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 30th July 2014, 06:13 AM   #241
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
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.
When one decides the verdict, then looks at the facts, it is amazing the way those facts are twisted. Or even made up.

Hjhornbeck must make the facts fit the verdict, not the verdict fit the facts, after all.

Last edited by wareyin; 30th July 2014 at 06:14 AM.
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 30th July 2014, 11:58 AM   #242
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
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?
No. While I think there's enough evidence to suggest Baxter would have been fine with polyamory, I do not think there's enough to suggest he encouraged Stollznow to sleep with Radford. The sole evidence we have for that comes from Reap Paden and Beth Hendrick, and I do not think they are reliable. Radford's website said this:

Quote:
Baxter also states explicitly that Karen falsely accused one of his friends of making inappropriate sexual advances toward her in April 2010: “One time, in the heat of “things,” I mentioned that it would have been hot to see her with another man. She flipped out. Throughout the relationship she claims that I keep bringing it up but in reality she has been the one to keep talking about it. ... (website, false accusations)
Radford never attributes that quote, but some digging reveals its in the "Facebook email" sent by Baxter. Strangely, that document does not mention April 2010 at all, and dates from four months afterwards; either Radford cut out critical context that would have helped his case, or he's invented a connection to April 2010. Either way, Baxter is saying Stollznow was strongly opposed to sleeping with someone else, and Radford endorses this.

Along comes Paden:

Quote:
At one point Karen said to me out of the blue that her boyfriend (now husband) would like to watch her and I having sex. Of course I knew her boyfriend and considered him a good friend. I also knew there was little chance of such a thing ending well and so instead of saying “no way” I just made light of the proposition and attempted to carry on with the conversation. Karen was having none of it . She made a couple more remarks trying to persuade me but I just let them slide and tried to change the subject. The instant she realized I was not going to take her up on the offer she had made she became confrontational to say the least.
Note the contradiction; Stollznow went from being heavily opposed to having sex with someone else, to making a huge fuss because someone else wouldn't sleep with her. Those two accounts contradict, yet Radford endorses both as truthful!

And then things get weird.

This is the second time I've discussed Paden's account; the first was in a comment on Thibeault's timeline thread, one that was made a few days after Paden published his blog post but sat in the mod queue for three days more. When it become public, two things happened within about a day: Paden contacted Thibeault on Google+ and angrily accused him of calling him a liar, and the following comment appeared on Paden's blog post, the night my comment became visible:

Quote:
Beth Hendrick: I was Reaps girlfriend at the time, and felt the need to speak up on his behalf. I was sitting with him through the entire conversation. I was the designated driver, so I noticed karen was tipsy, and from what I remember she was drinking hard cider. I remember her talking about her boyfriends fetish, and it seemed personal but I considered it was the alcohol talking. She became more vocal and agitated about her boyfriend, she is the one that told Reap that he was the person her boyfriend wanted her to be with. Reap said he wanted no part in it. She became more belligerent and wanting to end the discussion persuaded her to step outside. She never spoke of Reap having any sexual conversations with her at any time. She then announced he was an *******, and left with another party. She was extremely intoxicated, and I feel her recollection is muddied due to alcohol.
I'll let past-me do the analysis:

Quote:
Uh, maybe one person was critical of Paden in that thread, though it could easily have been a satiric, and anyway this comment wasn’t a reply to it. A quick Google search reveals an equal lack of critics elsewhere. The only person “attacking” Paden’s account has been me, as far as I can tell. That comment came three days after the conversation died over there, too, but within a day of my comment going public.

Note too how precisely it undercuts my explanation; Stollznow’s motivation comes from her desire to please her boyfriend, not from herself as my interpretation of Paden’s post claimed, and this comment places that motivation in a way that doesn’t contradict Paden’s narrative.

And then, this morning, Radford updated his legal website, endorsing that comment less than two days after it was made. No-one here had spotted it, and Radford had no expectation of seeing another comment on Paden’s blog, so how did he discover it? This comment quite conveniently patched the problem his endorsement of Paden’s account had created, problems that only one lowly commenter near the end of a three-hundred comment thread had noticed.

I’m flattered I have that much influence.

But I myself wasn’t that truthful earlier on, as the new comment does contradict Radford’s and Paden’s narrative:

Quote:
I was the designated driver, so I noticed karen was tipsy, and from what I remember she was drinking hard cider. I remember her talking about her boyfriends fetish, and it seemed personal but I considered it was the alcohol talking. [...] She then announced he was an *******, and left with another party. She was extremely intoxicated, and I feel her recollection is muddied due to alcohol.
The italicized parts are portions of that comment that Radford didn’t quote, and add details Paden never mentioned. Note that they emphasize how drunk Stollznow was. That’s critical, because we don’t include intoxicants when judging people’s sanity. No-one would call me “psycho” if I acted wildly while drunk, and no-one would call someone with extreme paranoid schizophrenia “neurotypical” if their medication rendered them perfectly sane. By leaving out any mention of Stollznow’s alcohol consumption, both Paden and (to a lesser extent) Radford were removing the strongest excuse for her unruly behavior, stacking the evidence towards less charitable explanations.

So now we have three contradictory narratives, all of which have been proclaimed to be accurate by Radford, and some possible hints of constitutional malice. As a bonus, Radford again suggests he has little trust in his own evidence, by rushing to endorse other people’s eye-witness testimony instead of letting his own reports and email print-offs speak for themselves.
Reap Paden is infamous for using sock puppet accounts; maybe "Beth Hendrick" was a sock, crafted specifically to shut down my argument? Whatever the case, it undercuts the testimony of Paden and Hendrick, and again suggests that Radford is misleading us.
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 30th July 2014, 03:15 PM   #243
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
You are really struggling with making the "Radford is misleading us" point stick, hjhornbeck. Now you think other people claiming things about Stollznow means Radford is misleading? And the fact that Paden used a sockpuppet to get past having been banned on a "notoriously" ban-happy blog means he is infamous for using socks, and corroborating posts must be considered socks?

