Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[free thoughtpolice]

UPDATE: More Than a Fighting Chance

What can I say? I am speechless with gratitude for all the generosity you have shown me in the short time this campaign has been live. As I write this, only a day has passed since I made this page, and together you have surpassed my original goal by over $10,000.

When I started this campaign, I honestly doubted that I could raise $30,000, the bare minimum I needed to go forward with defending myself. I have never been more humbled or grateful to be wrong. Your additional donations will go toward what could be a very expensive legal battle indeed (some estimates for lawyer fees alone are above $50,000), with any remainder at the end of the case going toward the sexual assault victims' center.

Your donations will also help me to consider a counter suit, for the extreme damages I have suffered at the hands of my harasser and false accuser. Together, we can show victims that they have a voice.

My original $30,000 goal was simply to give me a fighting chance. Now, thanks to your continued support, I have a chance to fight.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

-Karen

So... she would have donate the excess money to the sexual assault victims' center, but now that the excess money amounts to $20k she's going to keep it?

What a shock.

John Fluevog is going to be very happy when he reads about this.

You don't expect her to show up at a deposition wearing tatty old shoes. It's a valid expense.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.

Somebody should really set up a betting pool.

[Aneris]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.

I guess, its in the spirit of her campaign to sue back, and probably in the interest of the supporters.

[feralandproud]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.

I guess, its in the spirit of her campaign to sue back, and probably in the interest of the supporters.

The worst part is, it's a win/win situation either way for the SJL.

If Radford loses, whether because he couldn't prove damages or because they actually do possess damning evidence, they gloat and revel.

If Radford wins, it's only because of the oppressive patriarchal court system in America, and serial sexual harassers have won.

Either way, I hope this goes to trial, and I hope it drives home the point to all of these assholes that there are consequences to your actions.

[Mykeru]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.

I guess, its in the spirit of her campaign to sue back, and probably in the interest of the supporters.

The worst part is, it's a win/win situation either way for the SJL.

If Radford loses, whether because he couldn't prove damages or because they actually do possess damning evidence, they gloat and revel.

If Radford wins, it's only because of the oppressive patriarchal court system in America, and serial sexual harassers have won.

Either way, I hope this goes to trial, and I hope it drives home the point to all of these assholes that there are consequences to your actions.

I suppose by now Radford realizes that the only easy to avoid harsh punishment for being a witch is to admit you're a witch and hope the SJW star chamber takes pity, decides against harsh punishment, and just hangs you.

And that fighting back in any form means prolonged drawing and quartering.

[Mykeru]

I blame Tappatalk for that one.

[debaser71]

So my mother-in-law's partner died. They were never married. The man, before his death, was in bad shape. He couldn't think straight and he became very abusive. Anyway the bottom line is that this man's family lawyered up and are now fighting the will in which my mother in law was left with everything save for a bit for the man's nieces. But the family is already rich so. They'd rather nobody get anything just to spite her. Where's her $50,000 in grants to pay for her lawyers? WTF!! Now I'm angry that Karen S. is playing on victim hood when there really are victims out there. WTF. Honestly, I have no opinion other than she's a fucking con artist. Shame on her. Fuck her to the ground! Right PZ?

[acathode]

The worst part is, it's a win/win situation either way for the SJL.

If Radford loses, whether because he couldn't prove damages or because they actually do possess damning evidence, they gloat and revel.

If Radford wins, it's only because of the oppressive patriarchal court system in America, and serial sexual harassers have won.

Either way, I hope this goes to trial, and I hope it drives home the point to all of these assholes that there are consequences to your actions.

Of course it's a win-win situation with the SJWs, pretty much everything imaginable can be twisted to fit the ideological narrative when you have a persecution- and victimhood-complex. Any setback is explained as proof of how prosecuted you are, which shows how righteous the cause is, while all victories are explained as well, victories, that show how righteous your cause is. No matter what, you always win... which is why religions, cults, political extremists, and so on all have used the same tactics for ages and always take care to paint themselves as the victims.

In the end though, in reality, the only losers will be Ben and Karen, and there will be no winners, no matter how this turns out.

[helenhighwater]

[quote="Matt Cavanaugh"]
Reading between the lines of Radford's false allegations post, I suspect he believes Stollznow made these up cuz Bax caught her during a root in the boot with her old flame. Stollz clearly believes that her 'lived experience' trumps the law -- if she calls it sexual assault, then shut up and listen.

And people pay a grand to listen to this lot lecture about skepticism.[quote]

is this your theory or is there any evidence to back it up? it sounds like you're reaching on this...

[Parody Accountant]

UPDATE: More Than a Fighting Chance

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8_gpT3RRgbc/U ... /bates.gif

What can I say? I am speechless with gratitude for all the generosity you have shown me in the short time this campaign has been live. As I write this, only a day has passed since I made this page, and together you have surpassed my original goal by over $10,000.

When I started this campaign, I honestly doubted that I could raise $30,000, the bare minimum I needed to go forward with defending myself. I have never been more humbled or grateful to be wrong. Your additional donations will go toward what could be a very expensive legal battle indeed (some estimates for lawyer fees alone are above $50,000), with any remainder at the end of the case going toward the sexual assault victims' center.

Your donations will also help me to consider a counter suit, for the extreme damages I have suffered at the hands of my harasser and false accuser. Together, we can show victims that they have a voice.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbbd ... o1_500.gif

My original $30,000 goal was simply to give me a fighting chance. Now, thanks to your continued support, I have a chance to fight.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

-Karen

[Really?]

