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

d4m10n said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hasn't every one of those people been seen, read, or acknowledged by more than one person? Because if so, there's a big difference between Watson's EG and them.
 
d4m10n said:
That's your idea of a denial? Ok.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of extremely loose interpretations being thrown around in here, almost as if they were matters of fact. RW's elevatorgate stance getting interpreted as "never approach a female you are interested in", my simply pointing out the fact that she didn't say that getting interpreted as the claim that the opinions of women who disagree with RW don't matter. You getting interpreted as supporting the behavior toward Stef. "Not a cold proposition for sex" getting interpreted as something like "no hopes for sex were involved". Makes for a very incoherent discussion.
 
cornsail said:
There's a lot of extremely loose interpretations being thrown around in here, almost as if they were matters of fact. RW's elevatorgate stance getting interpreted as "never approach a female you are interested in", my simply pointing out the fact that she didn't say that getting interpreted as the claim that the opinions of women who disagree with RW don't matter. You getting interpreted as supporting the behavior toward Stef. "Not a cold proposition for sex" getting interpreted as something like "no hopes for sex were involved". Makes for a very incoherent discussion.
Click to expand...

Throw in "getting asked for coffee always and only means being propositioned", and "being asked for coffee on a 10 second or less elevator ride in a luxury hotel means you were cornered in a scary place", and you're getting somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why should we search the threads because you missed the basic facts in the case including citations?
Click to expand...

If you cited to it, then prove it. If not, stop banging on about how I missed the citation you posted.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Here's a hint, the Phawrongula website is well known and several years old (I had forgotten about it).
Click to expand...
I hadn't.

Skeptic Ginger said:
It's very lazy to ask others to go back over covered material because one missed it.
Click to expand...
Not quite as lazy as accusing someone that they missed a citation and then refusing to show where you linked it.
 
wareyin said:
Throw in "getting asked for coffee always and only means being propositioned"
Click to expand...

As if to prove my point? I'm pretty sure no one said that getting asked for coffee always means sex. Just that it did under the circumstances of the EG anecdote. Though, personally, I've argued that coffee shouldn't be assumed to mean sex even under those circumstances.
 
cornsail said:
As if to prove my point? I'm pretty sure no one said that getting asked for coffee always means sex. Just that it did under the circumstances of the EG anecdote. Though, personally, I've argued that coffee shouldn't be assumed to mean sex even under those circumstances.
Click to expand...

By "circumstances of the EG anecdote" you mean one person asking another for coffee, right? Because even though he admits to having very limited experience, d4m10n has been pretty clear that being asked for coffee is either a thinly veiled proposition, or an outright proposition, no 'under those circumstances' qualifiers used.
 
Belz... said:
I agree. It's her reaction to a comment on her video that got this **** storm started.
Click to expand...

I've seen at least two competing mythologies about how this went from awkward pass to epic internet **** storm.

In the Pit version of the myth, it all kicked off because Rebecca went after Stef at the CFI con. This makes perfect sense from their perspective, since that was how the Pit first emerged.

In the SJW version of the myth, it's basically all Dawkins' fault for posting the Dear Muslima missive. This makes perfect sense from their perspective, because all that is wrong with society must be laid at the feet of the most privileged.

Dawkins' missive had a significant repercussions, as did Watson's infamous on-stage callout, but I do cannot subscribe to either of these mythologies. I view the conflict between identitarian callout culture warriors and cultural libertarians as nigh inevitable in any space peopled mostly with liberals and progressives. The potential for explosive combustion exists in two sets of competing values, any given controversy can light the blue touch paper.
 
wareyin said:
d4m10n has been pretty clear that being asked for coffee is either a thinly veiled proposition, or an outright proposition, no 'under those circumstances' qualifiers used.
Click to expand...

