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

[wareyin]

She could have known if he followed her from the bar to the elevator even if he were wearing a full scramble suit.

The talk is irrelevant if he was listening to her holding forth in the bar.

It's amusing how tightly you are grasping those straws. If he followed her from the bar to the elevator, one of her friends would have seen him. If she knows he was listening to her holding forth in the bar, then there was some way she had to identify him. Sadly, that identifying characteristic somehow disappears when she looks at photos of the people in the bar, or describes who he was to the other people she was with in that small, relatively empty bar for hours.

Unless the guy was a ninja. Then, all bets are off. Maybe he was clinging to the ceiling, strategically avoiding every camera snap, unnoticed by everyone at her table, able to follow her unseen to the elevator even though she was loudly talking about her plans to her friends as she was walking to that elevator.

 

[devnull]

I prefer Assembly-level Atheism, myself.

yeh I still hack atheism on an atheism64 for kicks.

 

[Meed]

Atheist Automobile Association always comes through for me when I have a roadside breakdown.

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately the output might be just binary.

Heck, even object-oriented atheism is just too objectifying.

SJWs don't do object-oriented programming at all.

 

[GDon]

SJWs don't do object-oriented programming at all.

That's because they have no class(es)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm using the term as Richard Carrier does, as convenient shorthand for the entire social justice wing of movement atheism.

See? You're doing it to link to just one article, so your earlier post is a red herring.

That leaves me with two questions - the first is still why you post links in a less efficient and less useful way than you otherwise could (and which, indeed, is different to the way that you post them on your own website), and the second is why you are either unable or unwilling to explain why.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

[...]she has had to claim a rare cognitive disorder that she has never claimed before, nor ever shown evidence of[...]

That, at least, is not true. She mentions having prosopagnosia in this post from 2007, 4 years before Elevatorgate. She mentions it in the article and then goes into a little more detail in a couple of the comments.

That doesn't mean that it's true, of course, but it's unquestionably true that it's a condition she's claimed to have before.

FWIW, this is the third time I've posted that link in this thread (or, more accurately, its predecessor) in order to counter the claim that Watson's first claim of poropagnosia was after Elevatorgate:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9027979&postcount=4464
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9131721&postcount=6083

It doesn't seem that you were part of this discussion back then, but I hope that this information starts to propagate, rather than the misinformation continuing to be an accepted truth through repetition. While googling "poropagnosia Rebecca Watson" without the quotes now brings up that article as the 7th hit* whereas it used to bring it up on the 2nd hit*, it's still not a huge amount of work to do in order to do some basic fact-checking before posting such an accusation.

*which goes a little way towards explaining my questioning of damion over his idiosyncratic habit of posting links to google searches rather than what it is he's actually trying to point people to.

 

[wareyin]

That, at least, is not true. She mentions having prosopagnosia in this post from 2007, 4 years before Elevatorgate. She mentions it in the article and then goes into a little more detail in a couple of the comments.

That doesn't mean that it's true, of course, but it's unquestionably true that it's a condition she's claimed to have before.

FWIW, this is the third time I've posted that link in this thread (or, more accurately, its predecessor) in order to counter the claim that Watson's first claim of poropagnosia was after Elevatorgate:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9027979&postcount=4464
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9131721&postcount=6083

It doesn't seem that you were part of this discussion back then, but I hope that this information starts to propagate, rather than the misinformation continuing to be an accepted truth through repetition. While googling "poropagnosia Rebecca Watson" without the quotes now brings up that article as the 7th hit* whereas it used to bring it up on the 2nd hit*, it's still not a huge amount of work to do in order to do some basic fact-checking before posting such an accusation.

*which goes a little way towards explaining my questioning of damion over his idiosyncratic habit of posting links to google searches rather than what it is he's actually trying to point people to.

I stand corrected.

 

[d4m10n]

...why you post links in a less efficient and less useful way than you otherwise could

We obviously disagree about which way is more useful.

second is why you are either unable or unwilling to explain why.

Three reasons I often prefer Google searches to direct links:

3. They don't go dead when the original page does. For example, links directly to the original "Dear Muslima" comment from Dawkins are dead links now, not to mention direct links to JREF forum threads under their previous domain name.

2. They allow me to highlight the exact phrase or passage that I'm referring to on the target page, as I did in post #2733 above.