The worst part is, it's a win/win situation either way for the SJL.

If Radford loses, whether because he couldn't prove damages or because they actually do possess damning evidence, they gloat and revel.

If Radford wins, it's only because of the oppressive patriarchal court system in America, and serial sexual harassers have won.

Either way, I hope this goes to trial, and I hope it drives home the point to all of these assholes that there are consequences to your actions.

Of course it's a win-win situation with the SJWs, pretty much everything imaginable can be twisted to fit the ideological narrative when you have a persecution- and victimhood-complex. Any setback is explained as proof of how prosecuted you are, which shows how righteous the cause is, while all victories are explained as well, victories, that show how righteous your cause is. No matter what, you always win... which is why religions, cults, political extremists, and so on all have used the same tactics for ages and always take care to paint themselves as the victims.

In the end though, in reality, the only losers will be Ben and Karen, and there will be no winners, no matter how this turns out.

A winner is you and me and all 'Pitters. It's going to be awesome when she jettisons Baxter. It could be a year from now...it could be five years from now, but that's an unholy union that will end in lulz.

[Really?]

UPDATE: More Than a Fighting Chance

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-STeooXbCq40/T ... f-girl.gif

What can I say? I am speechless with gratitude for all the generosity you have shown me in the short time this campaign has been live. As I write this, only a day has passed since I made this page, and together you have surpassed my original goal by over $10,000.

When I started this campaign, I honestly doubted that I could raise $30,000, the bare minimum I needed to go forward with defending myself. I have never been more humbled or grateful to be wrong. Your additional donations will go toward what could be a very expensive legal battle indeed (some estimates for lawyer fees alone are above $50,000), with any remainder at the end of the case going toward the sexual assault victims' center.

Your donations will also help me to consider a counter suit, for the extreme damages I have suffered at the hands of my harasser and false accuser. Together, we can show victims that they have a voice.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbbd ... o1_500.gif

My original $30,000 goal was simply to give me a fighting chance. Now, thanks to your continued support, I have a chance to fight.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

-Karen

[JacquesCuze]

[.quote="JacquesCuze"]Email tells me I've been elevatorgated by Stephanie Zvan.... I feel so unclean, I am triggering with rage right now having tossed my surlies at this unsolicited storification.... Well, let's see what I could possibly have done....[./quote]
Ah I see.

Being mucked about by people who are professionally employed to look after your money - not worth complaining about, I mean it's hardly the holocaust is it? No wonder atheists have bad PR.

Having a moron prevent you from communicating with them online - worth complaining about.

Seriously? You can't tell the difference between...

I am not aware that you need to judge things as equivalent in all regards in order to compare them in a particular regard.

Well I have never said she or AA didn't have a right to complain, or to speak to the manager, or to discuss it online, or to write about it in the AA newsletters, or to use her experience to help inform AA of its mission, all of which I would think are appropriate and have never said otherwise.

I have been pretty consistent in saying

1) AA going to the press
2) AA writing legislation

is overkill since

AA has failed to demonstrate a problem that requires a change in the law.

+ no stories of other atheists being refused
+ first time it has happened in dozens of visits
+ she was helped during that same visit by a different notary the first notary found for her

I've been consistent in saying

+ I think it's overkill
+ I think citizens will not see this AA's way and consider it a waste of their money organized atheists to fight this particular fight over this particular incident

And I also pointed out it was an ethics violation which should give AA another method of working this out, by filing an ethics complaint against her, PRIOR to writing legislation.

When I pointed out much of this to you before, you wrote this:

I am not aware that you need to judge things as equivalent in all regards in order to compare them in a particular regard.

You seem to be restricting your critique to a belief I said Knief and Silverman and AA should never have complained about this. If that is your complaint, well I have never said that, and I don't believe I have even implied that.

If that's not your complain, what is your complaint!?

I have to say what you write

I am not aware that you need to judge things as equivalent in all regards in order to compare them in a particular regard.

certainly confuses me.

I would never deny that, and yet, in this case as in so many other zero tolerance cases, severity and degree are critical elements you can't ignore.

+ Speaking to a manager,
+ Writing about it on facebook,
+ Writing about it in emails and newsletters, etc.

Is hugely different from
+ Writing legislation about it.

So the rest of that post's just blethers really.

Of course, it wasn't "people" either. It was one person. And there was no evidence from AA that this was a persistent problem. What they said was it was the first time it had happened in a dozen visits. And that person still got someone else to serve them.

Irrelevant. I go to my bank expecting the employees to treat me with professional courtesy unless I'm being unreasonable. I do not regard the nature of the political or religious affiliation of my account to count as unreasonable behaviour. If an employee mucks me about and then finds someone else to deal with me then it's not the people at the bank who are a problem provided they reprimand their unprofessional employee. If they don't do that and just facilitate his or her behaviour, then the people at the bank are mucking me about.

If it's the policy of the bank to have their employees arbitrarily serve customers based on their foibles then I wouldn't use that bank anymore, and if it's not the bank's policy I would want them to take action against a rogue employee behaving in such a manner so as to give the impression that the bank allow such a thing.

And if I was a part of an advocacy group with a platform against such bigotry I'd certainly make note of it.

It's totally relevant of course, should you want to engage my actual arguments and not deal with the straw in your head.