When I met up with Rebecca Vitsmun at Starbucks in the middle of the day, that was nothing but coffee and conversation. No one had ulterior motives. Of course, the invitation wasn't made at 4am, and it wasn't an offer made in private to spend time one-on-one in an even more private place with a fancy bed close to hand. Context matters.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
By "circumstances of the EG anecdote" you mean one person asking another for coffee, right? Because even though he admits to having very limited experience, d4m10n has been pretty clear that being asked for coffee is either a thinly veiled proposition, or an outright proposition, no 'under those circumstances' qualifiers used.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, while I am generally anti-RW, the circumstances are not simply "one person asking another for coffee". To quote the great George Costanza:

Coffee's coffee in the morning, it's not coffee at twelve o clock at night.
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/-skZx5liyaM?t=1m45s
 
d4m10n said:
When I met up with Rebecca Vitsmun at Starbucks in the middle of the day, that was nothing but coffee and conversation. No one had ulterior motives. Of course, the invitation wasn't made at 4am, and it wasn't an offer made in private to spend time one-on-one in an even more private place with a fancy bed close to hand. Context matters.
Click to expand...

Are you sure of the highlighted? Are you sure of the reverse of the highlighted in the case of Watson's recollection of an encounter she had while likely drunk and/or humblebrag about how all the guys want to hit on her?
 
wareyin said:
Are you sure of the highlighted?
Click to expand...

As sure as one can be without mind-reading.

wareyin said:
Are you sure of the reverse of the highlighted in the case of Watson's recollection of an encounter she had while likely drunk and/or humblebrag about how all the guys want to hit on her?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about an encounter that really happened now, or one that she made up for nefarious feminist purposes? If it really happened, I'd ask whether she was really drunk.

As to the humble-bragging, I've seen RW surrounded by a knot of slavering fanboys on more than one occasion. I don't personally understand it, but there it is.
 
d4m10n said:
Are you talking about an encounter that really happened now, or one that she made up for nefarious feminist purposes? If it really happened, I'd ask whether she was really drunk.
Click to expand...

You seem really hung up on this "nefarious feminist purposes" thing. As it is totally your invention, can you explain what you are talking about?

Also, what do you mean am I talking about an encounter that really happened? I am talking about Watson's recollection, which we know happened because we have video evidence of said recollection. Whether what she was claiming to recall happened, we have no way of really knowing. We know that she spent all night (until 4am) drinking in a bar (evidence that she was drunk). We know that she was with a group of people, none of whom saw this person Watson claims was in the bar with them all night. We know that Watson simultaneously claims she can't recognize faces, yet can recognize this person well enough to know that he was at her talk and at the bar all night. None of this adds up to convincing evidence that the encounter actually happened, or happened the way Watson claims it did.

d4m10n said:
As to the humble-bragging, I've seen RW surrounded by a knot of slavering fanboys on more than one occasion. I don't personally understand it, but there it is.
Click to expand...

You don't know what humblebragging is, do you?
hum·ble·brag
1. an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud.
Click to expand...

an example: "It's so frustrating to go outside because everyone's always hitting on me—even when I wear sweatpants."
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
We have a lot to establish before we could begin to calculate the probability that EG was after something other than what was stated. Whether the person ever existed, for one, which I highly doubt.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
...what do you mean am I talking about an encounter that really happened?
Click to expand...

I'm unclear on what argument you are trying to make.

Are you arguing that RW probably made up EG from whole cloth? If so, for what (presumably nefarious) purpose?

Are you claiming that "Watson's recollection" was not made up, but rather the result of a vivid hallucination brought on by too much strong Irish drink?

What exactly is your working theory of the case here?
 
d4m10n said:
I'm unclear on what argument you are trying to make.

Are you arguing that RW probably made up EG from whole cloth? If so, for what (presumably nefarious) purpose?
Click to expand...

Again with the "nefarious". As this is solely your invention, kindly explain it yourself and refrain from attributing it to me.

d4m10n said:
Are you claiming that "Watson's recollection" was not made up, but rather the result of a vivid hallucination brought on by too much strong Irish drink?
Click to expand...

Your pretense of not understanding the effect of alcohol on memory is not convincing.

d4m10n said:
What exactly is your working theory of the case here?
Click to expand...

Narcissist humblebrags about being hit on. By sneaky ninja-like suitor who is unnoticed by everyone else despite spending hours in close proximity in a virtually empty small room. After drinking all night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom