with him during her relationship with her current husband. (paragraph 16)
You found the same pattern on Radford's website. Emphasis mine:

Quote:
April 16, 2010: Radford meets Stollznow in San Francisco, they go to the hotel she booked for them, then to dinner, then back to the hotel. Stollznow informs Radford that things have gotten serious with Matthew Baxter, her on-again, off-again friend, and that the two are engaged. Nonetheless, Stollznow told Radford, she wishes to have sex with him—and claimed that Baxter was aware (and approved) of their sexual rendezvous. Radford and Stollznow share a bed at the Club Quarters hotel, and take a photograph outside the hotel the following morning as they part ways. (timeline)

Furthermore, in late 2010 (a year after Stollznow claims she ceased contact with Radford) Stollznow made several clear and explicit offers to rekindle their affair, meet for sex, and visit Radford at his home.
But I'm sure you spotted that contradiction, as you claim to be much more on the ball than I am, and you have a simple explanation for it that doesn't paint Radford as dishonest or misleading.

While you're there, can you point me to where Stollznow claimed to cease contact with Radford in 2009? I missed that one, but you surely spotted it.
hjhornbeck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 12:00 PM   #224
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
…a site which routinely contains the very same name-calling and venom that the statement says should stop.

Specific examples would make this statement much more convincing, if not necessarily topical.

I've seen plenty of hateful bile over there, but mostly it is couched in terms of character smears (e.g. rape apologist, misogynist, upskirt voyeur) rather than mere vulgar epithets.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 12:46 PM   #225
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
a simple explanation for it that doesn't paint Radford as dishonest or misleading.

While you're there, can you point me to where Stollznow claimed to cease contact with Radford in 2009? I missed that one, but you surely spotted it.
We don't know whether MB did in fact approve of Stollznow arranging a tryst with another man (BR) in 2010 or not, and Radford might not either. Your pedantic hair-splitting about whether the meeting was technically an "affair" or not apparently depends on whether it was done with Baxter's consent. Radford is not a mind reader (or if he is, he's in the wrong profession) and unless Baxter has said one way or the other on the record, the use of the term "affair" is neither dishonest nor misleading. It was clearly a sexual meeting outside of Stollznows main relationship.

As for the second point, I assume the reference is to Stollznow's SA blog claim that she repeatedly requested that BR cease contact with her in late 2009. Logic suggests that a person making such a request would also cease contact with such a harasser.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 12:52 PM   #226
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
Logic suggests that a person making such a request would also cease contact with such a harasser.
Valid point, if the person making that request was behaving logically. While I agree with you that HJ's interpretations are wildly irrelevant, KS might have been in two minds and not acting all that rationally. Just saying it's not necessarily one way or the other.
Lorentz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 02:58 PM   #227
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Specific examples would make this statement much more convincing, if not necessarily topical.

I've seen plenty of hateful bile over there, but mostly it is couched in terms of character smears (e.g. rape apologist, misogynist, upskirt voyeur) rather than mere vulgar epithets.
Did you miss the part quoted in the other post on this, where one of the FTB bloggers reserves the right to call people vulgar epithets while bemoaning that the other side won't change? Tapatalk makes is difficult to quote across threads.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 03:05 PM   #228
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
It's always polite to carry with you a small plastic bag for such eventualities.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 03:17 PM   #229
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Specific examples would make this statement much more convincing, if not necessarily topical.

I've seen plenty of hateful bile over there, but mostly it is couched in terms of character smears (e.g. rape apologist, misogynist, upskirt voyeur) rather than mere vulgar epithets.
Did you miss the part quoted in the other post on this, where one of the FTB bloggers reserves the right to call people vulgar epithets while bemoaning that the other side won't change? Tapatalk makes is difficult to quote across threads.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 03:17 PM   #230
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Valid point, if the person making that request was behaving logically. While I agree with you that HJ's interpretations are wildly irrelevant, KS might have been in two minds and not acting all that rationally. Just saying it's not necessarily one way or the other.
In which case SA should be retracted as as being a misleading and inaccurate public account.

........

The open relationship could have been based on KS knowing of MB dates, ie SF did not need explicit permission from him. It could have been made up by KS to justify her actions.

BR's suggestion she rebranded the event years later have a similar number of possible explanations beyond "Radford lies"

That fact that HJ drilled straight to the least charitable interpretation is yet another red flag on the increasingly crowded semaphore.