Do you even find this weak sauce convincing? Do you think anyone else does?
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 31st July 2014, 03:55 AM   #244
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Hjhornbeck must make the facts fit the verdict, not the verdict fit the facts, after all.
I'm getting that impression.
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
Old 31st July 2014, 05:16 AM   #245
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
HJ. Are you saying the Facebook message to Radford from Baxter is fake? Baxter did confirm the communication and in that message he is clear KS falsely accused Reap of harassment - to the point Reap complained to Baxter directly.

Or are you saying she was irrational and offensive but it was the alcohol and is therefore irrelevant?

I'd say the major take out here is that three men, one of them her now husband, have accused KS of vindictive misrepresentation. That seems relevant.

An even more interesting factoid would be some sort of corroboration that other women have alleged that Radford is guilty of predatory stalking.

Last edited by Brive1987; 31st July 2014 at 05:57 AM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2014, 07:25 AM   #246
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Lets see. This is a relevant part of the Baxter FB to Radford.

Clearly the incident could be dated via the SkeptiCal reference, clearly Reap's girlfriend was identified by Baxter as a player (diminishing her so called sockiness) and clearly Baxter believes KS misrepresented the incident in her SMS.

Remind me what exactly are we debating here?


Last edited by Brive1987; 31st July 2014 at 07:28 AM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2014, 11:12 AM   #247
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Hjhornbeck must make the facts fit the verdict, not the verdict fit the facts, after all.
Then there must exist an alternative hypothesis which better explains the data. Rather than propose one, however, you've been leaning on the Argument from Incredulity the entire time.

C'mon now, start acting like a skeptic.
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 31st July 2014, 11:19 AM   #248
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Then there must exist an alternative hypothesis which better explains the data. Rather than propose one, however, you've been leaning on the Argument from Incredulity the entire time.

C'mon now, start acting like a skeptic.
Please reread my responses to you, as well as all the other responses to you from anyone else in this thread, for alternative hypotheses which better fit the data.
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 31st July 2014, 11:21 AM   #249
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Remind me what exactly are we debating here?
We are not "debating" anything, we are being trolled by HJ, who (in classic conspiracy style) is doing his best to raise doubts about Radford's claims and evidence with red herrings, twisted logic, and self-validating re-definitions ("if the other person knows about it, it's not an affair") while hoping no one notices he's offered no evidence whatsoever for the truth of Stollznow's claims, nor plausible explanations for the contradictions between statements she made in her SA narrative and those in her e-mails at the time.
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 31st July 2014, 11:38 AM   #250
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
We are not "debating" anything, we are being trolled by HJ, who (in classic conspiracy style) is doing his best to raise doubts about Radford's claims and evidence with red herrings, twisted logic, and self-validating re-definitions ("if the other person knows about it, it's not an affair") while hoping no one notices he's offered no evidence whatsoever for the truth of Stollznow's claims, nor plausible explanations for the contradictions between statements she made in her SA narrative and those in her e-mails at the time.
Agreed. It's like a Moon Landing denyer claiming we couldn't have "landed" on the moon because the word "land" only applies to Earth. When you point out that they're wrong, the denyer whines that you haven't provided an alternative hypothesis and that all you have is the argument of incredulity. Act like a skeptic, indeed.
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 31st July 2014, 11:42 AM   #251
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
This is getting altogether too meta. Anyone got PACER updates?
__________________
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 31st July 2014, 11:55 AM   #252
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Question

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This is getting altogether too meta. Anyone got PACER updates?
PACER is a sockpuppet of Reap Paden, and this means Radford is trying to mislead us!

Last edited by wareyin; 31st July 2014 at 11:56 AM.
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 31st July 2014, 12:03 PM   #253
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
HJ. Are you saying the Facebook message to Radford from Baxter is fake?
In all honesty, I have no idea what to think of that document.

If true, it would be the perfect bit of evidence to show constitutional malice on Stollznow's part, from the person closest to her. I mean, Baxter wrote this:

[quote]So much of Karen's time seems to be spent finding ways to incriminate me. This has been from the beginning. I have done everything I can to put her fears to rest and show her how much I love her. Now I think I am seeing that it has never been about fears. She and I don't seem to live in the same reality. Her mood swings are violent and she admits that she doesn't like to let go of anger.[/quote

But that's the problem: it's too perfect. No-one is truly good nor evil, so anytime someone appears to behave like a cartoon villian or hero you should be suspicious. That even applies to Radford; he views relationships in a very quid-pro-quo way, so if he does something for you he's expecting something in return. From the Declaration:

Quote:
14. My efforts to promote her to Frazier, and the many other efforts I made on her behalf, provided, I believe, significant boosts to Stollznow's career. I made these efforts freely because I thought she was a good researcher and writer and because we were involved together in a romantic relationship.
Through that lens, Radford's actions make a lot more sense. He and Stollznow had a contract, where he would promote her career in return for having a relationship with him. She broke that contract, so he's filing suit. The underlying premeses are seriously messed up (did he make it clear there even was a contract?), but it turns Radford from a vengeful psycho into a human being with deep but potentially fixable flaws.

Baxter, in contrast, puts a black tophat and moustache on the woman he claims to love. Add in that Radford doesn't display the original document, and that document cannot possibly be a Facebook email, and you've got good reason to think it's a forgery.

