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 3rd August 2014, 07:43 AM   #281
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,349
I've not read this thread exhaustively, but my general recollection is that most people seem to be of the opinion that the relationship between Radford and Stollznow seems like it was pretty skeevy from both sides, and that neither comes out of this whole mess well. Furthermore, the general opinion, as far as I recall, is that that's neither here nor there when the specific allegations that are the subject of this thread are under discussion.
__________________
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 3rd August 2014, 08:19 AM   #282
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
"He sounds like a crazy person" is not an emotion.
Ah, I must have misinterpreted this:
Quote:
Do people reading the e-mails really not feel that way?
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, 11:29 AM   #283
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
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.
When did he post his legal site to his Facebook? AFAIK the only thing he posted to Facebook was the (premature) retraction he/his lawyer and Baxter had worked on. Or are you talking about some other post?

And which "those photos" are you referring to? I think there was one photo (singular), which was taken down within a day or two, a non-explicit photo at their SF hotel to prove they'd had consensual relations a year after she claimed she told him to cease personal contact. Or are you talking about some other photos?
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 3rd August 2014, 12:33 PM   #284
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Quote:
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.
Agreed. All the discussion and comments about whether one or the other of them comes off as "creepy" or manipulative or whatever in some private emails taken out of context years ago are irrelevant.

Either Stollznow's claims as laid out in the SA blog she wrote are true or they are not true. If they are true, then there is no basis for the defamation lawsuit, and a jury will look at all of the evidence and find her not guilty. If the statements she made in her blog are not true (and based at least in part on falsified evidence), then she made false accusations of sexual harassment and assault and will be held responsible for damages. Even if a handful of "creepy" or manipulative e-mails were sent (and I don't think they were), falsely accusing another person of sexual harassment and sexual assault is not a commensurate response. False accusations should never be used as a tool for revenge.
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 3rd August 2014, 01:00 PM   #285
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
Either Stollznow's claims as laid out in the SA blog she wrote are true or they are not true.
To me this still looks like a messy situation with exes behaving badly. I don't think it's necessarily "are true" or "are not true". Some claims may be true, some may be not true (the likelihood of all claims being true seems pretty small at this point).

Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
If they are true, then there is no basis for the defamation lawsuit, and a jury will look at all of the evidence and find her not guilty. If the statements she made in her blog are not true (and based at least in part on falsified evidence), then she made false accusations of sexual harassment and assault and will be held responsible for damages.
I'd suspect that it's not only going to be about what is true, but what can actually be demonstrated to be true or false. There are bound to be lots of claims that fall in between the demonstrably true or false borders. The jury are likely to base their decision on how convincing various claims appear in court (and whether they find either party "creepy", or "crazy" ).
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, 01:25 PM   #286
FreddyEH
Student
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Some claims may be true, some may be not true (the likelihood of all claims being true seems pretty small at this point).
Quite so. And if that is the case then that's a problem for Stollznow because if any part of her SA blog is false, then by definition she has made false accusations and she's in trouble. I'm no lawyer but I'm guessing juries take a dim view of hearing "Okay, yes, some of my accusations are not true, but please believe the other things I said, as the rest is completely true." If what she claimed really did happen, that's serious enough and there's no reason for Stollznow to make any false claims or fabricate any evidence. There's a reason why witnesses in American court swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Especially when accusing other people of serious crimes, you are expected to stick to the truth and not fabricate claims. It's a mess, but Stollznow could have avoided all this if she hadn't told PZ Myers that she'd referred to Radford in her blog.

Last edited by FreddyEH; 3rd August 2014 at 02:29 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 3rd August 2014, 04:43 PM   #287
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
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.
I'm not sure what relevance this has, but thanks for sharing.

Quote:
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.
I don't remember those "plenty of people" the way you do, but whatever. I don't take ownership of what "plenty of people" say.

I'm not particularly interested in whether Radford is a completely respectable person. Maybe you are. Maybe that's an important issue for you. I'm interested in the evidence for and against the claims that Radford sexually harassed Stollznow, and that Stollznow falsified evidence to that effect.

