If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. The point of sending emails to CFI would not be to provide them with evidence, the point would be to to express our opinions on Hensley's reprehensible behavior and how that reflects on CFI as an organization. Of course numbers matter - as some...

I nowhere conceded any such thing. That would warrant a separate debate.

Jeez.

See, people banned by PZ are eventually exposed as despicable characters. No wonder he forced to ban them due to his infallible prescience.

Weight of evidence is undue interference? According to who? You? Ron? Melody? CFI's lawyers? CFI's PR team? CFI's donators and sponsors? I am advocating send whatever you like to who you like, and be judged on the weight of your case. Same for the baboons or for pitters or for veterans. I am pointi...

I think the rule should be: don't use contemptible tactics no matter how much hate your opponents, unless the specific opponent is using said contemptible tactics. This will not only combat your enemy, but serve as deterrent against the use of the undesired tactic. On the other hand you might risk ...

Ad addendum: we collectively have a solid reputation for satire and ridicule.

That in and by itself - properly aimed and broadcast - exposes weaknesses and liabilities for the whole world to see, and nudges those in a position to do something to act.

Someone brought up taking the high road as an alternative to contacting employers and how it's prone to failure. But the "high road" doesn't imply passive acceptance of whatever shite is flung around. There exist more elegant, smarter and possibly more effective tactics than just mimicking baboon be...

Weight of evidence is undue interference? According to who? You? Ron? Melody? CFI's lawyers? CFI's PR team? CFI's donators and sponsors? I am advocating send whatever you like to who you like, and be judged on the weight of your case. Same for the baboons or for pitters or for veterans. I am pointi...

A multitude of emails expresses a weight of sentiment A single email is easy to dismiss as a lone crank, a few as something maybe worth looking into, a multitude is something that deserves immediate attention To say "one person has emailed Ron, so nobody else needs to" is naive at best And every em...

FWIW, I haven't called for Melody's firing, in fact I have congratulated Ron Lindsay and CFI for defending her speech by not firing her in the face of her ugly tweets. And I've also made sure that, via tweets, a couple of feminists know about her tweets, and a couple of veterans groups know about h...

She's threatening all the good work Dawkins, Hitchens, and many others did on the last decades by sheer virtue of not knowing that she's a reprehensible human being. She's poison, and worse, she still have people in positions of power behind her. It would be like Tedd Haggard still being Bush's cou...

Well, by now they've been made aware. Any further email or contact amounts to putting pressure in order to achieve a definite outcome; namely, getting her fired. Pitters, don't do that. Why does any individual not have the right to represent his/her views to CFI/whoever? Why do they have to say "we...

Well, by now they've been made aware. Any further email or contact amounts to putting pressure in order to achieve a definite outcome; namely, getting her fired.

Pitters, don't do that.

I urge you not to become the mirror image or what we're up against by embracing their methods. Certainly Smellody deserves all the flak she gets, but messing with people's livelihood and job is a contemptible tactic, in my opinion. See it this way - if her employers cannot realise spontaneously what...

By the way, Welch, I now completely agree with you re. Brian Dunning, since I found that he had the gall to produce an episode titled Internet Paranoia about - among other things - stuffed cookies.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4017

The reason why people put other posters on the ignore list is the RETARDED FORMAT OF THIS FORUM , which we owed to the capricious, irrational attachment of some to the way the original undying thread at Abbie's developed. They try to cut off the white noise and concentrate on whatever interesting di...

feralandproud wrote:
According to that crowd, the "evidence" he's provided(the email authentication)proves NOTHING, and we're horrible people for accepting it as proof.

On top of that, the forged headers clearly suggest that she must keep conclusive evidence of Radford's guilt up her sleeve.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: I think you're entirely right, but a Pollyanna part of me hopes that most of the funds given to Stollznow ends up going to Radford's attorney fees and damages. Several SJWs would need an extra box of breakfast wine.

Hopefully, yes.

The 50 grands will vanish, of course.

