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 5th August 2014, 07:38 PM   #321
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
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 pinning 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 Feb 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. Hows 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

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


That may very well be the loudest OH SNAP! I have ever heard.

I think the neighbors called the cops. I'm going to go check on my kids and make some popcorn. Anyone want a bowl? I have beer.
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, 11:28 PM   #322
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by SinisterBen View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
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.
So my assertion that "affair" would probably be interpreted as "sexual encounter is "peculiar" and "unique," not "the way [that word is] usually used?"

Quote:
Mya is speaking out after rumors spread that she has been having an affair with Jay Z. ...

The rumors surfaced after Beyonce changed lyrics to a song during her On the Run Tour show earlier this week and made fans think she was accusing her husband of cheating.
Quote:
She had an affair. I caught her....

I felt guilty as hell the entire time, spying on my wife. But I couldn't shake it, couldn't stay away. Then, she went back to her parents' with the kids for Easter weekend (again, I had to work) and when she got back, all of the chat histories were deleted, and the log function had been disabled. Alarm bells started going off; what did she have to hide?
Quote:
Eight years into the marriage, she had an affair with a man who worked with her. Instead of telling me that she was attracted to someone she knew, she kept it from me and got involved with him.
Quote:
A JEALOUS wife knocked out a woman she thought was having an affair with her husband and then cut off her breasts — only to discover she had turned him down.
Quote:
People who had an affair while in a relationship, how did it begin, how did it end and what did you learn? ...

Not me, but my sister was unwittingly the other woman. She found out when they went on vacation ...

My grandfather cheated on my grandmother, and tried to name my mom after the other woman. ...

I was the one cheated on. ...

To be betrayed by not only your wife for over 13 years (and only soul mate for closer to 16 years), but also your friend that you had literally helped every day of his life was absolutely soul-crushing. ....
Then how do explain that?

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.
So you think the most common interpretation of "affair", as used by Radford, would not be the most common interpretation of the word "affair?"

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".
Actually, I said this:

Quote:
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.
Oy. What's sad is that this is my first visit to a skeptic-oriented forum on the internet. I've heard this is the biggest one of them all. And based on my time posting here, I'd conclude that a "skeptic" is someone who blindly defends their leader, even if that involves straw-personning, bending into knots of twisted logic, or declaring the sky to be bright pink.

It makes me glad I never identified as 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 5th August 2014, 11:43 PM   #323
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by SinisterBen View Post
Which of course means nothing. Well done. How's that theory coming? Are you ever going to state what it is?
You bet I will, in -17 days.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
You really owe it to all of us interested in your argument to issue simple clear one or two line yes or nos to these, just so we know where we stand.
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
I don't, actually. My preferred methodology is to examine one specific and well-sourced claim made by person X, pull apart the underlying assumptions, and look for evidence pro or con. As I go, I keep an eye out for evidence that effects other claims I've looked at, and revisit them with the new info. Occasionally, if I see a pattern in the evidence, I'll start forming hypotheses around it and treat them as well-sourced claims.

Since that's a reactive approach, I spend much of my time without a firm conclusion or even a most plausible hypothesis in mind. Quite frequently, I'm still forming and challenging hypotheses as I'm writing about them. A clear "yeah or nay" only comes when I'm convinced no new evidence will roll in, and the evidence is crystal clear.

But with the shared analysis on hold, this is now my primary outlet for discussing these hypotheses. So, let's play truth or dare.
... and yadda yadda yadda, "I'm comfortable stating most of Stollznow's claims in her blog post are more likely true than not."

Happy?
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 6th August 2014, 12:07 AM   #324
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
The meetup was consensual.
Then why does Stollznow hint that she may have been pressured into it in one of her emails?

Quote:
He and I have a lot to work through, but I'm willing. It's worth it. If he did what I did it'd be instantly over for me, but I did what I did with encouragement. I will say this though, is he did what you did, it'd be over instantly too.... (May 4th, 2010)
And why does Radford promise he won't try to pressure Stollznow into having sex with him, if he's never done it before?