If you're here to argue that Radford is a creep, well, it's a free country (barring defamation laws) and you can call him whatever names you like.
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, 05:30 PM   #288
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
Ah, I must have misinterpreted this:
This is the perfect example of what I hate about participating in the Social Issues threads. Somehow, it becomes an imaginary competition where commenters try to score points by dissecting specific words used rather than what is actually being said.

'Feel' is not a strict reference to emotion. It also means 'exhibit qualities'. Grab a dictionary, and we can argue about it further if you like. I'm sure it will be totally relevant and at the end of it, because of the many definitions of the word 'feel', we will have added so very much to the conversation.
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, 07:14 PM   #289
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
It must be frustrating to make claims about something being said by "plenty of people" while being unable to provide any evidence that a single person said it, then have your own words quoted back at you when you deny having said something.
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 3rd August 2014, 08:15 PM   #290
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
It must be frustrating to make claims about something being said by "plenty of people" while being unable to provide any evidence that a single person said it, then have your own words quoted back at you when you deny having said something.
That's totally it. Near tears over here. My entire sense of self-worth was based on this forum, and this issue in particular. Whatever will I do with myself.
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 4th August 2014, 03:43 AM   #291
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
This is the perfect example of what I hate about participating in the Social Issues threads. Somehow, it becomes an imaginary competition where commenters try to score points by dissecting specific words used rather than what is actually being said.
I think it would help if you started out by first actually saying what you mean, rather than throwing around vague emotionally loaded terms without any explanation how you arrived at them.

Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
'Feel' is not a strict reference to emotion. It also means 'exhibit qualities'. Grab a dictionary, and we can argue about it further if you like. I'm sure it will be totally relevant and at the end of it, because of the many definitions of the word 'feel', we will have added so very much to the conversation.
You are correct, 'feel' can have a broader meaning. For instance if it's used in the conclusion of a well reasoned argument as in "the above makes me feel we should conclude the following..." I would not interpret it as an emotional reaction.

When it's used as conclusion of a summary character judgement, alongside terms such as "creepy", without a hint of reasoning, not even an example added, then I <feel> it completely justified to interpret this as no more than an emotional reaction.

You imply that this was not merely a personal reaction based on a feeling of revulsion at how Radford was communicating. This would mean it had rational reasoning behind it. Do you care to share any of this reasoning please?

Last edited by Lorentz; 4th August 2014 at 03:50 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 4th August 2014, 04:47 AM   #292
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
That's totally it. Near tears over here. My entire sense of self-worth was based on this forum, and this issue in particular. Whatever will I do with myself.
Oh look, another emotional reaction. Look, you made a claim that is obviously wrong, got called on it, and tried to deflect attention from that to something else. The problem is, even your deflection is wrong. "run in the opposite direction kind of creepy" is clearly an emotional reaction. There is no objective, unemotional way to measure "creepitude", nor creepy.

Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
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.

Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
"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.
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 4th August 2014, 05:17 AM   #293
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by FreddyEH View Post
Quite so. And if that is the case then that's a problem for Stollznow because if any part of her SA blog is false, then by definition she has made false accusations and she's in trouble.
Even then I'd think it depends on whether it's clear the falseness is intentional and intended to deceive. For instance it appears clear that during some of the period she describes that she was harassed, she had an affair with Radford and they exchanged mutually affectionate communications. That's not 'false' exactly; it's more a sin of omission of highly pertinent information. She might convince a jury that she had no bad intent in leaving that out, she just felt embarrassed about it in retrospect.

On the other hand, if she forged email dates to get Radford in trouble, then that should be a lot harder for her to talk her way out of.

I'm still curious what case can be made for Stollznow that does not include her falsifying dates, or has some ethical grounds why she was somewhat justified in doing so. I wish HJ would give us an actual hypothesis on what they think may be the actual story that clears Stollznow. So far we have only one interpretation consistent with the evidence, mostly based on Brive's commendable efforts.
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 4th August 2014, 05:53 AM   #294
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
I'm still curious what case can be made for Stollznow that does not include her falsifying dates, or has some ethical grounds why she was somewhat justified in doing so. I wish HJ would give us an actual hypothesis on what they think may be the actual story that clears Stollznow. So far we have only one interpretation consistent with the evidence, mostly based on Brive's commendable efforts.
This is the heart of the matter.