And yet, forgeries aren't Radford's MO. He much rather prefers misinterpretation and misdirection based on actual things and events, so having him invent an entire letter out of thin air is rather unlikely. It doesn't display any of his writing tics, either, and as you point out Baxter appears to have confirmed the thing as genuine.

So it's both unlikely to be genuine, yet unlikely to be a forgery. I haven't thought of any hypothesis that could account for that.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Baxter did confirm the communication and in that message he is clear KS falsely accused Reap of harassment - to the point Reap complained to Baxter directly.
How did you get that from "Yes Karen and I were arguing a lot. I reached out to an ex for insight. Ben immediately tried to manipulate me." It's not even clear "ex" refers to Radford or an "ex" of Baxter who then forwarded on the message to Radford. All we can reliably glean is that Baxter confirms the message as genuine.
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 31st July 2014, 12:45 PM   #254
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,337
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
So it's both unlikely to be genuine, yet unlikely to be a forgery. I haven't thought of any hypothesis that could account for that.
A plausible hypothesis is that your reasoning is faulty.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 31st July 2014, 01:22 PM   #255
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Sexual misconduct allegations against Radford, Shermer, et al. Part 2

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Through that lens, Radford's actions make a lot more sense. He and Stollznow had a contract, where he would promote her career in return for having a relationship with him. She broke that contract, so he's filing suit.
You are quite serious with this? To say that your interpretation is merely uncharitable would be too charitable. There is nothing remotely unusual with people favouring their lovers out of genuine affection, and you have this far given us no reason to conclude that Ben is incapable of experiencing that. You seem utterly hellbent on squeezing Ben into this predator narrative, come what may.

ETA: You never answered my question here.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 31st July 2014 at 01:35 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 31st July 2014, 03:21 PM   #256
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
We are not "debating" anything, we are being trolled by HJ, who (in classic conspiracy style) is doing his best to raise doubts about Radford's claims and evidence with red herrings, twisted logic, and self-validating re-definitions ("if the other person knows about it, it's not an affair")
Do you doubt the existence of polyamory or mistresses? The French prime minister isn't having an affair with his mistress if his wife approves of the arrangement.

It's depressing that your best attempt at demonstrating I'm a conspiracy theorist is to deny the common meaning of the term "affair" without supporting evidence. Do you think that a person taking their ex-lover to court as retaliation is so unlikely as to be "extraordinary" and dismissable without evidence?

Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
... while hoping no one notices he's offered no evidence whatsoever for the truth of Stollznow's claims,
If you don't understand the basics of civil court and burden of proof by now, and ignored the explanation of my methodology, it's not worth my time to refute this.

Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
nor plausible explanations for the contradictions between statements she made in her SA narrative and those in her e-mails at the time.
And those explanations are...? Thanks for reminding me, though, I should do an in-depth analysis of Stollznow's SciAm blog post.
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 31st July 2014, 04:48 PM   #257
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
And those explanations are...? Thanks for reminding me, though, I should do an in-depth analysis of Stollznow's SciAm blog post.
In all seriousness, what you should do is get a different hobby. This can't be healthy for you, and all of this effort could be put into something which is actually constructive.
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 31st July 2014, 07:40 PM   #258
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Quote:
Through that lens, Radford's actions make a lot more sense. He and Stollznow had a contract, where he would promote her career in return for having a relationship with him. She broke that contract, so he's filing suit.
Brilliant.
Except, well, it was Radford, not Stollznow, who apparently wasn't keen to be in a long-distance relationship (recall her e-mail saying HER feelings were not being reciprocated?) and it was HE who broke it off (recall him rebuffing her offer to have an affair with him in 2010?).

Oh, and also the fact that Stollznow is not being sued for breaking any contract, she's being sued for defamation because she wrote a blog accusing him of sexually harassing her. Really, if you're missing these basic points I can see how the rest of this will be tough going for you.
Otherwise, brilliant.

Last edited by FreddyEH; 31st July 2014 at 07:42 PM.
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 31st July 2014, 09:18 PM   #259
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
There is little to no direct evidence Baxter knew any specifics of SF at the time.

Baxter's July FB comment shows no awareness of the tryst (Radford is an "ex") - let alone the even more recent TAM "assault".

In April 2011 KS flew off the handle when reminded of the "anniversary" of a Baxter affair (which occurred during a "break").

It seems reasonable that the KS / Baxter relationship in April 2010 was fraught to say the least. Probably not worthy of the title of a "poly-what-you-call-it".

Last edited by Brive1987; 31st July 2014 at 10:02 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 31st July 2014, 10:03 PM   #260
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This is getting altogether too meta. Anyone got PACER updates?
I think I gave you two weeks didn't I?


Last edited by Brive1987; 31st July 2014 at 10:05 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 31st July 2014, 10:06 PM   #261
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You never answered my question here.
Sorry, I thought the answer to the first question was self-evident: no, neither badgering nor alcohol can negate consent. Nor can I accuse Radford of committing a crime when a crime may not have happened. It's not clear if Stollznow claims the events of April 16th, whatever they were, was done without consent. Stollznow does allege sexual assault, it's true:

Quote:
Then, he saw me at conferences and took every opportunity to place me in a vulnerable position. This is where the psychological abuse turned physical and he sexually assaulted me on several occasions.
And as April 2010 marks the first Skepti-Cal conference, it's plausible this falls under "several occasions." Radford asserts this is the case; after discussing April 16th, 2010 in his court case, this paragraph appears:

Quote:
(26) l. The foregoing events occurred during a period of time that Stollznow would later falsely assert to have been one during which Radford sexually harassed and assaulted her. But all of the foregoing events are documented not only by Stollznow’s and Radford’s emails, but also in photographs. It is a fair measure of Stollznow’s later-developed malice toward Radford that she would encourage and facilitate sex with him and then, two years afterwards, accuse him of having “sexually assaulted” her during the very period in which she was enthusiastically arranging trysts with him.
But notice something's missing here: where did Stollznow accuse Radford of assault during this timeframe? Her blog post doesn't give specific dates, which leaves only CFI's report. Here's Radford discussing the contents of that:

Quote:
There followed a six-month investigation conducted by an outside investigator hired by CFI. In addition to Stollznow’s fabrication of general allegations of harassment, Radford later learned that Stollznow altered at least six documents to support her fabricated allegations, including falsifying the dates of e-mail exchanges to make it appear that Radford had been pestering her with “incessant communication of a sexual nature” after she had supposedly asked him to stop communicating with her. Stollznow also apparently falsely stated to the investigator that she and Radford had not been in a sexual relationship when he came to her hotel room in Las Vegas in July of 2010, where he suggested sex, and that, accordingly, his request was harassing rather than an inconsequential exchange between two people who had had recent sexual liaisons and were together in a hotel room again. In addition, Stollznow falsely told the investigator that Radford had blocked her path in an attempt to kiss her at the same conference (Radford acknowledges momentarily stepping in front of her during an argument). (40)
So either Stollznow did accuse Radford of assaulting her on April 2010 to her superior at CFI, but Radford fails to mention that; Stollznow accused Radford, but CFI "greatly reduced the severity of my [Stollznow's] claims" and ignored it while drafting the report; Stollznow accused Radford in some other document Radford never mentions; or Stollznow never accused Radford of assault on April 16th, 2010, and Radford misunderstood her blog post or fabricated the claim.

At best, all I can say is that it's plausible she was assaulted by Radford that month; I cannot say anything stronger than that, as there are too many competing hypotheses and the evidence isn't sufficient to favor one over the other.
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 31st July 2014, 10:29 PM   #262
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
Oh, and also the fact that Stollznow is not being sued for breaking any contract, she's being sued for defamation because she wrote a blog accusing him of sexually harassing her. Really, if you're missing these basic points I can see how the rest of this will be tough going for you.
Uh...

Quote:
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION, FRAUD AND INTERFERENCE WITH BENEFICIAL CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

Plaintiff Benjamin Radford (“Radford”) brings this complaint to recover damages arising from malicious, false and defamatory public and private statements made about him by defendant Karen Stollznow (“Stollznow”) in 2013; to recover damages arising from her fraudulent conduct and; to recover damages from her intentional, wrongful and fraudulent interference with Radford’s business relationships with others.
Breach of contract isn't listed in there, but that's because no legal jurisdiction in North America recognizes their relationship as a valid contract. The closest we ever came was viewing marriage as an automatic granting of consent to sex, and we gave that up anywhere from one to three decades ago, depending on where you live.

And if you think Radford's complaint is just about defamation, you're not in a position to criticize me over "basic points."
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 1st August 2014, 01:05 AM   #263
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Anyway, I've been neglecting Brive1987 for too long. You brought up the "bizarre situation" email in a previous post, and I've looked into that one as well. It's worth repeating Stollznow's email again, this time in full:

Quote:
I hope you arrived home safely, and enjoyed the rest of your stay with your family - even if it was in Berkeley! Sorry I didn't stay the extra night, I had too much work to catch up on today.

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.

Good on you for all of your recent successes. Do actually get some enjoyment from them as you move on to other projects.

Thanks again for everything. (April 18th, 2010)
Seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it? This is two days after their April 2010 encounter, around the same time Radford learned of Baxter (he's first mentioned in a prior email from Radford, sent that day, and no other email before then even hints that Stollznow is dating someone), so it would seem clear that "bizarre situation" could only refer to Stollznow's relationship with Baxter.

But:

Quote:
On April 18, 2010, Stollznow e-mailed Radford to thank him for the time she had had with him in San Francisco, for his support and friendship, and apologized for involving him in her “bizarre situation” [presumably a reference to her soliciting sex from him even though she was engaged]: "I apologise for dragging you into my bizarre situation, but I think we're all pleased with the outcome...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.” (complaint, 26m)
"presumably"? Radford shouldn't have to presume what that statement refers to. Stollznow never makes it clear what "bizarre relationship" references, which strongly implies she didn't think Radford needed to "presume" anything. Radford himself claims to have known for certain about Baxter and the engagement at this point in their relationship:

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.” (complaint, 26k)
So why does Radford have to "presume" what "bizarre situation" means?

As it turns out, Radford is only certain he heard of Stollznow's engagement from Stollznow in paragraph 26k of the Complaint. For instance, he's uncertain in Item C of the Flashback report, which was sent mere weeks after (emphasis mine):

Quote:
I was thinking about some of the things you said, and maybe you're right, maybe I am a bit jealous of Baxter. Why wouldn't I be? You're apparently taken with him with a passion I thought you once had for me. Maybe I'm jealous that you and he talk three or four times a day, while I need to schedule a time to chat with you a week ahead. [...]