I am talking not about what you should expect, or what I would expect, or what anyone ought to expect, I am talking about the line that needs to be crossed prior to an organization demanding a law be changed.

And FWIW, that was Raw Story's original claim, when I wrote about this Wednesday,

The organization’s legal team is drafting proposed legislation to keep this kind of discrimination from happening again.

Before updating that last night (Update, 9:17 p.m. EST, March 27) to AA's claim:

Muscato also said that while Knief is preparing legislation regarding discrmination by notary publics, she is not doing so on behalf of American Atheists.

And should the Fascist Tit read this, what I would like is not an edit button, but an unquote button, which finds the 4 deep quotes and unquotes them in the pit style.

[Linus]

Whenever I go into a bout of existential crisis and question my writing abilities, I take one glance at Benson and Zvan's writings and am restored to some semblance of confidence.

Once in awhile I think Benson actually turns a decent phrase. That is, if you ignore content.

[Linus]

Sexual assault against men makes the mainstream news:

https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine- ... 45248.html

Myth 1 - Men cannot be sexually assaulted by women

A recent U.S. study reveals a surprising number of young men have been coerced into sex by women. Out of 284 high school and university-aged men, 43 per cent say they've had unwanted sexual contact. Of those victims, 95 per cent say a female acquaintance was the aggressor and 18 per cent say a female used physical force to make them have sex against their will.

Myth 2 - Men can't experience erections during a sexual assault

Men's bodies can respond in unexpected ways during a sexual assault that in no way reflects emotionally how they feel about the situation. Erection or ejaculation can still occur. Perpetrators will often use the conflicted feelings that result as a way to prevent the victim from reporting the offence, hoping the victim will blame himself for the arousal.

Also see: Teen says selfie addiction ruined his life

Myth 3 - Gay men are the biggest perpetrators of sexual assault on boys

Sexual assault is about exerting power and control over an individual and often has little to do with sex. Sexual assaults are often completely unrelated to the offender's expression of his sexual orientation.

Myth 4 - Some people aren't physically strong enough to commit sexual assault

Sexual assault is not just about physical force. It often happens through coercion or manipulation, and can involve the use objects.

Also see: How often do men really think about sex?

Myth 5 - Men who have been sexually assaulted will eventually become offenders

This myth is particularly prevalent regarding young boys who have been abused. Research shows the majority of boys who have been sexually assaulted do not go on to sexually assault others as adults.

A blog post with 34 comments is mainstream news?

[another lurker]

Sexual assault against men makes the mainstream news:

https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine- ... 45248.html

Myth 1 - Men cannot be sexually assaulted by women

A recent U.S. study reveals a surprising number of young men have been coerced into sex by women. Out of 284 high school and university-aged men, 43 per cent say they've had unwanted sexual contact. Of those victims, 95 per cent say a female acquaintance was the aggressor and 18 per cent say a female used physical force to make them have sex against their will.

Myth 2 - Men can't experience erections during a sexual assault

Men's bodies can respond in unexpected ways during a sexual assault that in no way reflects emotionally how they feel about the situation. Erection or ejaculation can still occur. Perpetrators will often use the conflicted feelings that result as a way to prevent the victim from reporting the offence, hoping the victim will blame himself for the arousal.

Also see: Teen says selfie addiction ruined his life

Myth 3 - Gay men are the biggest perpetrators of sexual assault on boys

Sexual assault is about exerting power and control over an individual and often has little to do with sex. Sexual assaults are often completely unrelated to the offender's expression of his sexual orientation.

Myth 4 - Some people aren't physically strong enough to commit sexual assault

Sexual assault is not just about physical force. It often happens through coercion or manipulation, and can involve the use objects.

Also see: How often do men really think about sex?

Myth 5 - Men who have been sexually assaulted will eventually become offenders

This myth is particularly prevalent regarding young boys who have been abused. Research shows the majority of boys who have been sexually assaulted do not go on to sexually assault others as adults.

A blog post with 34 comments is mainstream news?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Your average person checking their yahoo email/sorting through yahoo news will see it. And more people probably visit the yahoo site for news than visit any of the sites that talk about this sort of thing on a regular basis. It's just yahoo blogs, but, the audience is mainstream - and the link to the story was on the main site.

[Parody Accountant]

Sexual assault against men makes the mainstream news:

https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine- ... 45248.html

Myth 1 - Men cannot be sexually assaulted by women

A recent U.S. study reveals a surprising number of young men have been coerced into sex by women. Out of 284 high school and university-aged men, 43 per cent say they've had unwanted sexual contact. Of those victims, 95 per cent say a female acquaintance was the aggressor and 18 per cent say a female used physical force to make them have sex against their will.

Myth 2 - Men can't experience erections during a sexual assault

Men's bodies can respond in unexpected ways during a sexual assault that in no way reflects emotionally how they feel about the situation. Erection or ejaculation can still occur. Perpetrators will often use the conflicted feelings that result as a way to prevent the victim from reporting the offence, hoping the victim will blame himself for the arousal.

Also see: Teen says selfie addiction ruined his life

Myth 3 - Gay men are the biggest perpetrators of sexual assault on boys

Sexual assault is about exerting power and control over an individual and often has little to do with sex. Sexual assaults are often completely unrelated to the offender's expression of his sexual orientation.