RemieV may prefer to talk about whether Radford is a creep, and hjhornbeck to talk about whatever it is they think is secretly afoot, but these both seem like distractions from the point and not very good ones at that. I suspect that the people inclined to try to defend Stollznow are having rather a hard time finding any basis to defend her, so this is what we get instead.
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 4th August 2014, 02:37 PM   #295
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
This is the heart of the matter.

RemieV may prefer to talk about whether Radford is a creep, and hjhornbeck to talk about whatever it is they think is secretly afoot, but these both seem like distractions from the point and not very good ones at that. I suspect that the people inclined to try to defend Stollznow are having rather a hard time finding any basis to defend her, so this is what we get instead.
I think this is largely due to the weight put on this situation with the lawsuit donations. Once you pay into something, that something tends to become not only important, but entrenched as "right." Not to mention people are just dying to be able to point at tangible evidence of the misogynistic menz of the atheist / skeptic community.
SinisterBen 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 4th August 2014, 03:31 PM   #296
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Brive is having troubles connecting the the board, but he's still around. He isn't neglecting us.
SinisterBen 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 4th August 2014, 03:45 PM   #297
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
HJ - is the link you provided ALL the e-mails?
All, within certain boundaries:

Quote:
While Ben Radford presents a large number of original emails throughout his site, he only presents them one at a time, rarely in sequential order, and leads in with his own commentary. This document takes all those emails and condenses them into a single document, giving you a better window into their relationship. No comment is made on their contents, though some commentary is necessary to point out when the email threads are truncated, when subject lines or dates are missing, and so on. The originals are linked to via the subject line, for verification. Radford quotes from a few emails dating to 2008 and 2009, but as he presents no originals I’ve left them out; see his Complaint and the website timeline to read those.
As Radford's website is down, here's an example of something I left out:

Quote:
January 11, 2009: Stollznow sends an e-mail to Radford in which she describes their relationship, stating, “We never discussed us, because there never was an “us”, so to speak. Just two people with common interests and an attraction. Anyway, to be precise, I like you more than I’ve liked any man in a very long time, which doesn’t serve me well, given our distance, and your relationship preferences. I have accepted this, the old, ‘he’s just not that into you’ understanding, and I would rather move on completely than hold on to some vain, pathetic hope for a future with you, as others seem to. I’m not just another girl…”
I debated adding those snippets in, but decided against it when I started tripping over Radford's numerous quote-mines. I've mentioned one up-thread, but here's another:

Quote:
4) In response to an e-mail from me that “There’s a package on its way, but you won’t get it by your birthday,” Stollznow responds, “Thank you–but you shouldn’t have.” (August 10, 2010) [gifts/correspondence]
If you clicked through to the email, you'd have found Stollznow actually said:

Quote:
Thank you - but you shouldn't have! Really.
That single word changes the meaning quite a bit, from a faux "shouldn't" to an actual "shouldn't." Another:

Quote:
In a January 13, 2010 e-mail Karen wrote to me saying that the reason we broke up was not any stalking or harassment but instead that “You told me outright that you weren’t interested in anything more than a fling, a holiday.” [relationship]
Click through, and you find Stollznow never said that in her January 13th email, instead writing:

Quote:
I'll be frank. For me, things were over between us in any relationship sense by this time last year, when I emailed you before leaving for Aus. Admittedly, I did tinker with the idea of having casual flings with you last year, but I soon became turned off the more I learnt about you, your unorthodox relationships, and peculiar perceptions of these. You're either very dishonest about your situation, or you have entirely idiosyncratic and unhealthy notions of relationships, sex, flirting and love.
Why the discrepancy? There were two different PDFs of that email thread on Radford's website. The first version was two pages long, with the above passage in an email from Stollznow on the first page, along with a response of Radford, and Stollznow's January 14th email which actually contained the passage Radford quotes. The second version was missing the first page, omitting Stollznow's explanation for why she ended their relationship but including Radford's reply to it, as it had been manually expanded out.

Why two versions? Before April 1st, 2014, Radford didn't know how to link to files he'd already uploaded to his website. The oldest page on his site, the Timeline, linked to the edited version. So when he wanted to reference the same email thread again on the "Relationship" page, he had to manually re-upload the PDF; this time, he chose the original.