And, of course, we hold different places in your life. You are, as of last report, either engaged to him or maybe engaged or whatever... and I'm, well, I'm not sure what I am. I'm the once would-be boyfriend, the kinda part-time lover, the colleague and one who hurt you, the one with whom relations went FUBAR through a series of real and imagined slights and miscommunications. (May 4th, 2010)
How could Radford become more certain of what he'd heard from Stollznow four years down the line, as opposed to two weeks after? Worse still, he's back to being uncertain three months after filing that legal complaint:

Quote:
Some months later [than May 1st, 2010], she informed me, or I learned from acquaintances, that she had become engaged to (following a year-long, rocky on-and-off relationship with) Matthew Baxter, who both she and I had known for some time, who was also a member of the skeptical movement. (Declaration, 17)
At that same time, it's plausible that Radford would engage in quote-mining. Here, for instance, is how his legal complaint discusses Smith's reply during that MonsterTalk email exchange:

Quote:
Both Stollznow and Radford noted the heavy production work burden that podcast co-host Blake Smith shouldered on the show, and in a January 10, 2013 email to Smith and Stollznow, Radford asked for more professional cooperation and communication from Stollznow: [...]

Smith responded in part, “Yes, Karen does not contribute as much to the preparation of the show. I'm sure she's aware of that....” Radford replied, “All I did was say something that is true, and that we all know is true, but never talk about: that Karen does far less work than either one of us on the podcast, and it's not fair. This isn't about any personality conflict between Karen and I; it's about her not contributing equally to the show. [...] (complaint, paragraphs 38 and 39)
Here's an expanded quote of what Smith actually said. Above and below, I've bolded the overlapping portion:

Quote:
Yes, Karen does not contribute as much to the preparation of the show. I'm sure she's aware of that. But if it were really bothering me I'd have called her and said something to her about it. On the occasions when I've asked her directly to prepare something for the show she always has.

Let me tell you this - the reason I wanted Karen on the show is because she loves monsters and is very skeptical about them yet passionate about the topics. It isn't because I thought we'd split the work three ways. There is no equitable way to split the work because part of the magic happens when we all get together and talk about stuff we love. (January 10th, 2013)
In the legal complaint, Radford makes it sound like Smith agrees with him. If you read the actual email, however, Smith accepts that Stollznow does less but doesn't care about that. The full email makes it clear Smith thinks Radford is trying to "throw her [Stollznow] under the bus without warning," by making an issue out of a non-issue.

The judge would have full access to that email, so Radford had no hope of getting away with this. Radford himself shared the full email thread on his website, before it was taken down, so within one click anyone could learn Radford was deceiving them. Yet, he did try to deceive all of us.

And if Radford is willing to brazenly quote-mine there, it's not implausible he'd quote-mine "bizarre situation" as well. Add in that Stollznow was certain Radford would know what that phrase meant, yet Radford doesn't display certainty about her relationship with Baxter both at that time and much later, and even contradicts himself by claiming to be certain around then, and it's plausible "bizarre situation" refers to something else.

Yes, that's all a bit of a stretch, but I think it's defensible within the context of Radford's actions.
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 1st August 2014, 01:34 AM   #264
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Sorry, I thought the answer to the first question was self-evident: no, neither badgering nor alcohol can negate consent. Nor can I accuse Radford of committing a crime when a crime may not have happened. It's not clear if Stollznow claims the events of April 16th, whatever they were, was done without consent. Stollznow does allege sexual assault, it's true:

And as April 2010 marks the first Skepti-Cal conference, it's plausible this falls under "several occasions." Radford asserts this is the case; after discussing April 16th, 2010 in his court case, this paragraph appears:

But notice something's missing here: where did Stollznow accuse Radford of assault during this timeframe? Her blog post doesn't give specific dates, which leaves only CFI's report. Here's Radford discussing the contents of that:

So either Stollznow did accuse Radford of assaulting her on April 2010 to her superior at CFI, but Radford fails to mention that; Stollznow accused Radford, but CFI "greatly reduced the severity of my [Stollznow's] claims" and ignored it while drafting the report; Stollznow accused Radford in some other document Radford never mentions; or Stollznow never accused Radford of assault on April 16th, 2010, and Radford misunderstood her blog post or fabricated the claim.

At best, all I can say is that it's plausible she was assaulted by Radford that month; I cannot say anything stronger than that, as there are too many competing hypotheses and the evidence isn't sufficient to favor one over the other.
Firstly she had no "superior" at CFI - Lindsay makes it clear she was never an employee. But that's just nitpicking.

There is zero evidence KS included "assault" in her CFI charge sheet. Radford claims the escalation went from mild "harassing" in June 2011 (in a call he taped) to "sexual harassment" in 2013 with the CSI complaint (downgraded to "inappropriate") to "assault" later in 2013 when she tried the JREF gambit.

I can't see why we can't accept that Radford was referring to the JREF claims with his reference to the allegations.

Supporting this is the fact the investigative findings were for 'blocking' and asking for sex at TAM - if SF was magically involved then it got a bullet by the investigator leaving no trace.

Btw she couldn't have been assaulted by BR at SkeptiCal 2010. She was too busy being harassed by Reap. Busy month that April.
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 1st August 2014, 01:39 AM   #265
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Uh...



Breach of contract isn't listed in there, but that's because no legal jurisdiction in North America recognizes their relationship as a valid contract. The closest we ever came was viewing marriage as an automatic granting of consent to sex, and we gave that up anywhere from one to three decades ago, depending on where you live.

And if you think Radford's complaint is just about defamation, you're not in a position to criticize me over "basic points."
How about defamation, the pragmatic means to this end (fraud) and the consequences of (damages) spreading a false narrative. It all seems pretty intertwined.
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 1st August 2014, 01:56 AM   #266
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Re the bizarre email.

No. Just no.

This is a perfectly clear, perfectly polite and overtly friendly email. Immediately post tryst.