Quote:
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. For the last year or two at least you've said that you have wanted to be my friend, and I'm offering a chance to make that happen. If you don't want that, then that's fine too. (April 27th, 2011)
Also, did you catch the line where Radford mentioned Stollznow was trying to be friends for "the last year or two at least" in 2011? In other words, back then he didn't think they had a sexual relationship in 2010.

It's funny how the opportunity to earn a million dollars in a civil suit, and seek revenge on a former lover, can play havoc with your memory...

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Is the SA predation really compressed to May/June/July/Aug prior to the September about-turn of interest?
I already covered the September "about-turn," remember? If you cannot provide a plausible alternative to that hypothesis, then your timeline becomes a beautiful fiction.
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 6th August 2014, 02:00 AM   #325
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Ha. You yourself have said of April and September that:

Quote:
what about April 15th and September 18th, 2010? Doesn’t the fact that Stollznow arranged the April encounter, and suggested an affair in September, contradict my earlier explanation?

They would, if they were true.

Let's make this simple.

Stollznow booked the room in SF. Presumably handed over her credit card number. While she was sober. Ok. Processed that?

Maybe not, let's quote the woman. "so how about I find a room in SF? Say the word, and I'll check out Hotwire and reserve a room".

I trust we are back on the same page now?

And when KS decides on some form of (temporary) buyers remorse, does she complain to Radford that he plied her with alcohol, coerced or in any other way abused or assaulted her? No the zinger apparently is that he "encouraged" the tryst. Probably "encouraged" her to smile for the selfies the next morning too.

That's your smoking gun?

Fast forward to September.

How about the "if you want an affair" line. Something not exactly swimming in ambiguity.

When he knocks it back does she say: "just kidding , I mean as if creepo" ? Or "damn the joke could have been on you"?

No. She says "I offered. Never again."

Is there something about that which confuses you? Something which makes you think that no, obviously she didn't offer? I didn't think so.

How about the proffered weekend in Alb? The best you have come up with there is mates being mates. Radford didn't see it that way did he? Even if it was, how's that work for you and SA? How, for that matter does her subsequent request for a week of succour work for SA - whether she went through with it or not?

No. I'm afraid these things are awkwardly true.

Your challenge. If you choose to accept it. Is to build an explanation that can accommodate both SA and these factoids.

It's not impossible. Give it a go.

Last edited by Brive1987; 6th August 2014 at 02:36 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 6th August 2014, 02:12 AM   #326
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Btw the beauty in the timeline is not its "fiction".

It's the simplicity of approach.

Her SA words, her email words and context. And it makes a powerful point.

Have you decided where to colour in the incessant predatory obsession and demands for the end of personal contact? Let me know and I will add it in.
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 6th August 2014, 02:21 AM   #327
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,349
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
So you think the most common interpretation of "affair", as used by Radford, would not be the most common interpretation of the word "affair?"
My post didn't mention Radford at all. It was solely concerned with what the definition of "affair" is, vs. people, including but not limited to yourself, attempting to restrict its definition.
__________________
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 6th August 2014, 02:45 AM   #328
Henry Bannister
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Btw the beauty in the timeline is not its "fiction".

It's the simplicity of approach.

Her SA words, her email words and context. And it makes a powerful point.

Have you decided where to colour in the incessant predatory obsession and demands for the end of personal contact? Let me know and I will add it in.
I think you're going to find that all of those e-mails from Stollznow only demonstrate how cunning and duplicitous Radford was in getting her to write all those e-mails to him.
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 6th August 2014, 03:08 AM   #329
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
So my assertion that "affair" would probably be interpreted as "sexual encounter is "peculiar" and "unique," not "the way [that word is] usually used?"
So now affair merely means "sexual encounter", which you have admitted they did have? So affair wasn't misleading at all to use? Then why are you still arguing that it was?


Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Actually, I said this:

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.
So now an affair is more than just a sexual encounter, and in proof you offer anecdotes while ignoring that you can find no dictionary defining it the way you want to?


Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Oy. What's sad is that this is my first visit to a skeptic-oriented forum on the internet. I've heard this is the biggest one of them all. And based on my time posting here, I'd conclude that a "skeptic" is someone who blindly defends their leader, even if that involves straw-personning, bending into knots of twisted logic, or declaring the sky to be bright pink.

It makes me glad I never identified as a skeptic.
Who is my leader? Why should I be concerned that someone who has straw-personned, bent logic into twisted knots, and declared up is actually down claims to have concluded something? You have been repeatedly shown to be wrong about your claims, yet you think ignoring all the fatal flaws in your theory will be fine if you aren't a skeptic? And that skeptics should blindly follow you, even though you are so wrong about so many things?
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 6th August 2014, 03:41 AM   #330
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Let's drop affair for tryst. In April 2011 KS goes hard on Baxter cause it's the anniversary of his ahem, tryst with another. Which would make that, oh, umm April 2010 .....

And I believe from the police reports that Baxter reckoned they were toast at the time.

So who the hell knows what the KS / Baxter deal was at SF? And how KS phrased it. And whether her post SF change of heart coincided with some form of reconciliation. That would be pure speculation.

Solid point is this SF interlude, same month as the Reap drama, occurred at a time when KS was experiencing a troubled patch.

Funny thing is next time she apparently turns enthusiastically Radford's way is again during a point of crisis with Baxter (Sept).

Its a wonder Radford didn't feel preyed upon by a hot and cold Karen.


Last edited by Brive1987; 6th August 2014 at 04:29 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 6th August 2014, 05:25 AM   #331
Ethan Thane Athen
Graduate Poster
 
Ethan Thane Athen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,902
As someone with no dog in this fight (I hadn't heard of either of the protagonists before this thread) can I just observe that hjhornbeck's evidently desperate and tortured attempts to impose a bizarrely twisted interpretation on things, leaves me completely confused as to why he is so invested in trying to do so... That he then claims others are not being sceptical is the heaviest of ironies.

As a neutral, the whole thing smacks of two people who should know better, behaving like hormonal teenagers with one, in an apparent attempt to play the victim, ill-advisedly ramping it up into a public debate that has now run away from them, becoming much more serious when the other protagonist was positively identified.

Pathetic behaviour by both parties (though how people 'manage' their private lives is up to them) and (apparently) stupidly libellous by one.

Oh and a complete waste of the courts time that could have been avoided if the retraction had been properly managed...
Ethan Thane Athen 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 6th August 2014, 06:12 AM   #332
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

Superb work, Brive. It's pretty tricky to see where we can squeeze in all the unwanted correspondence and gifts that Joe and Karen and Matthew have claimed Ben sent along. I'm guessing early 2011.

Did you also plot out 2011 up to the June conference call?
__________________
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; 6th August 2014 at 06:13 AM. Reason: flub
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 6th August 2014, 08:24 AM   #333
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 5,943
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Oy. What's sad is that this is my first visit to a skeptic-oriented forum on the internet. I've heard this is the biggest one of them all. And based on my time posting here, I'd conclude that a "skeptic" is someone who blindly defends their leader, even if that involves straw-personning, bending into knots of twisted logic, or declaring the sky to be bright pink.
Of which "leader" do you speak? AFAIK, Radford has no connection to this forum, and none of the 'leaders' of this forum (Randi, Darat, etc) have spoken out on the issue.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is online now   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 6th August 2014, 08:28 AM   #334
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
As someone with no dog in this fight (I hadn't heard of either of the protagonists before this thread) can I just observe that hjhornbeck's evidently desperate and tortured attempts to impose a bizarrely twisted interpretation on things, leaves me completely confused as to why he is so invested in trying to do so... That he then claims others are not being sceptical is the heaviest of ironies.

As a neutral, the whole thing smacks of two people who should know better, behaving like hormonal teenagers with one, in an apparent attempt to play the victim, ill-advisedly ramping it up into a public debate that has now run away from them, becoming much more serious when the other protagonist was positively identified.

Pathetic behaviour by both parties (though how people 'manage' their private lives is up to them) and (apparently) stupidly libellous by one.