This looks like a lie via omission on Radford's part, which was only discovered thanks to his technical incompetence.

Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
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?
I think your question answers itself: other people aren't reading the emails, or at least reading them in any depth. I found it amusing how no-one asked you what part you found creepy, as that might have forced them to look at the thing.

Know what really creeps me out? Radford either shared all but three of those emails because he thought they supported his claims, or because he knew few people would read them in depth and actually examine his claims. The three exceptions were thanks to an error made by Flashback, who accidentally authenticated this email thread instead of this one.

In the four months between when that report arrived, and when Radford took his website down, Radford (nor presumably his lawyer) noticed the error. It still represents the most honest look at Radford's inbox, free of any lies of omission on his part.

Open up that email thread, and let that sink in.
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 4th August 2014, 03:56 PM   #298
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Maybe because "creepy" is meaningless in this situation. They both seem "creepy" if you ask me. I think what you should try to do is focus on the evidence of her case.

Please proceed, Governor.
SinisterBen 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 4th August 2014, 04:28 PM   #299
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
I'm still working on my semi-final comment on the subject, a fisk of Stollznow's blog post, but it's taking quite a bit longer than expected. In the meantime, I spotted another lie in Radford's declaration.

Quote:
16. In the course of our relationship, we met for sex and companionship in Georgia and New Mexico in 2008, and in California in 2010. When we met in San Francisco in 2010, it was at Stollznow's request and she communicated that request to me while I was in New Mexico. She asked me if I would agree to meet her in San Francisco during a conference at which I was to speak.
Nope, it was Radford who made the request.

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

I understand that you won't be available to meet with me for whatever reason, but if other members of the Bay Area Skeptics are interested or available, I'd be happy to schedule a lunch, Q&A, or informal meeting with them. (Email, March 31st, 2010)
Like the probable-lie I mentioned up-thread, this could have legal ramifications for Radford, too.

Quote:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that, to the best of my knovvledge, the foregoing is true and correct. (Declaration, final paragraph)
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 4th August 2014, 04:41 PM   #300
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Lorentz
I'm still curious what case can be made for Stollznow that does not include her falsifying dates, or has some ethical grounds why she was somewhat justified in doing so. I wish HJ would give us an actual hypothesis on what they think may be the actual story that clears Stollznow. So far we have only one interpretation consistent with the evidence, mostly based on Brive's commendable efforts.
Is there an answer to this? I just don't know whether you are even serious at this point.
SinisterBen 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 4th August 2014, 09:02 PM   #301
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Question

Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
For instance it appears clear that during some of the period she describes that she was harassed, she had an affair with Radford and they exchanged mutually affectionate communications.
Could you point me to the emails which demonstrate that? I've been kind enough to copy-paste (and in three cases, type out) all the original emails Radford shared on his website, the least you could do is point to the specific ones which demonstrate Baxter didn't approve of Stollznow sleeping around, and where she agrees to have sex with Radford.

Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post
I'm still curious what case can be made for Stollznow that does not include her falsifying dates, or has some ethical grounds why she was somewhat justified in doing so. I wish HJ would give us an actual hypothesis on what they think may be the actual story that clears Stollznow. So far we have only one interpretation consistent with the evidence, mostly based on Brive's commendable efforts.
I'm working on it (so far, Stollznow's account in that SciAm blog post is not contradicted by Radford's evidence). As for those falsified emails, do you realize that only one person has claimed they were intentionally falsified? And that one person has almost certainly lied at least twice in legal documents, quote-mined their sources on at least three occasions, and nonetheless believes they'll earn millions in the courts?

It's breathtaking that after weeks of pointing out how Radford has engaged in misdirection, perhaps even outright lying, and you still trust his word by default. I wonder why you're hanging around a skeptic forum, if you have no desire to practice the skeptical process.
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 5th August 2014, 04:26 AM   #302
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
It's breathtaking that after weeks of pointing out how Radford has engaged in misdirection, perhaps even outright lying, and you still trust his word by default. I wonder why you're hanging around a skeptic forum, if you have no desire to practice the skeptical process.
I think the problem is that your efforts in pointing out misdirection have consisted of misdirection and perhaps even outright lying. I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to trust you by default.