Further it is clear KS was monumentally confused about her relationship with Baxter. They had been dating for some months. This was amidst the "40 breakup" trot. Baxter is enjoying his r&r. She is turning to Radford for "sage advice and sensitivity regarding my situation" and sleeping with him. Yet she is also clearly in a relationship with Baxter as well. Of a sort.

I'd be surprised if Radford wasn't unclear exactly what the hell was going on. I know I am.

But understandable confusion is irrelevant to the main point. If the bizarre email is legit then the tryst was not rape or some weird form of "how did I end up sharing a room with my harasser"

It was consensual.

And that is a silver bullet for SA.

Last edited by Brive1987; 1st August 2014 at 02:07 AM.
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2014, 08:26 AM   #267
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Breach of contract isn't listed in there, but that's because no legal jurisdiction in North America recognizes their relationship as a valid contract.
The "interference with contractual relations" part of the lawsuit you quoted refers to Stollznow interfering with BR's business and contractual relationships by contacting his employers and potential employers with her defamatory claims about his harassment, which would cause them to think twice about hiring him. It has nothing to do with any "contract" between Stollznow and Radford. Seriously, either you have reading comprehension issues or you are intentionally mischaracterizing this. If the former I can't help and if the latter, I'm done being trolled.
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 2nd August 2014, 09:32 AM   #268
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
The "interference with contractual relations" part of the lawsuit you quoted refers to Stollznow interfering with BR's business and contractual relationships by contacting his employers and potential employers with her defamatory claims about his harassment, which would cause them to think twice about hiring him.
Of course, and you quite helpfully quoted the paragraph where I explained that, while claiming it said something else.

"Basic points," indeed.
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 2nd August 2014, 09:41 AM   #269
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Dammit, I've gotta issue a correction. Earlier, I said there was no suggestion by either Stollznow or Radford that Stollznow was dating someone. That's wrong, I'd forgotten about the January 13th emails.

Quote:
Perhaps it would be positive to leave all of this acrimony behind and rebuild a friendship. But you need to know that I'm in a serious relationship that's moving forward steadily, and that I am immovable in that I don't want to resume any kind of relationship with you, ever again. (Stollznow, January 13th, 2010)
It's incredibly common for women to play the "I have a boyfriend" card when they want to shut down someone who won't take "no" for an answer. Stollznow not only has a surprise boyfriend, she's in a "serious relationship that's moving forward steadily", no less. Bear in mind that she'd been seeing Baxter for about three months at this point (Stollznow arrest report), which is a fairly short time to develop such a committed relationship.

Let's play the hypothetical game. Suppose this tactic worked fairly well, until one fateful day when your ex suddenly takes advantage of you while drunk. You know this guy will over-interpret trivial things like birthday cards into passionate declarations of love, and are frightened of what his creative mind will do with this accident. You also know he has quite a bit of control over your career, so a straight "no" isn't an option (and as per the previous point, he'd likely ignore it anyway). The "boyfriend" card mostly worked, but you've already pulled that one. What's left?

The next card in the deck: announce you're engaged to this boyfriend.

I know, I know, crazy idea. It's more likely this engagement happened before April 2010, and Radford only learned of it around then.

Except, as I pointed out up-thread, Radford is bizarrely fuzzy about when and where he learned of Stollznow's engagement, to the point of not even knowing if Stollznow told him or not. Radford has an uncanny pseudo-omniscience about Stollznow (for instance, he knew the contents of her Facebook page at a time Stollznow thought he couldn't, as mentioned in a March 2nd 2010 email), so Radford should have learned of any engagement quite quickly. Yet, every timeframe he gives hovers on, around, or after April 16th, 2010.

And Stollznow is in her thirties, and had only been dating Baxter for seven months or so at this time. Getting engaged that quickly is very rare, and rolling back the date only makes it less likely.

If this hypothesis has a smoking gun, however, it has to come from a third party. If Stollznow and Baxter were genuinely that head over heels for one another, they'd announce it to the world. If it was all a charade, however, they'd tell Radford they were engaged (or anyone they figured might tell Radford), but if there was no chance of the info getting back to Radford, they'd never mention the engagement to this third party.

Like, say, a police officer.

Both Stollznow and Baxter would have been obligated to be open to the police, yet at the same time neither had reason to think Radford would do a background check. While Colorado is quite liberal in what they share, sealed police reports are not released to the public, and to do so may be a violation of Colorado law unless they’ve first been unsealed by the courts.

Quote:
Inspection of the records included in an order sealing criminal records may thereafter be permitted by the court only upon petition by the person who is the subject of such records or by the prosecuting attorney and only for those purposes named in such petition. …

Any member of the public may petition the court to unseal any file that has been previously sealed upon a showing that circumstances have come into existence since the original sealing and, as a result, the public interest in disclosure now outweighs the defendant’s interest in privacy.
So we have the perfect third party to put this hypothesis to the test, and guess what? Neither Stollznow’s nor Baxter’s police records mention an engagement. Baxter refers to them as “dating,” Stollznow calls Baxter her “boyfriend,” and nothing beyond that is even hinted at. It’s entirely plausible their engagement began as a sham to shut down Radford.

That would have been quite the stressor on a young couple, all the more so if someone were trying to manipulate them by preying on their fears and doubts.

Quote:
It does make me wonder, though, if you have the time for a relationship-- with Baxter or anyone else. Not a knock against you-- it applies just a much to me-- just an observation…. (May 4th, 2010)

Whether you've known him for six months or six years, talk to him ten minutes or ten hours a day, it's all irrelevant. You don't want me. If you're happy with him, then I wish you the best, I really do. If things get (more) difficult, you can call me up and talk to me (though I've offered this many times in the past, and you've never taken me up on it so I don't expect you ever will.). (May 4th, 2010)


Just got back from a quick jog, and for some reason I wondered:

Do you really feel that you have more in common with Baxter than with me? (July 26th, 2010)

>>Is it a matter of having things in common with someone?
Since you asked: Actually, yes.