So, in a few weeks Stollznow folds and signs a retraction. Radford accepts because of fatigue. Her innuendos will resume soon after, just subtler. The SJW will continue to weave conspiracy theories on the strength thereof. Damion and the other "fence-sitters" will pursue their argument from superdup...

Welch, I already conceded the fraud point to Mykeru. But thanks.

Damion denied permission to post the screenshot here, accusing me of "calling for Pit's backup". Wow. So, if you went ahead and post them anyway, will he cry? Maybe make a DCMA claim, or stop talking at you (since we know he can't talk with someone)? Sorry, just not my style. But I'm whipping his a...

Damion denied permission to post the screenshot here, accusing me of "calling for Pit's backup".

deLurch wrote: Hmmm.... I noticed you posted plenty of tweets with #skeptech. But if you do a search on the hashtag, none of them appear.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23skeptech&src=hash

Same thing happened to me when I was bashing #Dubai for its cosmopolitan veneer concealing a tyrannical theocratic system.

Damion Reinhardt â€@D4M10N Protected Tweets 31m @skepteaser If you're going to talk shit, have the sack to say it to me. A strange comment from a guy who protects his tweets to prevent any but the Chosen reading them. And it's from someone who will run away when actually presented with evidence. H...

Mykeru wrote:
I don't know if this is antithetical to the general skeptic mission statement, but for a guy who makes bank exposing scams it's in violation of his own damn mission.

Good point.

Mykeru wrote:
I don't know if this is antithetical to the general skeptic mission statement, but for a guy who makes bank exposing scams it's in violation of his own damn mission.

Good point.

Welch, I don't know how to clarify the difference any better. But a commitment to a philosophical framework is akin to any statement, or set of statements. It is logically consistent when it involves no contradiction. Since scientific scepticism relies on reason, critical thinking, scientific method...

The idea that somehow Stollznow is worse a spokesperson for Skepticism than Dunning because she OMGLIED, and he only committed fraud/stole is some serious mental juggling that I literally am incapable of comprehending. Both are reprehensible, and I think both should cause people to really think abo...

The idea that somehow Stollznow is worse a spokesperson for Skepticism than Dunning because she OMGLIED, and he only committed fraud/stole is some serious mental juggling that I literally am incapable of comprehending. Both are reprehensible, and I think both should cause people to really think abo...

Wat? Um...dude, so let's see here. Person A steals your television. Person B lies to you about something. You're going to tell me that Person A is somehow more trustworthy or believable? Because honestly, I can't see how either of them win points in that area. Person A is not more trustworthy, but ...

welch wrote:
wat?

Stealing vs fabricating evidence in order to deceive a jury or whatever.

There's nothing inherent to skepticism that makes the commission of a crime antithetical to its mission. Not advisable, not appropriate, plain wrong, if you wish. But skepticism is not a moral framework.

I believe many people jumped on Radford's side after the retraction was posted then Stollznow pulled the rug out from under you. I don't know about other people. My only pronouncement prior to current evaluation of the available evidence was calling Radford a gullible idiot for posting an unsigned ...

The only hard evidence she had for this (as far as we aware at this point, and it's reasonable to assume so) were emails dated in the period she claimed she was harassed. And lookie lookie what happened, it turned out that her only hard evidence was in fact faked. (or as her apologist would have us...

birdterrifier wrote:Or you know, just pick a pony and bet it.

So, if you read that lot - as a layman - you're left with the impression that either side currently looks equally good, as in a game of chance?

Birdie, you didn't really look at the evidence so far, did you?

Go and check it out, including the independent verification thereof. Then try and imagine how offsetting counter-evidence would have to look like to be equally or more compelling (if you can, that is).

Guestus Aurelius wrote:
Seriously. What the hell can possibly be Poe-ish about ANYTHING TWEETED BY THE COLBERT REPORT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Nothing. He will freely admit to it, the moment in which it suits his ideological drivel du jour.