Oh and a complete waste of the courts time that could have been avoided if the retraction had been properly managed...
Pretty much this. The only problem I really have at this point is that KS managed to blink people out of $60k for legal help, causing Radford to have a completely untenable problem of a financial battle against those skeptics who "believe the victim" evidence be damned.

It really sucks to have to go to court to defend yourself against injustice, but to also have to fight a well funded opposition makes it all the worse.

ETA: I guess I have a dog in this fight in as much as I am tired of the anti-male bent which has overtaken parts of the skeptic community to where we currently find ourselves in the position of having to fight a cynical "battle of the sexes" none of us want a part of, only to be called horrendous epithets when we dare to say we just want levity.

Last edited by SinisterBen; 6th August 2014 at 08:33 AM.
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 6th August 2014, 08:34 AM   #335
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by SinisterBen View Post
Pretty much this. The only problem I really have at this point is that KS managed to blink people out of $60k for legal help, causing Radford to have a completely untenable problem of a financial battle against those skeptics who "believe the victim" evidence be damned.

When you sue someone, you sort of take on the risk that they will find the wherewithal to mount a capable defence. Justice-minded people tend to hope that it plays out that way, with capable legal teams on both sides.
__________________
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 6th August 2014, 08:39 AM   #336
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
When you sue someone, you sort of take on the risk that they will find the wherewithal to mount a capable defence. Justice-minded people tend to hope that it plays out that way, with capable legal teams on both sides.

Yes, I mean, if you dare to fight for your good name, you should expect hoards of people to join against you because "believe the victim" nevermind who the actual victim is. Context sir. Context.
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 6th August 2014, 08:42 AM   #337
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 SinisterBen View Post
Yes, I mean, if you dare to fight for your good name...

There are plenty of ways to fight to clear one's name without filing suit. Would the e-mail history so heavily examined in this thread be any less persuasive in the absence of a libel case?
__________________
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; 6th August 2014 at 08:43 AM. Reason: doh
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 6th August 2014, 08:48 AM   #338
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
There are plenty of ways to fight to clear one's name without filing suit. Would the e-mail history so heavily examined in this thread be any less persuasive in the absence of a libel case?
D4am10n pretend my posts aren't really able to be seen by you. I have no desire to argue in the make up worlds you create so you can find reasons to disagree with people. I have no intentions of trying to establish any sort of discourse based solely on your need for attention.
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 6th August 2014, 08:49 AM   #339
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Are you sure that you're in the right forum, Ben? Skeptics usually like to have their ideas challenged.
__________________
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 6th August 2014, 09:17 AM   #340
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
There are plenty of ways to fight to clear one's name without filing suit. Would the e-mail history so heavily examined in this thread be any less persuasive in the absence of a libel case?
Yeah, Radford could have worked with Stollznow (or maybe an intermediary like, oh, I don't know, how about Baxter?) to issue a retraction. Or he could have denied it, or something.

Oh.

Wait.


Did you have something else in mind?
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 6th August 2014, 09:18 AM   #341
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Releasing the e-mail history, obviously.
__________________
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 6th August 2014, 09:21 AM   #342
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Yeah, Radford could have worked with Stollznow (or maybe an intermediary like, oh, I don't know, how about Baxter?) to issue a retraction. Or he could have denied it, or something.

Oh.

Wait.


Did you have something else in mind?
You have no idea what strange imaginary situations you are going to have to refute now. Hope you have lots of free time! Have fun!
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 6th August 2014, 09:45 AM   #343
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,516
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Releasing the e-mail history, obviously.
The accusations included incessant communication and gifts. Do you honestly believe that even a complete release of every email ever exchanged between Stollznow and Radford would not be met with claims that the harassment was by phone, or letter, or had been omitted in said release? Especially if such a release was done without the consent of Stollznow?

ETA: You do realize that you are expecting Radford to satisfactorily prove a negative, which isn't really possible, don't you?