Myth 4 - Some people aren't physically strong enough to commit sexual assault

Sexual assault is not just about physical force. It often happens through coercion or manipulation, and can involve the use objects.

Also see: How often do men really think about sex?

Myth 5 - Men who have been sexually assaulted will eventually become offenders

This myth is particularly prevalent regarding young boys who have been abused. Research shows the majority of boys who have been sexually assaulted do not go on to sexually assault others as adults.

A blog post with 34 comments is mainstream news?

Holy shit. You just shattered Myth 6.

http://media.giphy.com/media/pAQ16fCr7MZqM/giphy.gif

[JacquesCuze]

So my mother-in-law's partner died. They were never married. The man, before his death, was in bad shape. He couldn't think straight and he became very abusive. Anyway the bottom line is that this man's family lawyered up and are now fighting the will in which my mother in law was left with everything save for a bit for the man's nieces. But the family is already rich so. They'd rather nobody get anything just to spite her. Where's her $50,000 in grants to pay for her lawyers?

Yes, it's fucked up that lawyer fees can be used to bludgeon injustice into effect.

Presumably, she could find a lawyer willing to take her case on contingency at a 30% fee. But that's not actually true as my ex-wife discovered when she was the victim of malpractice. 30% of $50,000 is $15,000, and as Karen Stollznow says, you can't get a lawyer to see your case through to the end for $15,000 and expect more than one or two harshly worded letters. In my ex-wife's case, malpractice in California is capped at $250K, and again, you can't get a lawyer to take on a malpractice case when the maximum fee assuming they win is $85K or so.

So if damages are above the small claims limit ($5K?), there really is very limited venue for most of us to get justice in civil court against others, and worse, the threat of just the costs of going to court can force us to make the worst settlements.

[Immanuel K]

Email tells me I've been elevatorgated by Stephanie Zvan.... I feel so unclean, I am triggering with rage right now having tossed my surlies at this unsolicited storification.... Well, let's see what I could possibly have done....

https://storify.com/szvan/yay-more-people-to-block

http://i.imgur.com/vaJBmt0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/c5dQ7f7.jpg

So that was a tweet not only worth blocking BUT worth storifying.

In fact, most of the storify reads that way. Any outside observer would look at most of who she blocks and conclude she is nuts.

https://storify.com/szvan/yay-more-people-to-block

http://i.imgur.com/Y7k05XJ.jpg

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

Jeez, I stopped reading after three pages, stopped counting after six pages.

I believe she is unemployed and yet, If I were hiring her as an analyst and saw this, I would think she was crazy, and trouble. If I were any in her team of therapists, I'd be rethinking dosages, and working to help her become functional again.

:lol:

I am continuously flabbergasted that Svan and her ilk go up in righteous arms about Elevatorgate, get him bullied off of Twitter for having the audacity to harass others using Storify, while, --at the same time-- using Storify herself specifically to call out others on their bad behavior. One might say, to harass them.

I can't stand it!
Someone 'shop something STAT!

When i red this, Entombeds "Hollowman" just popped up in My head. It containers the Classic line: "Who examines the doctor"....

A lovely shoop on the theme " Who storifies the storifier", would be most welcome:-)

Gumby, Ape et al. Your interference services are requierd!

[ROBOKiTTY]

Compare and contrast the amount of money raised for these people.





Given how insignificant Stollznow is in the atheist community, which itself is of increasingly dwindling significance, it makes my blood boil.

How can atheists claim to be better people than the religious, let alone decent people at all, when this is the little-contested public face we get? Alcoholics begging for money and attention (and getting both), extremists pushing for extreme, often personal agendas without the least of skepticism, and cults of personality emerging from authoritarian malcontents.

Is this doomed to be the future of skepticism? The money seems to say yes.

[Linus]

A blog post with 34 comments is mainstream news?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Your average person checking their yahoo email/sorting through yahoo news will see it. And more people probably visit the yahoo site for news than visit any of the sites that talk about this sort of thing on a regular basis. It's just yahoo blogs, but, the audience is mainstream - and the link to the story was on the main site.

Fair 'nuff.

[Aristocat]

Cue the MRAs.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/03/28/two ... o-facebook

[halophilic]

Is this doomed to be the future of skepticism? The money seems to say yes.

Online skepticism != skepticism.

[James Caruthers]

Email tells me I've been elevatorgated by Stephanie Zvan.... I feel so unclean, I am triggering with rage right now having tossed my surlies at this unsolicited storification.... Well, let's see what I could possibly have done....

https://storify.com/szvan/yay-more-people-to-block

Jeez, I stopped reading after three pages, stopped counting after six pages.

I believe she is unemployed and yet, If I were hiring her as an analyst and saw this, I would think she was crazy, and trouble. If I were any in her team of therapists, I'd be rethinking dosages, and working to help her become functional again.

Oh damn, I got blocked. Now fatass won't be reading my tweets!

I'm considering hurling my surlies!

[Linus]

Cue the MRAs.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/03/28/two ... o-facebook

He deserved it, he called her a bitch. You don't know the whole story.

[mikelf]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.

Since everyone else is engaging in idle (and largely ignorant) speculation, why shouldn’t I? My speculation, which is mine, is that Stollznow is bluffing.

Frankly, I now think Radford was bluffing, too. He lawyered up enough to put on a good show in the hopes that fear of having to go to court (with all the attendant costs) would force her to a settlement favorable to his (Ben’s) interests. But, Radford broke three key rules of negotiations. First, don’t negotiate with someone that doesn’t have the authority to close the deal. Second, if you are going to bluff, you better have a contingency plan in case the counterparty calls your bluff. Third, never telegraph the weakness of your position.