Studies have shown that sharing similar life goals, interests, and experiences among partners is highly predictive of long-term relationship success. There is a direct causal correlation between relationship stability and satisfaction, and having things in common with your partner.

Of course people get into relationships all the time with others who they don't have a lot in common with, but statistically they are far less likely to remain together in the long term. The old relationship saw that "opposites attract" is completely contradicted by the evidence. There are, of course, exceptions. And you are an exceptional woman, so who knows? (July 28th, 2010)


Thanks for your offer to visit, but we probably shouldn't. As you said, you are in the process of moving forward in a serious relationship with Baxter, and I wouldn't want your visit to complicate the situation. (September 10th, 2010)


It's a shame things are strained between us.

We could be doing great work together, starting new investigations, collaborating on books, having great sex. (September 17th, 2010)


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


In any event, my offer to meet with you to try and work things out still stands. You live an hour's flight away, and I just want to talk, not to **** you or try to steal you from Matthew. (April 27th, 2011)
Disneyland help the two of them if Radford ever found out, as that’s the perfect fuel for a lifelong grudge. If there was any upshot to this situation (assuming that hypothesis is accurate, of course), it’s that a faux engagement turned into a real one.
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 2nd August 2014, 09:58 AM   #270
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Radford sounds like a scary nut. Has anybody checked out his background to see if he's ever been in trouble with the cops for beating up on anybody else who made the mistake of hooking up with him?
shuttlt 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 2nd August 2014, 10:32 AM   #271
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Radford sounds like a scary nut. Has anybody checked out his background to see if he's ever been in trouble with the cops for beating up on anybody else who made the mistake of hooking up with him?
Not sure where the "beating up" phrase came from (the main KS claim is harassment), but as far as I know the only people involved who have been arrested for assault, harassment, and/or domestic violence are Karen Stollznow and Matthew Baxter.
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 2nd August 2014, 05:26 PM   #272
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
HJ - is the link you provided ALL the e-mails? Sorry, I haven't really been keeping up as I don't have an opinion. But I was bored just now and decided to read the e-mail thread you posted at the link, and I'm not sure how anyone reading that would think Radford didn't sound like a crazy person. Not just that, but entitled to Stollznow's affections though she doesn't want him and wants somebody else, and just... creepy. And weird. Do people reading the e-mails really not feel that way?
RemieV 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 2nd August 2014, 09:12 PM   #273
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
HJ - is the link you provided ALL the e-mails? Sorry, I haven't really been keeping up as I don't have an opinion. But I was bored just now and decided to read the e-mail thread you posted at the link, and I'm not sure how anyone reading that would think Radford didn't sound like a crazy person. Not just that, but entitled to Stollznow's affections though she doesn't want him and wants somebody else, and just... creepy. And weird. Do people reading the e-mails really not feel that way?
What if anything do you conclude from this?
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 2nd August 2014, 10:30 PM   #274
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
What if anything do you conclude from this?
Why are you testing to see what my answer would be before you answer? Do you think he sounds like a crazy person in those e-mails or not?

I don't conclude anything. I am just surprised, because reading this thread it seemed like the general consensus was that Stollznow sounded crazy and Radford is this deeply respectable professional. Actually reading the e-mails, the opposite is true. Radford sounds crazy, not Stollznow. Like fifty red flags for creepitude, run in the opposite direction kind of creepy.
RemieV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2014, 03:28 AM   #275
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
HJ,

So despite all the points made up-thread that demonstrate SA is a joke you are instead reduced to this?

That KS may or may not have been engaged to Baxter. That she may or may not have communicated this status to Radford. And if she did, this may or may not have been the truth. And if it wasn't the truth then this may or may not have been a cunning plan to thwart incessant abuse otherwise missing from the record.

And then you passively digress into innuendo about the sealed / unsealed police records before snapping 90 degrees to a cherry-picked contextless stream of email messages.

About the last. It would help if you didn't remove Karen's agency from proceedings. Each of the Radford only snippets you provide exists in a relationship framework and is part of a two way dialog. It goes beyond simple misdirection to present them as a seeming relentless monologue. By now everybody reading this thread knows there was a complex interplay between these two in the period April and September.

Even if we accepted your disingenuous packing of data, we would still be a long way from the "this man is a predator"
Brive1987 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2014, 03:49 AM   #276
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
HJ,

So despite all the points made up-thread that demonstrate SA is a joke you are instead reduced to this?

That KS may or may not have been engaged to Baxter. That she may or may not have communicated this status to Radford. And if she did, this may or may not have been the truth. And if it wasn't the truth then this may or may not have been a cunning plan to thwart incessant abuse otherwise missing from the record.

And then you passively digress into innuendo about the sealed / unsealed police records before snapping 90 degrees to a cherry-picked contextless stream of email messages.

About the last. It would help if you didn't remove Karen's agency from proceedings. Each of the Radford only snippets you provide exists in a relationship framework and is part of a two way dialog. It goes beyond simple misdirection to present them as a seeming relentless monologue. By now everybody reading this thread knows there was a complex interplay between these two in the period April and September.

Even if we accepted your disingenuous packing of data, we would still be a long way from the "this man is a predator"
You know - some of it doesn't really need context. Or, rather, any amount of context wouldn't make it alright. There's some seriously manipulative **** in there.