Last edited by Brive1987; 28th July 2014 at 03:27 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 03:22 PM   #231
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Specific examples would make this statement much more convincing, if not necessarily topical.

I've seen plenty of hateful bile over there, but mostly it is couched in terms of character smears (e.g. rape apologist, misogynist, upskirt voyeur) rather than mere vulgar epithets.
Ah, FtB, so we match your rape-accusation-threats and dog-piles with haircut jokes and comic shops.

And this outrage triggers a "joint statement" of condemnation.

Got it.

Last edited by Brive1987; 28th July 2014 at 03:29 PM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 05:49 PM   #232
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
It's not an affair if the other person knows about it and approves!
Says who?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2014, 06:54 PM   #233
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
That was a smart move made for a silly reason; there is no such email. Emphasis mine.



Stollznow not only informs Radford of her desire to have sex in person, a desire that's never mentioned in the prior two paragraphs, according to Radford and/or his lawyer she had the full support of her eventual husband. It's not an affair if the other person knows about it and approves!

Yet that doesn't stop Radford and/or lawyer from calling it that, in the same document no less.



You found the same pattern on Radford's website. Emphasis mine:



But I'm sure you spotted that contradiction, as you claim to be much more on the ball than I am, and you have a simple explanation for it that doesn't paint Radford as dishonest or misleading.

While you're there, can you point me to where Stollznow claimed to cease contact with Radford in 2009? I missed that one, but you surely spotted it.
Your trump card is that it couldn't have been an affair because Baxter knew?? Seriously? I claim to be more on the ball than you with regard to understanding normal social interactions, and such goofy "gotchas" as this just continue to show you really don't understand.

Now you want to show how Stollznow didn't cease contact with someone she claims was sending her incessant unwanted communication? In fact she offered sex in person? I believe the proper response to that is "Please proceed, Governor."
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2014, 03:50 AM   #234
s_pepys
Muse
 
s_pepys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your trump card is that it couldn't have been an affair because Baxter knew?? Seriously? I claim to be more on the ball than you with regard to understanding normal social interactions, and such goofy "gotchas" as this just continue to show you really don't understand.

Now you want to show how Stollznow didn't cease contact with someone she claims was sending her incessant unwanted communication? In fact she offered sex in person? I believe the proper response to that is "Please proceed, Governor."
Just to add, wasn't Radford in a relationship with someone else also. That would be an affair if she didn't know. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. Brive, over to you...
s_pepys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2014, 04:52 AM   #235
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
love affairdict

noun
1.
a romantic relationship or episode between lovers; an amour.
2.
an active enthusiasm for something: my love affair with sailing.

Can you point out the part about a spouse not knowing? I can't find it.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2014, 02:06 PM   #236
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
We don't know whether MB did in fact approve of Stollznow arranging a tryst with another man (BR) in 2010 or not, and Radford might not either.
First off, that's irrelevant; Radford first claims that Stollznow claimed that Baxter was OK with the "affair," then he claims that Stollznow was hiding the fact she had an "affair" from Baxter. Both of those can't be true during the same time period, which suggests Radford is fibbing or misleading us.

Second, did you forget about Reap Paden? He claims to have been friends with Baxter "for about 7 years and at one time considered him a close friend," and both he and Beth Hendrick suggest Baxter was fine with a poly relationship in April 2010.

Baxter also had some sort of connection to Radford, no less, as Radford claims Baxter sent him a "Facebook email" on July 28th, 2010, where Baxter hints at being polyamorous.

Quote:
When we first got together last September, I had told her that two women were angry with me for settling on a girlfriend. I said it in passing and with a laugh. Within the next month, one of these women was contacting her on FB and challenging her claim to me.
There's also the police reports, where Baxter confirms he was sleeping with other women while dating Stollznow. While those last two don't confirm Baxter was fine with Stollznow sleeping around, he'd have to be a massive hypocrite to say otherwise yet sleep around himself.

So either Radford, Paden, and Hendrick are lying, plus Baxter is a huge hypocrite, or Baxter was fine with Stollznow having an "affair" around that time.

Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
As for the second point, I assume the reference is to Stollznow's SA blog claim that she repeatedly requested that BR cease contact with her in late 2009. Logic suggests that a person making such a request would also cease contact with such a harasser.
Except that's not what Stollznow said.