For a partial list, you have cherry picked evidence to create a timeline that you say proves Radford manipulated Stollznow into renting a room, yet your own evidence actually literally says Stollznow brought up the idea. You have alleged that since Baxter knew of sexual liaisons between Stollznow and Radford, Radford and his lawyer were lying when they called these repeated sexual trysts an "affair". You have claimed that Radford calling Stollznow "beautiful" during their romantic relationship constitutes harassment.

This was just off the top of my head, but I am sure that I could come up with more misdirection on your part.
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 5th August 2014, 07:12 AM   #303
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I'm still working on my semi-final comment on the subject, a fisk of Stollznow's blog post, but it's taking quite a bit longer than expected. In the meantime, I spotted another lie in Radford's declaration.

Quote:
16. In the course of our relationship, we met for sex and companionship in Georgia and New Mexico in 2008, and in California in 2010. When we met in San Francisco in 2010, it was at Stollznow's request and she communicated that request to me while I was in New Mexico. She asked me if I would agree to meet her in San Francisco during a conference at which I was to speak.
Nope, it was Radford who made the request.

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

I understand that you won't be available to meet with me for whatever reason, but if other members of the Bay Area Skeptics are interested or available, I'd be happy to schedule a lunch, Q&A, or informal meeting with them. (Email, March 31st, 2010)

Not there he doesn't. Where in that does he ask her to meet him? He says he's going and he'll have some free time but he specifically says he understands she *won't* be available to meet with him.

You've made the accusation that this is a lie by Radford and possible perjury. If you're going to use that language then you've told us a lie there and you should either point to where Radford *did* ask her to meet up with him, or retract your accusation.
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 5th August 2014, 07:28 AM   #304
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
For a partial list, you have cherry picked evidence to create a timeline that you say proves Radford manipulated Stollznow into renting a room,
To demonstrate someone has cherry-picked the evidence, all you have to do is show they made an omission. Here's all the emails Radford shared in full; go at it. And just for the record, you don't find this manipulative?

Quote:
You are certainly welcome to crash out with me, though the logistics are a little dodgy. My plan so far is that I'll be at the Four Seasons Hotel SF on Thursnight (so that I'm at the hotel Friday AM when/where I'm speaking), and in Berkeley with my aunt & uncle Frinight and Satnight. Thus the only night I officially have a hotel in the city is Thursnight. I probably should not be out painting the town too much that night if I'm speaking the next morning, though some moderate hanging out would be fine (and you're welcome to crash with me that night). Frinight is our dinner, after which I either need to head back to Berkeley or find a reasonable hotel somewhere (Four Seasons = $500 per night, my one night is free, others are not!) (or crash with you, if that's not too presumptuous of me to ask!). Same with Saturday, though I won't necessarily be in the city unless I'm doing touristy / museum stuff. So we can definitely plan to visit, we just need to figure out what works best for everyone under the circumstances. (Radford, between April 10th and 11th, 2010)
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You have alleged that since Baxter knew of sexual liaisons between Stollznow and Radford, Radford and his lawyer were lying when they called these repeated sexual trysts an "affair".
"Repeated?" There was only one, on April 16th, 2010. And an "affair" is an unapproved relationship, so if Baxter knew of and approved of Stollznow sleeping with Radford, that means calling it an "affair" is misleading at best.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You have claimed that Radford calling Stollznow "beautiful" during their romantic relationship constitutes harassment.
I have made no such argument, and I dare you to point me to a comment I made that demonstrates otherwise. It's telling that you're inventing facts and claims to shore up your position, reality doesn't seem to be on your side.
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 5th August 2014, 07:38 AM   #305
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Quote:
As it happens, I will be in SF from April 15 to 18 or so. I'm giving a talk on the 16th, and I have a few other plans, but I should have some free time during my stay.

I understand that you won't be available to meet with me for whatever reason, but if other members of the Bay Area Skeptics are interested or available, I'd be happy to schedule a lunch, Q&A, or informal meeting with them. (Email, March 31st, 2010)
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
Not there he doesn't. Where in that does he ask her to meet him? He says he's going and he'll have some free time but he specifically says he understands she *won't* be available to meet with him.
Just so we're crystal clear here, you do not think Radford is asking if he can hang out with Stollznow, in that quoted passage? If so, can you then explain for me why Stollznow believed he was?