Last edited by wareyin; 6th August 2014 at 09:52 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 6th August 2014, 10:46 AM   #344
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
What if, and I know this is crazy, she never posted the blog post, followed by bringing his name into it? What if people had said, evidence or gtfo! What if she never started a legal fund? What if... what if we actually look at what happened and said, well here is a great reason to take a moment to examine the "problem" with male skeptics? What if after false allegations and untrue stories we are left with the fact that bigots exist, and maybe, just maybe we shouldn't become them ourselves in a witch hunt?

I know some people would have to abandon the victim narrative, and some people would probably be ignored as they perpetrated the lies. I think though we would all be better off.

Wouldn't that be crazy?
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 6th August 2014, 10:59 AM   #345
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,501
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?
You are not alone. Many people have previously noted that neither party comes off particularly well in this. It also seems clear that the more we learn the worse both parties look.

I find the whole exercise creepy. Publishing a wide swath of your personal emails between yourself and your lover/friend/colleague over a period of years is just creepy. It did nothing to help his legal cause and I think in the long run it will do little to help his public reputation.

That he has taken this path says more about him than anything else. This is who he is, not who people claim he is. That is far more damning than any accusation could be.

And she is far from angelic in all of this, but others have already beaten that path around here so I'll leave it the experts.
Dr. Keith 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 6th August 2014, 11:59 AM   #346
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
I honestly don't care how "not wonderful" or whatever Radford is. No one deserves to be wrongly accused of anything. That's not how justice works in America. And frankly, good on him for ignoring the stigma of making his private life public. He basically said: "here I am, look." in response to some very heinous allegations.

Sorry you guys aren't comfortable with that, but in my estimation, with discussions like this, he may have helped more than himself here. People don't deserve this internet justice being pushed on them by shameless click-bait bloggers, and we should be ashamed that we let it happen.
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 6th August 2014, 12:12 PM   #347
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
You are not alone. Many people have previously noted that neither party comes off particularly well in this. It also seems clear that the more we learn the worse both parties look.

I find the whole exercise creepy. Publishing a wide swath of your personal emails between yourself and your lover/friend/colleague over a period of years is just creepy. It did nothing to help his legal cause and I think in the long run it will do little to help his public reputation.

That he has taken this path says more about him than anything else. This is who he is, not who people claim he is. That is far more damning than any accusation could be.

And she is far from angelic in all of this, but others have already beaten that path around here so I'll leave it the experts.
Funny, in my, and several other people's, view BR's reputation went up dramatically when he decided to do something about the lies and innuendo against him.

I also note that no one has been able to make even the weakest of cases that would support KS's version of reality. The best they have come up with is the "It must be true because victims don't lie" delusion.

Is BR creepy? Not in my opinion. For anyone defending themselves against these types of lies and innuendo it is necessary to pull out all the stops and bring out the big guns right off the bat.

I think people supporting KS after the evidence was out is more an indicator of their gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills than it is of Radford's "creepiness."
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 6th August 2014, 12:17 PM   #348
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Thanks qayak I was pretty sure I was going to get drummed out of this thread after that post.
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 6th August 2014, 12:39 PM   #349
Lorentz
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
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.
Brive beat me to it, it seems. I'll ignore the probably intentional weasel wording 'agrees to have sex with him', because I want to compliment you on the sorting of those emails. Assuming you didn't alter them in the process (not an automatic assumption considering the level of intellectual integrity you've displayed here), that makes it a lot easier to follow events. For that, my thanks.

Quote:
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?
Yes, the falsification lacks supporting evidence. We only have BR's word that these emails were the basis for his reprimand, and that they then had different dates on them. And we don't even know how certain he is that they were, or how he knows (Brive, correct me if I missed something there please).

Quote:
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?
Ehmm no, that was just you trying to fit square pegs into round holes in what seems like a desperate attempt to make facts fit your narrative. You have not made a convincing case, or anything close to it, that Radford lied in legal documents.

Quote:
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 don't. I trust where the analysis of available evidence leads. You on the other hand seem incapable of using actual logic, preferring to make up stuff that fits your preconceptions, basing highly improbable theories on the presence or absence of single words, on occasion inventing your own meanings for words to make that even work. At this point I have reason to be far more suspicious of any claim you make than of claims made by either Radford or Stollznow.

