Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[d4m10n]

Asking for links that you have already been given (even posted yourself already) is not an attempt to deny the existence of that information?

Countless blog posts, podcasts, and vlogs arguably fit the description of Rebecca telling the rest of us we should share her reaction, especially if you include counterarguments directed at those who argued that her initial reaction was wrong. Asking for a link is nothing more than trying to clarify what exactly we are talking about. To attempt to frame that as a denial is beyond disingenuous.

 

[zooterkin]

How can he claim to have spent a weekend with someone if he had no idea who it was?

Er, because they were both at the same event? (Unless you believe that lift man was a figment of Watson's imagination, of course.)

 

[wareyin]

Countless blog posts, podcasts, and vlogs arguably fit the description of Rebecca telling the rest of us we should share her reaction, especially if you include counterarguments directed at those who argued that her initial reaction was wrong. Asking for a link is nothing more than trying to clarify what exactly we are talking about. To attempt to frame that as a denial is beyond disingenuous.

If countless blogs fit the description of Watson telling us we should share her reaction, then pretending to be unaware that Watson was telling us we should share her reaction is what is beyond disingenuous.
Pretending to not have information that proves you wrong is a denial. You had that information, you asked for it as though it had not been presented (even by you!).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Countless blog posts, podcasts, and vlogs arguably fit the description of Rebecca telling the rest of us we should share her reaction, especially if you include counterarguments directed at those who argued that her initial reaction was wrong. Asking for a link is nothing more than trying to clarify what exactly we are talking about. To attempt to frame that as a denial is beyond disingenuous.

You've been given this citation. What do you think accusing someone who merely said the elevator incident didn't seem that bad of failing feminism 101 and being part of the problem means?

As I also didn't think the come-on was a big deal, that accusation applied to me as well as everyone else who thought, meh, big deal.

Here's the link to the details yet again:
http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Attacks_on_Stef_McGraw#stef1

During her introduction, Watson spent some time reading her hate mail and subsequently included an excerpt from McGraw's blogpost, asserting that it was a standard "parroting of misogynist thought". She also stated that McGraw was ignorant of Feminism 101 and that it was people like McGraw that were preventing women from coming to events. (Specifics around the insulting remarks are documented here.)

How is that not RW calling out everyone who didn't share her outrage over elevator guy?

 

[Metullus]

Er, because they were both at the same event? (Unless you believe that lift man was a figment of Watson's imagination, of course.)

A possibility towards which I have begun to lean, however reluctantly, over the last year or so.

I take no pleasure in saying this. I suppose that I find it interesting that EG is about the only skeptical miscreant that has never been identified by anyone.

 

[d4m10n]

You've been given this citation.

Prior to this post?

As I also didn't think the come-on was a big deal, that accusation applied to me as well as everyone else who thought, meh, big deal.

She didn't say it was a big deal, at least not in the original video and associated post.

Here's the link to the details yet again:
http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Attacks_on_Stef_McGraw#stef1

This is the first time I've seen you link to that. Did I miss it before?

I think we need to be careful about confounding two related but distinct issues here:

1) If you want to argue that dressing down McGraw in front of a roomful of her peers (with no right of reply) was a major dick move, you'll get no counterargument from me.

2) If you want to argue that it was wrong for RW to publish the original video and blog post, then I'd be happy to have that argument, once again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A possibility towards which I have begun to lean, however reluctantly, over the last year or so.

I take no pleasure in saying this. I suppose that I find it interesting that EG is about the only skeptical miscreant that has never been identified by anyone.

I think the ladies on the 'every come-on is offensive' side of the isle do imagine slights that are not in evidence. And the details of the incident may very well have been fudged.

But I can't say I've ever heard RW makes stuff up outright.

 

[d4m10n]

I suppose that I find it interesting that EG is about the only skeptical miscreant that has never been identified by anyone.

Other than Avicenna Last, the admitted plagiarist whose true identity was never exposed.

And Ogvorbis, the admitted child molester who is welcome to post at Pharyngula.

And Felch Grogan, whose SlymePit allies contend that his true identity remains unknown.

And a few others, with fun nicknames like Winebreath and Jim Bob.

 

[Metullus]

Other than Avicenna Last, the admitted plagiarist whose true identity was never exposed.

And Ogvorbis, the admitted child molester who is welcome to post at Pharyngula.

And Felch Grogan, whose SlymePit allies contend that his true identity remains unknown.

And a few others, with fun nicknames like Winebreath and Jim Bob.

Unless I am mistaken, each, at least, has acknowledged his/her own existence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Prior to this post?

YES!! GOOD GRIEF! That link must have been posted in this thread and the Elevator thread dozens of times.

She didn't say it was a big deal, at least not in the original video and associated post.

You appear to have a unique interpretation of what "Guys, don't do that" means. But who cares if she said it was or wasn't a big deal in the initial video. For the ten thousandth time, the initial video was not the issue except that it triggered the events that led to the issue.