Quote:
I'd still be willing to attend the Friday night dinner with you, if you haven't already found another guest. (March 31st, 2010)
I note that the email thread ends there, with no reply from Radford.
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 5th August 2014, 08:08 AM   #306
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Just so we're crystal clear here, you do not think Radford is asking if he can hang out with Stollznow, in that quoted passage?
He may want to, but he doesn't ask to as you accused him of. So he didn't commit perjury there as you accused him of.

Quote:
If so, can you then explain for me why Stollznow believed he was?

Quote:
I'd still be willing to attend the Friday night dinner with you, if you haven't already found another guest. (March 31st, 2010)
I note that the email thread ends there, with no reply from Radford.
Immaterial. He didn't lie in his deposition as you've accused him of (and immaterial that the email thread ends there - perhaps they phoned, perhaps they didn't).

If you won't withdraw a statement that has been shown to be untrue that makes it a lie rather than a mistake. If you'll tell a lie like that how can we trust what else you say (as you keep suggesting of Radford)?
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 5th August 2014, 08:57 AM   #307
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Rereading it, it's doesn't cover Radford with glory but he's defending himself against accusations of harassment and continued unwanted communication. So, I can't say I blame him for pointing out that she was the one who made the actual invitation.

It's not perjury.
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 5th August 2014, 09:17 AM   #308
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I note that the email thread ends there, with no reply from Radford.
Which of course means nothing. Well done. How's that theory coming? Are you ever going to state what it is?
SinisterBen 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 5th August 2014, 09:24 AM   #309
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
To demonstrate someone has cherry-picked the evidence, all you have to do is show they made an omission. Here's all the emails Radford shared in full; go at it. And just for the record, you don't find this manipulative?
To demonstrate that you cherry picked the evidence, this is where you made an omission:

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
They would, if they were true. Radford, for instance, was the one who proposed a get-together with Stollznow, if you follow the email chain (emphasis added by me, some portions dropped for brevity).
Quote:
Radford: As it happens, I will be in SF from April 15 to 18 or so. I'm giving a talk on the 16th, and I have a few other plans, but I should have some free time during my stay. (March 31st, 2010)

Stollznow: I'd still be willing to attend the Friday night dinner with you, if you haven't already found another guest. (March 31st)
...
Later:
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
As it happens, I will be in SF from April 15 to 18 or so. I'm giving a talk on the 16th, and I have a few other plans, but I should have some free time during my stay.

I understand that you won't be available to meet with me for whatever reason, but if other members of the Bay Area Skeptics are interested or available, I'd be happy to schedule a lunch, Q&A, or informal meeting with them. (Email, March 31st, 2010)
Note the hilited portion that you originally snipped, which is orthogonal to your claim that this was a proposition by Radford to get together with Stollznow.


Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
"Repeated?" There was only one, on April 16th, 2010. And an "affair" is an unapproved relationship, so if Baxter knew of and approved of Stollznow sleeping with Radford, that means calling it an "affair" is misleading at best.
Are you now claiming that the only time Stollznow and Radford were ever intimate is April 16, 2010??

As to your definition of "affair", I don't know what orifice you pulled it from, but you did not get that from a dictionary.


Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I have made no such argument, and I dare you to point me to a comment I made that demonstrates otherwise. It's telling that you're inventing facts and claims to shore up your position, reality doesn't seem to be on your side.
Your comment that demonstrates otherwise. As the linked email is now not accessible, perhaps there was something else in that email that you considered such obvious harassment that to deny it was harassment was just "silly".

On an aside, your habit of putting things in the quote tag make it frustrating to quote back to you, and dishonest when it isn't a quote, but rather something you "edited" together.
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 5th August 2014, 09:53 AM   #310
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
On an aside, your habit of putting things in the quote tag make it frustrating to quote back to you, and dishonest when it isn't a quote, but rather something you "edited" together.
I note a strong desire for us to ignore what has been said, but rather just pay attention post-to-post as the goalposts slide all over the place, definitions become malleable, and quotes are just what he wishes people said.