Quote:
I wonder why you're hanging around a skeptic forum, if you have no desire to practice the skeptical process.
I lack words...

Last edited by Lorentz; 6th August 2014 at 12:52 PM.
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 6th August 2014, 07:40 PM   #350
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Publishing a wide swath of your personal emails between yourself and your lover/friend/colleague over a period of years is just creepy.
I call ******** on this.

Once Karen gave Ian permission to connect Ben to the SciAm piece (thereby tarnishing his reputation throughout all of the skeptic movement) basically all their correspondence became fair game, since there is no other way for him to prove her wrong.

Total assumption of the risk on her part there.
__________________
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; 6th August 2014 at 07:42 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 6th August 2014, 08:31 PM   #351
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Lorentz View Post

Yes, the falsification lacks supporting evidence. We only have BR's word that these emails were the basis for his reprimand, and that they then had different dates on them. And we don't even know how certain he is that they were, or how he knows (Brive, correct me if I missed something there please).

We know from a third party (Baxter) that the Stollznow camp submitted emails to the investigator whose dates were "brought into question and investigated"

Just pause please and let that roll over the tongue: brought into question and investigated

It is almost certain these are the ones circulated by KS and leaked to Ben. If they aren't - then we have multiple sets of blighted 'evidence' - which I don't think likely.

We don't know whether the investigator used these to determine 2012 "inappropriate emails". Radford thinks so and Baxter doesn't dismiss this scenario "If CFI did use those emails then it's their fault". Much of the fraud case in the libel is based on this.


Personally I think two things here:

1. If they submitted the emails and it was the investigator that "brought them into question" AND especially if they were also circulated to garner support - then I reckon that's my lay understanding of fraud. Legally YMMV. Did they know the dates were wrong? Well I can't see how Karen could have mistaken the ancient 2010 history in them for events of the past 12 months. So yeh, I'd say it's hard to avoid that conclusion.

2. But if we accept Baxter's comment that the investigator did her job, then I personally don't think these emails were used in the findings. I reckon the beige conclusion of "inappropriate" could also apply to the professional blow-up of December. However contra this is the use of the word "unwanted" for the 2012 correspondence. Veering completely into conjecture, but this implies something beyond 'unprofessional'. It would seem to me more befitting either the falsified emails (as Radford states) or as yet unpublished emails that resulted in KS de-friending Radford (!) from FB while he was on the JREF cruise (probably of the "why the hell don't you respond to my MonsterCast emails" variety).


.................................................. .............
And thanks JREF for the extra hamsters!

Last edited by Brive1987; 6th August 2014 at 08:51 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 6th August 2014, 09:53 PM   #352
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
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.
You have done no such thing in the real world and I have no access to whatever alternate universe you think you did it in so . . .
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 6th August 2014, 09:57 PM   #353
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
We know from a third party (Baxter) that the Stollznow camp submitted emails to the investigator whose dates were "brought into question and investigated"

Just pause please and let that roll over the tongue: brought into question and investigated
From the evidence, it appears BR was disciplined by CFI for nothing more than using his work email account to send non-work related emails to KS.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 7th August 2014, 12:01 AM   #354
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,349
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Personally I think two things here:

1. If they submitted the emails and it was the investigator that "brought them into question" AND especially if they were also circulated to garner support - then I reckon that's my lay understanding of fraud.
That's a conclusion built on 3 "if"s. That doesn't seem amazingly solid, to me.
__________________
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 7th August 2014, 01:19 AM   #355
Brive1987
Muse
 
Brive1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's a conclusion built on 3 "if"s. That doesn't seem amazingly solid, to me.
I was being remarkably charitable. How's this.

Baxter said they submitted wrongly dated emails to the investigation. That's not good.

Baxter also said their veracity was questioned and they were subsequently investigated and should have been discarded. That's a 'gotcha'.

Baxter's best case for inadvertent error doesn't even make sense. That's straight out awkward.