THE ISSUE BEGAN WHEN RW ACCUSED STEF MCGRAW OF BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM FOR NOT SEEING THE WORLD LIKE RW SAW IT.

Perhaps if you repeat it aloud it will sink in.

This is the first time I've seen you link to that. Did I miss it before?

YES!! YES YOU DID!!

I think we need to be careful about confounding two related but distinct issues here:

1) If you want to argue that dressing down McGraw in front of a roomful of her peers (with no right of reply) was a major dick move, you'll get no counterargument from me.

2) If you want to argue that it was wrong for RW to publish the original video and blog post, then I'd be happy to have that argument, once again.

Straw men lined out.

As for the dressing down being a major dick move, you're half-way there.

The issue is the CONTENT of the dressing down, not the mere fact it was a dick move.

asserting that it was a standard "parroting of misogynist thought". She also stated that McGraw was ignorant of Feminism 101 and that it was people like McGraw that were preventing women from coming to events.

And yes, that is what RW said. And it began the basis for the whole A+ FTB metamorphosis.

But my prediction is you'll forget this whole argument and repeat your straw men in 3...2...1

 

[tsig]

What sort of corroboration do you expect for a story in which one person has cornered happily come across someone else in an enclosed and completely private space?

Rorschach claims to have spent the weekend with Elevator Guy, whereas you claim that Elevator Guy may be a fictional character created by Rebecca Watson to further an political agenda. One of you two sounds awfully conspiratorial about this, and it sure as **** isn't Martin.



Where has anyone (in this thread) attempted to defend Watson's behavior on stage at CFI's Student Leadership Conference?

IIRC it was a joke.

 

[tsig]

You've been given this citation. What do you think accusing someone who merely said the elevator incident didn't seem that bad of failing feminism 101 and being part of the problem means?

As I also didn't think the come-on was a big deal, that accusation applied to me as well as everyone else who thought, meh, big deal.

Here's the link to the details yet again:
http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Attacks_on_Stef_McGraw#stef1


How is that not RW calling out everyone who didn't share her outrage over elevator guy?

From one of the links:

• ＵＲＬに間違いがないか、再度確認してください。再読み込みしてください。
• ご利用中のユーザー様は【ロリポップ！よくある質問集】をご参照ください。
• 疑問点等ございましたら【ロリポップ！お問合せフォーム】よりお問合せください。

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From one of the links:

• ＵＲＬに間違いがないか、再度確認してください。再読み込みしてください。
• ご利用中のユーザー様は【ロリポップ！よくある質問集】をご参照ください。
• 疑問点等ございましたら【ロリポップ！お問合せフォーム】よりお問合せください。

Indeed. Which link are you referring to? Do you have malware redirecting you?

 

[d4m10n]

YES!! YES YOU DID!!

You will have my sincere apologies, if you can show me where exactly I missed you linking to that in this thread.

Until then, no amount of BIG REDNESS counts as evidence.

 

[d4m10n]

She's not ugly, she has a following. But glamorous?

Elevator Guy may well disagree. Don't take this the wrong way, but he finds her very interesting.

 

[d4m10n]

THE ISSUE BEGAN WHEN RW ACCUSED STEF MCGRAW OF BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM FOR NOT SEEING THE WORLD LIKE RW SAW IT.

In that case, I shouldn't be able to find any strident critiques of RW—respecting the elevator postings—prior to the accusation against Stef.

 

[d4m10n]

Unless I am mistaken, each, at least, has acknowledged his/her own existence.

Including Jim Bob?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You will have my sincere apologies, if you can show me where exactly I missed you linking to that in this thread.

Until then, no amount of BIG REDNESS counts as evidence.

3...2...1 and Liftoff.


Why should we search the threads because you missed the basic facts in the case including citations? Here's a hint, the Phawrongula website is well known and several years old (I had forgotten about it). The real question is why haven't you bothered to look for anything yourself?

It's very lazy to ask others to go back over covered material because one missed it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In that case, I shouldn't be able to find any strident critiques of RW—respecting the elevator postings—prior to the accusation against Stef.

Other than McGraw's and StClair's online comments, there was nothing significant that anyone paid attention to. No uproar happened until the infamous RW call-out.

Maybe there are insignificant comments, certainly none that were noticed, and there is the usual rape hate-mail crap that many women bloggers are subject to which was nothing new for RW and is a different topic (not saying that isn't a legit issue, it's just not specifically related to the elevator vlog).

 

[wareyin]

Other than McGraw's and StClair's online comments, there was nothing significant that anyone paid attention to. No uproar happened until the infamous RW call-out.

Maybe there are insignificant comments, certainly none that were noticed, and there is the usual rape hate-mail crap that many women bloggers are subject to which was nothing new for RW and is a different topic (not saying that isn't a legit issue, it's just not specifically related to the elevator vlog).

I'm pretty sure you're about to be asked for a link to the original Watson video, or a link to the McGraw call-out.