It's sickening argumentation to watch, and it's hard to imagine why he thinks it would fly at a skeptic forum.
SinisterBen 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 5th August 2014, 10:01 AM   #311
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
And an "affair" is an unapproved relationship, so if Baxter knew of and approved of Stollznow sleeping with Radford, that means calling it an "affair" is misleading at best.
You defined this word in this rather peculiar and unique way earlier in the thread and were called on it by several different people, so it's a bit disappointing to see you simply repeat your definition as though none of those replies had ever been made.
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 5th August 2014, 11:01 AM   #312
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,349
"Affair" means "romantic relationship". It's more colloquially come to be used as shorthand for "extramarital affair" and this is the most common definition, but it's certainly not the only legitimate usage.
__________________
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 5th August 2014, 11:28 AM   #313
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
"Affair" means "romantic relationship". It's more colloquially come to be used as shorthand for "extramarital affair" and this is the most common definition, but it's certainly not the only legitimate usage.
I think Hornbeck is trying to limit the definition in order to bolster his argument. not to provide a meaningful understanding of the word.

If you follow through a lot of this discussion you have to stop using words the way they are usually used in order to make the Hornbeckian theory take shape. I don't think he is being honest in this discussion.
SinisterBen 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 5th August 2014, 12:58 PM   #314
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Henry Bannister View Post
He may want to, but he doesn't ask to as you accused him of.
Morbid curiousity has started to set in. So what does Radford mean in the given passage, if he isn't asking Stollznow to meet him?

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

I understand that you won't be available to meet with me for whatever reason, but if other members of the Bay Area Skeptics are interested or available, I'd be happy to schedule a lunch, Q&A, or informal meeting with them. (Email, March 31st, 2010)
Given that you have conceded Radford stated to Stollznow he had free time, and that Stollznow interpreted that as an invitation to meet with him (though to be fair, you dismiss that last fact as "immaterial" to the meaning of the passage).
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 5th August 2014, 01:10 PM   #315
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Given that you have conceded Radford stated to Stollznow he had free time, and that Stollznow interpreted that as an invitation to meet with him (though to be fair, you dismiss that last fact as "immaterial" to the meaning of the passage).
SinisterBen 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 5th August 2014, 01:12 PM   #316
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Note the hilited portion that you originally snipped, which is orthogonal to your claim that this was a proposition by Radford to get together with Stollznow.
... How? The only way I can see is if you trust Radford by default and argue Stollznow didn't have the ability to meet with him simply because Radford says so. This is contradicted by the fact that she did see him, and I consider that argument so ridiculous as to be unworthy of consideration. Without that, I see how it fails to have any relevance other than as evidence he used reverse psychology to get Stollznow to meet with him.

It's also difficult to accuse me of hiding something when I openly quote that thing later, like my post yesterday at 05:28 PM.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your comment that demonstrates otherwise. As the linked email is now not accessible, perhaps there was something else in that email that you considered such obvious harassment that to deny it was harassment was just "silly".
I said:

Quote:
On the fraud page of his website, Radford has two arguments to defend himself against that list of emails he provides:

1. They aren't harassing. (Blink and you'll miss it: "There are several others, most of them mundane.")
b) They were actually sent in 2009 and 2010, and Stollznow fudged the dates.

1. is just silly, and I figured I wouldn't have to get into it. Looks like I was wrong there, so I'll devote a section of the collaborative analysis into covering that claim.
And after reading it twice, I still have absolutely no idea what that has to do with your claim:

Quote:
You have claimed that Radford calling Stollznow "beautiful" during their romantic relationship constitutes harassment.
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 5th August 2014, 01:44 PM   #317
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
"Affair" means "romantic relationship". It's more colloquially come to be used as shorthand for "extramarital affair" and this is the most common definition, but it's certainly not the only legitimate usage.
Hjornbeck is clearly trying to use "affair" as shorthand for "extramarital affair", but as he repeatedly points out that it was not "extramarital", hjhornbeck should realize is is not being used as a shorthand in this case.