My guess is that, through his eagerness to negotiate the statement (apparently without the participation of counsel) and his mistake in releasing it before it was all agreed to, Stollznow and Baxter came to realize that Radford didn’t necessarily have the means to take his complaint all the way to court. The Indiegogo campaign was an attempt to turn the tables on Radford by intimating that she was now willing to go to court. That it succeeded beyond imagination presented them the golden opportunity to turn up the heat on Radford. If he is intimidated by the notion and cost of taking his suit all the way through court, can you imagine the flop sweat caused by the idea of a countersuit? The difference here is that Stollznow and Baxter have the credible threat of a legal defense fund to back up their bluff. Any one want to speculate on the likelihood that Radford is keeping a close eye on the crowd funding campaigns progress?

So, in conclusion, I have to agree that Radford is a complete idiot. He thought he could outsmart Stollznow, but he wasn’t nearly smart enough, or well funded enough, to pull it off. Where I will diverge with Pit wisdom is that I really have to admire what Stollznow and Baxter have accomplished here. They have managed to seize an opportunity to completely turn change the power differential in the situation. Well done!

[Scented Nectar]

[youtube]Qgyfn_eHfoo]

Hotel California is the one song that can turn me into a homicidal-minded maniac.

[youtube]Wm-o7_VVAoU

Thank you, whoever posted this Eagles antidote video a while back. :D

I am sorry that you found it triggering, SN. Don Henley is a pretentious douchebag, this is true. I was forced to listen to Henley and the Eagles while growing up because my dad loved them. I remember spending hours listening to this album, The End of the Innocence. I cunt listen to it to this day. Probably his most pretentious work. However, it was absolutely wonderful source material when I used to troll the 'intellectuals' on IRC DALnet. I would crib from that album, and dumbfucks thought I was *profound*.

To help cleanse your mind, here is a photo of Justin Timberlake with his shirt off:

http://popdust.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... rtless.jpg


P.S. If shirtless Timberlake doesn't help, I promise that I can find you a shirtless Biebs! :P

I don't want to sound unappreciative, but, I need an older one than those. One that's not more than a 25 years age difference between us. I'm in my 50s now. Plus, I hear that both their music sucks.

But thanks anyways. It's the thought that counts! :D

Anyways, I'm so triggered right now that I'm going to toss my surlies. Lucky I don't actually have any surlies. Those things could break stuff if tossed.

[James Caruthers]

Nice new avatar, Clarence.

She just LOOKS young. I'm sure she's totes 18 or over. :|

Well, I'm playing Fire Emblem: Awakening right now, and this character...

http://31.media.tumblr.com/6a7dff9ba18a ... o1_500.jpg

..is a dragon that is thousands years old. And you can make her marry someone from your army, including your own Avatar.

http://wildcasa.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ldcasa.jpg

[rayshul]

http://freebeacon.com/blog/cancelcolber ... d-despair/

Has anyone talked about this yet?

[Parody Accountant]

She just LOOKS young. I'm sure she's totes 18 or over. :|

Well, I'm playing Fire Emblem: Awakening right now, and this character...

http://31.media.tumblr.com/6a7dff9ba18a ... o1_500.jpg

..is a dragon that is thousands years old. And you can make her marry someone from your army, including your own Avatar.

http://wildcasa.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ldcasa.jpg

next to clarence

[Aneris]

Unknown Pharyngula commenter wants to appear smarter than they are, references Dunning-Kruger.

3 sadunlap
28 March 2014 at 2:58 pm (UTC -5)
The YouTube “commentariate” does illustrate the Kroger/Dunning effect very forcefully. And all the time.

… misspells “Dunning-Kruger” forcefully.

[mordacious1]

Cue the MRAs.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/03/28/two ... o-facebook

I don't think the kid was taking her seriously, because the threats were in French. "I fart in your general direction".

[rayshul]

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segmen ... 39180006de

Suey Park, creator of the #cancelcolbert "movement". Her bit starts at about 32 minutes in. Maximum hilarity at 36 minutes.

Josh Zepps:

No one's minimalizing your experiences, no one's minimalizing your right to have an opinion. It's just a stupid opinion.

Aw shit, you are talking about it. I thought I was being fresh and new.

[Southern]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.

Somebody should really set up a betting pool.

I bet 100 North Korean won on Radford, just because he's bald. Go Team Radford!

[mordacious1]

Unknown Pharyngula commenter wants to appear smarter than they are, references Dunning-Kruger.

3 sadunlap
28 March 2014 at 2:58 pm (UTC -5)
The YouTube “commentariate” does illustrate the Kroger/Dunning effect very forcefully. And all the time.

… misspells “Dunning-Kruger” forcefully.

No, Kroger/Dunning is a illusory feeling of superiority that some store chains feel, mistakenly rating their ability to sell groceries much higher than it actually is. This leads them to compare themselves with the largest grocery chain in the US (Kroger's).

[Tapir]

Did somebody mention the Diane Kruger effect?

http://i.imgur.com/rBPOA89.jpg

:cdc:

[James Caruthers]

http://www.freezepage.com/1396011147OFINWLFRFS

Svan on "why she stays".