Stealing from corporations damages our economy so shouldn't be so blithely swept under the rug just because the victim is a mostly faceless entity. I'm not sweeping it under the rug. The guy should be held accountable. All I'm saying is that stealing isn't in fundamental opposition to the skeptical...

Jesus Christ, just because Radford blew his load all over the internet doesn't mean that Stollznow doesn't have anything in reserve. What we have are emails that he chose to share with us. A forensics report that he commissioned. And a breakdown of Stollznow's history regarding a particular relatio...

There's some basic incompatibility between being a public face for skepticism and fabricating evidence in order to rig the system. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JYoRQmUQKsI/TUl4dYVYXLI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/tCQu76r2Sgo/s1600/bing.png I guess we should dump Dunning then, since he broke the law even though it didn...

What if the only reason she even considered signing that apology for Ben was because she was intimidated by Ben's representation and thought she couldn't get the same sufficient counsel? That's my best theory and when she saw that Ben wanted a complete capitulation, she just couldn't stomach it. Yo...

An artist's or an author's work stands on its own merit. It's perfectly possible to be a total arse, produce immortal art and even set standards for centuries to come - Bernini and Caravaggio to wit. If her books are that good, there's no reason to ditch them. However, skepticism is a method promote...

welch wrote: James Marsters? Shit, I'm surprised she wasn't offering him anal.

You never know what gets edited out. But I'm reliably informed it's lots and lots.

She comes across very well in that podcast. No stress in evidence at all, apart from a swipe at sceptics around the 25 minute mark. I guess that's the point of that podcast - pretend it's business as usual and that her credentials as skeptic aren't tarnished. It's an elaborate form of white-knighti...

She comes across very well in that podcast. No stress in evidence at all, apart from a swipe at sceptics around the 25 minute mark. I guess that's the point of that podcast - pretend it's business as usual and that her credentials her skeptic aren't tarnished. It's an elaborate form of white-knight...

Those reminding us that an arrest doesn't equal a conviction are quite correct, but she was caught red-handed. It makes an important epistemic difference.

[ AVFM + makes everything all about AVFM + and does a terrible job at that. Unless your situation is so dire that horrible publicity of the kind where every mainstream outlet will immediately doubt your case just because you have some connection to AVFM is better than no publicity, I would stay awa...

The evidence presented - if genuine - also shows that many of her accusations are highly unlikely to be true. There's a significant overlap between the alleged harassment and correspondence amicable in tone. Stockholm syndrome would have to be renamed Stollznow syndrome, for both circumstances to be...

James Caruthers wrote:And yeah, is mirroring every single damn thing Radford does on PZ's own blog (complete with childish screaming and yelling) really HELPING Stollznow's case?

He doesn't care for Stollznow one bit. He must spin fast a narrative for his dittoheads and pretend that he isn't shellshocked.

James Caruthers wrote:
decius wrote:Suddenly, privacy matters.
Curiously, no mention of Radford publishing Stollznow's arrest for domestic violence.

That's just part of every healthy "turbulent relationship".

Suddenly, privacy matters.

EdwardGemmer wrote:I've represented a lot of rapists.

Rape culture at its finest.

EdwardGemmer wrote:I've represented a lot of rapists.

Rape culture at its finest.

Wanting to believe something badly is precisely when skepticism should kick in at its strongest.

Again, what a monumental jackass.

Good for him that chupacabras are debunkable by an eight-year-old.

I meant "seize the opportunity", sorry.

Yep, or any variant thereof, including willfully ceasing the opportunity offered by his haste. Profoundly dishonest any way one looks at it.

What a fucking jackass. Taking their word at face value while being embroiled in a lawsuit against them.

Some skeptical investigator indeed.

I give you Twatson being served a dog turd and loving it.

Capture5.JPG: (361.24 KiB) Downloaded 190 times

It took them, what, 48 hours to deny the truthfulness of the document? If it was a complete fabrication, one wouldn't need the lawyer's permission to speak out.

Search found 1365 matches