This has been pointed out to hjhornbeck by several posters, now, so it is unlikely to be merely an honest mistake.
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 5th August 2014, 01:58 PM   #318
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
... How? The only way I can see is if you trust Radford by default and argue Stollznow didn't have the ability to meet with him simply because Radford says so. This is contradicted by the fact that she did see him, and I consider that argument so ridiculous as to be unworthy of consideration. Without that, I see how it fails to have any relevance other than as evidence he used reverse psychology to get Stollznow to meet with him.
Your pretense to not understand plain English phrases such as "I understand you won't be available to meet" are getting silly. You constantly post walls of text which demonstrate that you know what words mean, then turn around and try this silly 'up is down, black is white' nonsense. Radford clearly stated that he did not expect Stollznow to meet him, but that he would like to meet with others. If you dispute that, provide evidence that something else was said.

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
It's also difficult to accuse me of hiding something when I openly quote that thing later, like my post yesterday at 05:28 PM.
I did not claim you hid anything, I said you cherrypicked, and omitted. As you left out information that contradicted your claim for almost 2 weeks, that was an omission.


Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I said:



And after reading it twice, I still have absolutely no idea what that has to do with your claim:



The email linked in the comment I directed you to was mild chit-chat that took place during their intimate relationship. The only thing different about that and any friendly communication with a co-worker was Radford's use of "beautiful" as a salutation to Stollznow. You claimed that that email was so obviously harassment that to deny it was silly.

Last edited by wareyin; 5th August 2014 at 02:14 PM. Reason: phone posting hard!
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 5th August 2014, 03:40 PM   #319
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
I'm back. And what a nightmare we have here.

The meetup was consensual. It involved two way conversations. Radford dangled the possibility and Stollznow leapt up and seized it with both hands.

She proposed crashing in a double bed in a hotel room. She posed for selfies outside the hotel the morning after. She responded positively to follow up emails. She thanked Radford for advise and support ie she confided in him.

And this happened during the period when the SA abuse narrative was meant to be at fever pitch. And this, HJ is a problem for the canon account.

Hornbeck. I know this is hard for you. And I fear you wake at night in sweat, silently mouthing "Weekend, Albuquerque".

But there is a Stollznow argument of a sort that can be made. And it isn't by redefining "affair" and trying to create a general sense of unease about Radford's evidence via a Gish Gallop of unrelated, half baked aspersions.

Do I have to make it? Or will you put form on a skeleton that so far is more a pile of bones in a box?

Last edited by Brive1987; 5th August 2014 at 03:54 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 5th August 2014, 06:49 PM   #320
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
I've always thought it relevant to clearly define the KS narrative as a baseline from which to benchmark evidence.

It is after all the underpinning for the court case - even if the latter requires legal expansion into the hows, whys and consequences.

I'm amazed it has taken this long for HJ to get around to it. But given his clear intent is to try and discredit Radford's credibility (rather than establish Stollznow's) I shouldn't be surprised.

HJ. In your fisking of Karen, could you please identify where and how her emails to Radford hang on the scaffold.

Here is a little something to help. Maybe you could colour in the timeline consistent with predatory harassment, assault etc
The green months are those where we have clear evidence of actual or proposed rendezvous - fully or partially initiated by KS.

Period A (blue) fits between their 'breakup' and SF tryst. How does that look? Are we seeing SA yet in her emails? I note on Mar 1 2010 KS expresses surprise they are revisiting their relationship - is this evidence of continuous obsessive behaviour? I also note KS can only discern "underlying" resentment. And again confirmation that it was KS wanting more that was a sticking point. Is this really the climax of Period A drama just prior to the April rapprochement?

Period B (purple) fits between SF and the September requests by Karen for weekends away and week-long furloughs. How's this? Is the SA predation really compressed to May/June/July/Aug prior to the September about-turn of interest? How does that reconcile to SA where the narrative culminated in TAM (July) assaults proceeding out of Period A?

And if you want to join it all up into the extended SA account.

Well.

Then you have fairly passive emails leading into SF trysts, especially close emails, "hello beautiful"s, Baxter engaging with non-scary Ben, Karen wanting time away with Ben and Karen turning to Ben for relationship support.

Good luck.

The offer to write you a Karen case stands.

Link: http://i.imgur.com/IymrNK0.jpg


Last edited by Brive1987; 5th August 2014 at 08:34 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
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 11:06 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.