The “worst case” scenario in terms of what happens with your money is that Radford drops the suit, and it goes to sexual assault victim advocacy instead.

Wouldn't the "worst case scenario" for these idiots be "Radford wins his suit, Stollznow is forced to apologize and hand over whatever cash she has left"?

It's funny how they seem to ignore the fact that Radford was perfectly willing to take this to court in the first place. I guess the SJL is expecting him to fold now that Stollznow has managed to beg the funds for a lawyer?

Zvan, I think, thrives on this shit. Nobody really cares about her though. I twatted at her maybe once? It was pretty neutral, just a snarky joke in response to an extremely fucking stupid conspiracy theory-level post ("all white men are believed at all times" type shit) but it was clearly horrible ABUSE that merited a block. But not just a block, oh ho no, she has to tell everyone on FTB what a monster I am!

:lol:

I also like her crying about other people using Storify to document what she says, but then I go to her page and I see Storify being used to document what others say. No doubt she has some rationale as to why it's totes awesome when she does it.

I don't even know what the Commentariat will do if Stollznow loses in court. I guess their exit strategy will be to claim JUSTICE IS DEAD and PATRIARCHY KILLED IT.

[James Caruthers]

Lots of people have s/h/it on ignore already.

There's an element of

http://www.impermium.com/blog/wp-conten ... /Troll.png

in his posts that I can't shake.

[Parody Accountant]

Aw shit, you are talking about it. I thought I was being fresh and new.

You smell like doodoo girl

[youtube]kKTpOuX4OqM[/youtube]

[James Caruthers]

Whenever I go into a bout of existential crisis and question my writing abilities, I take one glance at Benson and Zvan's writings and am restored to some semblance of confidence.

You and the rest of us, your HOLINeSS.

[Parody Accountant]

Did somebody mention the Dying-Cougar effect?

http://i.imgur.com/RyJdeF1.png

[Lsuoma]

I blame Tappatalk for that one.

Agreed. When you get two or three quotes nested, it fucks up pretty much every time, in my experience...

[James Caruthers]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

From victim to aggressor in one second flat. Why? Money! When Radford was on top, she was a poor little victim. Now she's on top, so she's going to go on the attack as a champion of The Emperor of Mankind Proud Womyn everywhere!

[another lurker]

I am sorry that you found it triggering, SN. Don Henley is a pretentious douchebag, this is true. I was forced to listen to Henley and the Eagles while growing up because my dad loved them. I remember spending hours listening to this album, The End of the Innocence. I cunt listen to it to this day. Probably his most pretentious work. However, it was absolutely wonderful source material when I used to troll the 'intellectuals' on IRC DALnet. I would crib from that album, and dumbfucks thought I was *profound*.

To help cleanse your mind, here is a photo of Justin Timberlake with his shirt off:

[img]http://popdust.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... rtless.jpg


P.S. If shirtless Timberlake doesn't help, I promise that I can find you a shirtless Biebs! :P

I don't want to sound unappreciative, but, I need an older one than those. One that's not more than a 25 years age difference between us. I'm in my 50s now. Plus, I hear that both their music sucks.

But thanks anyways. It's the thought that counts! :D

Anyways, I'm so triggered right now that I'm going to toss my surlies. Lucky I don't actually have any surlies. Those things could break stuff if tossed.

Oh, you should sound unappreciative:P I find neither of them attractive, and Biebs is a loser. I thought that I could have simply shown you well hung guys in kilts but, you've seen it all before, right. So I went for the joke! Anyhoo, if we are talking about older men, there's one a few pages back, of PZ with his tits out, courtesy of Mykeru :cdc: *


*Now I'm tossing my surlies. Sigh.

[JayTeeAitch]

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segmen ... 39180006de

Suey Park, creator of the #cancelcolbert "movement". Her bit starts at about 32 minutes in. Maximum hilarity at 36 minutes.

Josh Zepps:

No one's minimalizing your experiences, no one's minimalizing your right to have an opinion. It's just a stupid opinion.

Good find, that was hilarious :D

[Pitchguest]

One thing that strikes me as odd, and I'm not putting myself behind either of them, but why is Stollznow talking about the court issue as if it had never occured to her? She says she was going to settle because she didn't have the cash to go to court, well then what the hell is she doing accusing Radford of sexual assault in public like that? Did she think he was just going to take it sitting down? Did she think it was never going to be contested or possibly go to court at all?

The only thing I'm asking myself now, who is going to be extorting who now? It's very confusing.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

From victim to aggressor in one second flat. Why? Money! When Radford was on top, she was a poor little victim. Now she's on top, so she's going to go on the attack as a champion of The Emperor of Mankind Proud Womyn everywhere!

A lot will depend on what her lawyer says. Most competent attorneys will strongly discourage their clients from taking a no-win position, even if they get paid either way.

[Really?]

One thing that strikes me as odd, and I'm not putting myself behind either of them, but why is Stollznow talking about the court issue as if it had never occured to her? She says she was going to settle because she didn't have the cash to go to court, well then what the hell is she doing accusing Radford of sexual assault in public like that? Did she think he was just going to take it sitting down? Did she think it was never going to be contested or possibly go to court at all?

The only thing I'm asking myself now, who is going to be extorting who now? It's very confusing.

Isn't that the radfem position on everything? You believe the victim. If you're a white cishet male, you shut the fuck up and listen.