Stollznow's supporters acknowledged receiving email evidence, Radford published a leaked example. The dates are wrong on at least a majority of the documents. That's disturbing.

CFI noted KS engaged in vindictive action. That's scary.

I see converging lines. Et tu?

Last edited by Brive1987; 7th August 2014 at 01:25 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 7th August 2014, 01:12 PM   #356
hjhornbeck
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Stollznow booked the room in SF. Presumably handed over her credit card number. While she was sober. Ok. Processed that?
I'm guessing I knew that before you did, as while I started my analysis by scanning Radford's emails, you were concentrating on Stollznow's blog post.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
No the zinger apparently is that he "encouraged" the tryst. Probably "encouraged" her to smile for the selfies the next morning too.
Because no woman has ever been confused about sexual assault, nor lied to themselves as a coping mechanism.

Quote:
This may seem like an odd question, but it’s common to feel confused as to whether you were raped or not – most likely because you knew your rapist. He may be a friend, an ex-partner, a colleague, or even your current boyfriend – rape is rarely something that a stranger does to you.
... and that's it? Your entire defense to this is "no woman could possibly be confused about her sexual assault or substitute a different narrative in self-denial?" You're not even trying anymore.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
How about the "if you want an affair" line. Something not exactly swimming in ambiguity.

When he knocks it back does she say: "just kidding , I mean as if creepo" ? Or "damn the joke could have been on you"?

No. She says "I offered. Never again."
Or perhaps she didn't want to break character. I mean, what do you do if the person you're mocking doesn't realize you're mocking them? Do you immediately turn around and go "just kidding, I mean as if creepo?" Or do you continue to play along, and see how long it'll take for them to realize what you're doing?

Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
How about the proffered weekend in Alb? The best you have come up with there is mates being mates. Radford didn't see it that way did he?
I already pointed out that he did, during a time he now claims they were in a sexual relationship. Here it is again, emphasis added by me:

Quote:
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. For the last year or two at least you've said that you have wanted to be my friend, and I'm offering a chance to make that happen. If you don't want that, then that's fine too. (April 27th, 2011)
Originally Posted by Brive1987 View Post
Your challenge. If you choose to accept it. Is to build an explanation that can accommodate both SA and these factoids.
Why should I even bother? Radford's case is so riddled with holes that it should have been tossed out months ago, and yet even after I've repeatedly pointed out some of those holes the lot of you have closed your eyes and pretended they don't exist. It's telling that no-one has called out Brive1987 for quote-mining or lies by omission, when his infographics reduce entire email threads to sentence fragments, and yet I get chastized for it if I leave out an irrelevant paragraph.

Obvious double-standards are obvious. Radford has been deemed innocent by "skeptics," and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
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 7th August 2014, 01:36 PM   #357
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Obvious double-standards are obvious. Radford has been deemed innocent by "skeptics," and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.

Maybe if you could point to some specific examples of how and when he harassed anyone, these skeptics could be made to reconsider.
__________________
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 7th August 2014, 01:36 PM   #358
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
hjhornbeck skeptics don't kowtow to you. You certainly have shown your true self here though. That you literally have to recast every action as some psychological fault, or being "in character" says more than enough about your willingness to look at the evidence as presented. Time after time you have ignored very simple critiques from people in order to double down on your position. The ad homs really seal it though.

You have done this same song and dance before when responding to criticism on your " evidence based feminism" video in which you had to make up your own scientific methodologies to get to your conclusions. You aren't credible.
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 7th August 2014, 03:11 PM   #359
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by hjhornbeck View Post
Radford's case is so riddled with holes that it should have been tossed out months ago, and yet . . .
. . . and yet it wasn't. Why do you suppose that is? Either everyone else, including skeptics, lawyers, and judges are wrong, or you are.

Ever heard of Ockham's Razor?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 7th August 2014, 03:23 PM   #360
SinisterBen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Ever heard of Ockham's Razor?
A Razor is a knife and Ockham is where all the evil psychos in Gotham are jailed. So obviously you are trying to attack me with knives.

NO NO I won't listen to your refutations! Skeptics... sheesh.
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
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 10:49 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.