And actually, from what I gathered reading the thread, wasn't it HJ who has continually pointed out that the part of the relationship that is public was taking place in a larger framework? And wasn't it HJ who hypothesized on what that framework was, and was called a conspiracy theorist for it? Or am I misremembering?
RemieV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2014, 04:38 AM   #277
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
Why are you testing to see what my answer would be before you answer? Do you think he sounds like a crazy person in those e-mails or not?
I was wondering whether you had anything to add besides character assassination based on reading a stranger's emails, actually. Just calling someone "creepy" or "crazy" on that basis doesn't add a lot to the discussion. We were discussing more substantive issues.

Quote:
I don't conclude anything. I am just surprised, because reading this thread it seemed like the general consensus was that Stollznow sounded crazy and Radford is this deeply respectable professional. Actually reading the e-mails, the opposite is true. Radford sounds crazy, not Stollznow. Like fifty red flags for creepitude, run in the opposite direction kind of creepy.
I think you might want to read it again more carefully. The focus was originally on the evidence that Stollznow falsified evidence to prop up an accusation of sexual harassment, which seems a bit more important than who you think has "creepitude". It diverged into discussing hjhornbeck's conspiracy theory which is... well... nobody but perhaps hjhornbeck is sure what their theory is as far as I can tell, but there's certainly something suspicious to be found somewhere in Radford's emails and one day hjhornbeck knows they are going to find it.

I don't think anybody here is carrying water for Radford particularly. Maybe he is a creepy creep full of creepitude, I don't know, I'll let those qualified to make such accusations based on reading emails erect the stake and pile up the firewood on that count. It does seem based on the evidence we've seen that he is the target of a sexual harassment claim based on falsified evidence though.
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 3rd August 2014, 05:38 AM   #278
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
I was wondering whether you had anything to add besides character assassination based on reading a stranger's emails, actually. Just calling someone "creepy" or "crazy" on that basis doesn't add a lot to the discussion. We were discussing more substantive issues.



I think you might want to read it again more carefully. The focus was originally on the evidence that Stollznow falsified evidence to prop up an accusation of sexual harassment, which seems a bit more important than who you think has "creepitude". It diverged into discussing hjhornbeck's conspiracy theory which is... well... nobody but perhaps hjhornbeck is sure what their theory is as far as I can tell, but there's certainly something suspicious to be found somewhere in Radford's emails and one day hjhornbeck knows they are going to find it.

I don't think anybody here is carrying water for Radford particularly. Maybe he is a creepy creep full of creepitude, I don't know, I'll let those qualified to make such accusations based on reading emails erect the stake and pile up the firewood on that count. It does seem based on the evidence we've seen that he is the target of a sexual harassment claim based on falsified evidence though.
*sigh* Radford is not a stranger to me. We sat on many, many panels together and corresponded frequently when I worked for the JREF. When he launched his legal site and posted it on his Facebook, I was among the first in commenting on the post to tell him how wrong I thought it was to put those photos on the site.

As for whether or not your arguments are more 'substantive', going through the thread, there were (and still are) plenty of people posting that Stollznow is an abusive nut and Radford is a completely respectable person. The things he said in those e-mails were not respectable. They were manipulative.
RemieV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2014, 06:03 AM   #279
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
*sigh* Radford is not a stranger to me. We sat on many, many panels together and corresponded frequently when I worked for the JREF. When he launched his legal site and posted it on his Facebook, I was among the first in commenting on the post to tell him how wrong I thought it was to put those photos on the site.

As for whether or not your arguments are more 'substantive', going through the thread, there were (and still are) plenty of people posting that Stollznow is an abusive nut and Radford is a completely respectable person. The things he said in those e-mails were not respectable. They were manipulative.
Based on the evidence we have, it seems highly probable that Stollznow has behaved irrationally at various moments in the past few years. She has also been arrested for domestic violence. These things we have evidence for. If someone hyperbolically were to call her an "abusive nut" on that basis, it would be exaggerated but at least it would be based on some evidence.

I do not know if Radford is "a respectable person", nor how you (or anyone) would even define "respectable person". However, I've been reading this thread and cannot recall anyone claiming that he is. Many think he's innocent of the combination of particular allegations made in the SA article. There is some convincing evidence that the SA article as a whole cannot stand. That said, I'd like to see some of the "many" posts from which you distilled the "respectable person" paraphrase.

You have an emotional reaction to the selected quotes from Radford's emails, to which you are entirely entitled, much as others are entitled to perhaps feeling Stollznow is a dangerous fruitcake. Neither adds anything to the discussion.

Last edited by Lorentz; 3rd August 2014 at 06:06 AM.
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 3rd August 2014, 06:45 AM   #280
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Based on the evidence we have, it seems highly probable that Stollznow has behaved irrationally at various moments in the past few years. She has also been arrested for domestic violence. These things we have evidence for. If someone hyperbolically were to call her an "abusive nut" on that basis, it would be exaggerated but at least it would be based on some evidence.

I do not know if Radford is "a respectable person", nor how you (or anyone) would even define "respectable person". However, I've been reading this thread and cannot recall anyone claiming that he is. Many think he's innocent of the combination of particular allegations made in the SA article. There is some convincing evidence that the SA article as a whole cannot stand. That said, I'd like to see some of the "many" posts from which you distilled the "respectable person" paraphrase.

You have an emotional reaction to the selected quotes from Radford's emails, to which you are entirely entitled, much as others are entitled to perhaps feeling Stollznow is a dangerous fruitcake. Neither adds anything to the discussion.
"He sounds like a crazy person" is not an emotion.

Anyway, no, I don't plan on going back through the thread. It was ridiculous enough the first time around. That's what I get for being bored, I suppose.
RemieV 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 03:04 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.