[Pitchguest]

I don't want to sound unappreciative, but, I need an older one than those. One that's not more than a 25 years age difference between us. I'm in my 50s now. Plus, I hear that both their music sucks.

But thanks anyways. It's the thought that counts! :D

Anyways, I'm so triggered right now that I'm going to toss my surlies. Lucky I don't actually have any surlies. Those things could break stuff if tossed.

http://iamflashdance.com/wp-content/upl ... -naked.jpg

[James Caruthers]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

From victim to aggressor in one second flat. Why? Money! When Radford was on top, she was a poor little victim. Now she's on top, so she's going to go on the attack as a champion of The Emperor of Mankind Proud Womyn everywhere!

A lot will depend on what her lawyer says. Most competent attorneys will strongly discourage their clients from taking a no-win position, even if they get paid either way.

I like how her claim that she was going to give the excess money to charity got kicked in the head when she realized how much extra was there.

[Steersman]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

From victim to aggressor in one second flat. Why? Money! When Radford was on top, she was a poor little victim. Now she's on top, so she's going to go on the attack as a champion of The Emperor of Mankind Proud Womyn everywhere!

There does appear to be some justification for thinking that Radford actually did harass Stollznow – and over a rather long period of time. This from Thibeault’s recent timeline post:

Pteryxx had a copy of Matthew Baxter’s comment on the Blake Smith thread. Will upload the screenshot eventually. It says:

“Ben, I know that it is your job at this point to minimize things. You would never admit to the things that you did. Fine. I get that. The truth is that you were asked to back off for years and you didn’t. You acted like I didn’t even exist in your persistence with Karen. I am her husband and no matter what you think of me, I asked you like a gentleman to back off. I never came out and told you off for your repeated sexually charged contact. I tried to (erroneously) give you the benefit of the doubt. I hoped you would just get bored. You didn’t. You continued. When Karen cut your communication paths off, you started claiming that she was disrespectful to you. Do you really want this fight, Ben? We can back up our side of things. You are in the wrong. Period. No amount of claiming that someone gave you mixed signals will work when we both have copies of the cries for you to STOP. Just admit where you were wrong and apologize. Remember when things actually worked out for awhile? TAM 2011. You behaved and were a real gentleman. We forgave and things were smooth. We had always been willing to be reasonable as long as our wishes were honored. You just couldn’t let it go. You have a problem and need some help.”

Whether that justifies inferring that he got “handsy” enough to cross the line into something that might, depending on jurisdiction and definition, qualify as sexual assault, at least, is probably moot – and no doubt likely to be the central question if this goes to court. But with that type of thing hanging over Radford’s head, I would think that he might want to consider that discretion is the better part of valour and actually tender the apology that Baxter somewhat generously suggested.

[feralandproud]

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segmen ... 39180006de

Suey Park, creator of the #cancelcolbert "movement". Her bit starts at about 32 minutes in. Maximum hilarity at 36 minutes.

Josh Zepps:

No one's minimalizing your experiences, no one's minimalizing your right to have an opinion. It's just a stupid opinion.

Good find, that was hilarious :D

I love the guy at the end. "I've just learned that as a white male I can't have an opinion, so nothing..." lmao

[Really?]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

From victim to aggressor in one second flat. Why? Money! When Radford was on top, she was a poor little victim. Now she's on top, so she's going to go on the attack as a champion of The Emperor of Mankind Proud Womyn everywhere!

There does appear to be some justification for thinking that Radford actually did harass Stollznow – and over a rather long period of time. This from Thibeault’s recent timeline post:

Pteryxx had a copy of Matthew Baxter’s comment on the Blake Smith thread. Will upload the screenshot eventually. It says:

“Ben, I know that it is your job at this point to minimize things. You would never admit to the things that you did. Fine. I get that. The truth is that you were asked to back off for years and you didn’t. You acted like I didn’t even exist in your persistence with Karen. I am her husband and no matter what you think of me, I asked you like a gentleman to back off. I never came out and told you off for your repeated sexually charged contact. I tried to (erroneously) give you the benefit of the doubt. I hoped you would just get bored. You didn’t. You continued. When Karen cut your communication paths off, you started claiming that she was disrespectful to you. Do you really want this fight, Ben? We can back up our side of things. You are in the wrong. Period. No amount of claiming that someone gave you mixed signals will work when we both have copies of the cries for you to STOP. Just admit where you were wrong and apologize. Remember when things actually worked out for awhile? TAM 2011. You behaved and were a real gentleman. We forgave and things were smooth. We had always been willing to be reasonable as long as our wishes were honored. You just couldn’t let it go. You have a problem and need some help.”

Whether that justifies inferring that he got “handsy” enough to cross the line into something that might, depending on jurisdiction and definition, qualify as sexual assault, at least, is probably moot – and no doubt likely to be the central question if this goes to court. But with that type of thing hanging over Radford’s head, I would think that he might want to consider that discretion is the better part of valour and actually tender the apology that Baxter somewhat generously suggested.

Maybe I'm biased, but Baxter sounds like a condescending dickhead there. And I don't put much stock in what Lousy Canuck says because he has such an amazing lack of understanding about his rape accusation.

Yes, I know I'm just being ad hominem. I will consider information on its own merits at a later time.

[Pitchguest]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

From victim to aggressor in one second flat. Why? Money! When Radford was on top, she was a poor little victim. Now she's on top, so she's going to go on the attack as a champion of The Emperor of Mankind Proud Womyn everywhere!