Quote:
From late 2009 onwards I made repeated requests for his personal communication to cease but these were ignored. He began manipulating the boundaries by contacting me on the pretext of it being work-related.
So either Radford was confused about the evidence in his own court case, or he's being disingenuous about the requests Stollznow made. There's some evidence to suggest the latter; anyone remember this?

Quote:
According to a forensic e-mail authentication investigation report prepared by Flashback Data LLC, Karen Stollznow sent nearly one thousand e-mails to me between 2008 and 2013. See “Summary of Findings” page 4. Why would a woman who claimed to have been stalked, harassed, and assaulted by me and who says she “made repeated requests for [my] personal communication to cease” in late 2009 continue to contact me more a thousand times over the next three years? (Website, gifts/correspondence)
It sounds definitive at first blush, doesn't it? The problem is, we already know the answer to Radford's question: she was forced to communicate with Radford on professional matters, such as MonsterTalk. She said it herself in her blog post, as I quoted.

Radford is not only missing key context to that number, such as the number of emails he sent her during that time period or how those emails were distributed, if you read the Flashback report he doesn't even bother asking them to validate that information. He just wanted an impressive sounding number. Radford doesn't even use it in his legal case; instead, we find this:

Quote:
From mid-2011 onward, communication between Radford and Stollznow became much less frequent and far more formal, the content almost exclusively professional (mostly podcast-related) topics, with occasional friendly exchanges. By late 2012 there was very little communication between the two at all, and in fact Stollznow would often completely ignore Radford’s rare e-mails, despite their entirely professional, work-related content.
In an arena where he was less likely to get punished for fibbing, Radford tossed out that thousand-email stat to make people think he and Stollznow had been continuously swapping emails the entire time; in an arena where he was more likely to be punished, he drops that line of argument entirely.

There's two lessons here: one, Radford's "legal website" that was designed to clarify his legal case actually spread misinformation about it instead. Two, Stollznow's claim of continued harassment via boundary manipulation is at least plausible, by Radford's own evidence. This is one bit of evidence that her SciAm blog post was largely accurate.
hjhornbeck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2014, 03:41 PM   #237
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
suggest Baxter was fine with a poly relationship in April 2010
Just so we're clear: You believe that in April 2010 Baxter encouraged his girlfriend Stollznow to have sex with a man who he knew had been harassing and/or assaulting her since the previous year, so badly that she demanded he cease personal contact with her. Is that correct?
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2014, 07:43 PM   #238
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by s_pepys View Post
Just to add, wasn't Radford in a relationship with someone else also. That would be an affair if she didn't know. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. Brive, over to you...
He was moving forward with someone in the emails post SF and pre-TAM.

It's unclear whether this was active in April. It's unclear if she was one of the two women in 2009, the existence of whom caused such a problem to KS.

Re the April "affair" confusion. Red herring.

I read:

Quote:
Congratulations on your successful talk and thank you for inviting me to that decadent event. In case you couldn't tell, I was really in my element. But what a surreal evening...

I apologise for dragging you into my bizarre situation, but I think we're all pleased with the outcome. I am curious to see what happens from here.

Thank you most of all for being a good friend to me, and for your sage advice and sensitivity regarding my situation, career, and our past. I'm glad we sorted out our differences, and I promise I won't be a stranger from now on as we all move forward.
And draw my own conclusions as to whether the late 2009 tensions were still in evidence and whether this is in any way consistent with SA.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2014, 10:20 PM   #239
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
draw my own conclusions as to whether the late 2009 tensions were still in evidence and whether this is in any way consistent with SA.
Agreed--to say nothing of the birthday gift and card Stollznow sent to Radford signed "lots of love, Karen" in late 2010. It's right there, signed/printed and dated and in her own handwriting.
FreddyEH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2014, 04:15 AM   #240
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
First off, that's irrelevant; Radford first claims that Stollznow claimed that Baxter was OK with the "affair," then he claims that Stollznow was hiding the fact she had an "affair" from Baxter. Both of those can't be true during the same time period, which suggests Radford is fibbing or misleading us.
How about "Stolznow claimed Baxter was okay with the affair, when she actually didn't tell Baxter?"

These two "contradictory" claims aren't remotely contradictory.
John Nowak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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