There does appear to be some justification for thinking that Radford actually did harass Stollznow – and over a rather long period of time. This from Thibeault’s recent timeline post:

Pteryxx had a copy of Matthew Baxter’s comment on the Blake Smith thread. Will upload the screenshot eventually. It says:

“Ben, I know that it is your job at this point to minimize things. You would never admit to the things that you did. Fine. I get that. The truth is that you were asked to back off for years and you didn’t. You acted like I didn’t even exist in your persistence with Karen. I am her husband and no matter what you think of me, I asked you like a gentleman to back off. I never came out and told you off for your repeated sexually charged contact. I tried to (erroneously) give you the benefit of the doubt. I hoped you would just get bored. You didn’t. You continued. When Karen cut your communication paths off, you started claiming that she was disrespectful to you. Do you really want this fight, Ben? We can back up our side of things. You are in the wrong. Period. No amount of claiming that someone gave you mixed signals will work when we both have copies of the cries for you to STOP. Just admit where you were wrong and apologize. Remember when things actually worked out for awhile? TAM 2011. You behaved and were a real gentleman. We forgave and things were smooth. We had always been willing to be reasonable as long as our wishes were honored. You just couldn’t let it go. You have a problem and need some help.”

Whether that justifies inferring that he got “handsy” enough to cross the line into something that might, depending on jurisdiction and definition, qualify as sexual assault, at least, is probably moot – and no doubt likely to be the central question if this goes to court. But with that type of thing hanging over Radford’s head, I would think that he might want to consider that discretion is the better part of valour and actually tender the apology that Baxter somewhat generously suggested.

First rule of scepticism: always be critical. Especially when it comes from someone who's personally invested in the case (and I mean, literally, personally invested, like a $100 or so). I'm going to take whatever Lousy says with a handful of salt. That he thinks he can objectively analyze the situation, much like Zvan, Benson and PZ, and give us the straight dope is hilarious. That he even tries is laughable. I wouldn't put much stock in his words, Steers, and neither should you.

[Pitchguest]

Ninja'ed!

[JacquesCuze]

Those of the pit who have been hiring managers in the past or present.

If you were hiring someone who's resume looked good, who gave a good interview, who presented you with decent references, and then one of your employees mentioned they had googled them and found they had been accused of sexual harassment, what might you do?

a) silently reject the candidate
b) consult with HR
c) chastise your employee for googling candidates
d) ignore the accusation until it came down to the final acceptance and then calling the candidate (perhaps with HR on the line) to discuss it

And then I am curious, do you expect HR to have googled candidates and filtered out problems like this?

[Steersman]

In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!

In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.

Since everyone else is engaging in idle (and largely ignorant) speculation, why shouldn’t I? My speculation, which is mine, is that Stollznow is bluffing.

Frankly, I now think Radford was bluffing, too. He lawyered up enough to put on a good show in the hopes that fear of having to go to court (with all the attendant costs) would force her to a settlement favorable to his (Ben’s) interests. But, Radford broke three key rules of negotiations. ...

My guess is that, through his eagerness to negotiate the statement (apparently without the participation of counsel) and his mistake in releasing it before it was all agreed to, Stollznow and Baxter came to realize that Radford didn’t necessarily have the means to take his complaint all the way to court. ....

Maybe some justification for most of your argument but I question the bit about “[Radford’s] eagerness to negotiate the statement (apparently without the participation of counsel)” as that time-line photo on Radford’s Facebook page has this exchange:

Radford: I assume John Boyd or his assistant Kaye sent you the documents this afternoon ....

Baxter: I did receive the documents. We will not be able to get to a notary until Tuesday ....

Seems plausible that Boyd is his lawyer, particularly given Radford’s subsequent comments, and that the documents in question were vetted by him. The questions I have are whether Baxter read the documents, and whether Radford changed them substantially in posting the supposed retraction from Stollznow.

[James Caruthers]

Plus, Baxter's statements at this point are little better than Stollznow's own, as he is also invested in the case heavily. Anything he says about Radford is interesting, and it may be true, but it still amounts to more "he said, she said, her husband said." Let a judge figure out which one of them is lying.

[Spike13]

Lots of people have s/h/it on ignore already.

There's an element of

http://www.impermium.com/blog/wp-conten ... /Troll.png

in his posts that I can't shake.

Troll , no.
The problem with the quote thing can be attributed to the fact that I don't do any real work on a computer beyond point and click and changing number values. That's the nature of a building management system.
I make my living with wrenches and screwdrivers.
The last blog I was on the reply comments were generally cut and paste then adding the number of the comment you were replying to.
Looking at it I do have a lot of comments for being here for only a few days, beginners enthusiasm I guess.
I think I'll back off a bit for now, get the editing thing down, try to ease in a little slower.
That's the odd thing with a blog, reading you guys on and off for almost a year, one has a feeling familiarity, where I to you am a total stranger.
Trolling the Pit? No not at all. Lsouma wouldn't have my real contacts if that were the case.

Also is this the accepted format for a comment. Thanks.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

There does appear to be some justification for thinking that Radford actually did harass Stollznow – and over a rather long period of time.

“Ben, I know that it ... [DAYS OF OUR LIVES SCRIPT REDACTED] ....”

Steers -- go find a salt shaker. Shake out a grain every time Bax, Stollzy, or Rads say anything.

When Thibeldolt says anything, generously apply lye.