1. They provide a sense of how viral some given snippet or meme has become, as in the case of "deep rifts" as a term of art at FtB, or "cobweb ****" on the Pit.

 

[d4m10n]

It's amusing how tightly you are grasping those straws.

Says the guy who implied RW's claims of prosopagnosia were made up to fit a particular narrative.

If he followed her from the bar to the elevator, one of her friends would have seen him.

Assuming that they were present, sober, and paying close attention.

If she knows he was listening to her holding forth in the bar, then there was some way she had to identify him.

She isn't completely blind, you know. If he was the guy in the pink Skepchick t-shirt, then she could tell he was the same guy from the bar.

Sadly, that identifying characteristic somehow disappears when she looks at photos of the people in the bar...

Out of curiosity, do those pix still exist somewhere?

 

[wareyin]

Says the guy who implied RW's claims of propopagnosia were probably made up to fit a particular narrative.

Yes, I was wrong about that. Oddly enough, when given evidence of that, I admitted so. Will you be doing the same about your various claims in this thread?

That said, on the page Squeegee Beckenhiem linked, Watson claims difficulty recognizing faces, yet scores above average on a test. Make of that what you will.

Assuming that they were present, sober, and paying close attention.

We have pictorial evidence that they were present, and Watson claims they were paying attention. As you seem to think everything she says is gospel, that should be enough for you, right? As for sober, why is Watson's testimony after drinking acceptable, yet drinking renders her friends perception and/or memory unreliable?

She isn't completely blind, you know. If he was the guy in the pink Skepchick t-shirt, then she could tell he was the same guy from the bar.

Indeed, which is why I suggested that she find the guy in the pictures from the bar, or describe whatever it was she was using to remember him to her friends who were also in the bar. Then, we would have pictorial evidence of EG, or at least one other witness. Alas, this hasn't happened.

Out of curiosity, do those pix still exist somewhere?

I linked to one earlier in the thread, so I know at least one does. If you need more, you seem familiar with Google.

 

[d4m10n]

Will you be doing the same about your various claims in this thread?

Which factual claims do you have in mind?

(I have freely admitted that the coffeemakers may be better than I'd originally supposed.)

((Though not quite as salient as the privacy and the bed.))

 

[wareyin]

Which factual claims do you have in mind?

(I have freely admitted that the coffeemakers may be better than I'd originally supposed.)

((Though not quite as salient as the privacy and the bed.))

I must have missed that admission. Your non-factual claims of "nefarious purposes" being the only reason someone would make up or embellish a story went on for quite a while, did you admit you were wrong about that?

 

[d4m10n]

I must have missed that admission. Your non-factual claims of "nefarious purposes" being the only reason someone would make up or embellish a story went on for quite a while, did you admit you were wrong about that?

Just as soon as you suggest a non-nefarious purpose which RW may have had for fabricating the cautionary tale of the awkward elevator ride from whole cloth. That seems like rather obviously ****** behavior to me, if true.

Not quite as bad as the heroics which former freethought blogger Avicenna made up for himself, but in the same neighborhood.

 

[wareyin]

Just as soon as you suggest a non-nefarious purpose which RW may have had for fabricating the cautionary tale of the awkward elevator ride from whole cloth. That seems like rather obviously ****** behavior to me, if true.

Not quite as bad as the heroics which former freethought blogger Avicenna made up for himself, but in the same neighborhood.

I already did, and you quoted it and replied. Or do you not know what nefarious means?

Eta: in case you don't, it means wicked or criminal.

 

[d4m10n]

Not just wicked, but with connotations of villainous or conspiratorial planning.

If you want to say that she made this all up for less than evil reasons, you are free to do so. I don't believe that sort of mythmaking can be motivated by anything less terrible than nihilism.

 

[wareyin]

Not just wicked, but with connotations of villainous or conspiratorial planning.

If you want to say that she made this all up for less than evil reasons, you are free to do so. I don't believe that sort of mythmaking can be motivated by anything less terrible than nihilism.

I have already argued that narcissism is a more likely reason to fabricate a story. You have also suggested that furthering ones agenda or ideology is a possible reason to fabricate a story. None of those are nefarious reasons.


Eta: Further, sometimes people just make stuff up or lie for no real reason at all.

 

[d4m10n]

I have already argued that narcissism is a more likely reason to fabricate a story.

So she perpetrated a gigantic lie out of pride, arrogance, and self-importance? Nothing wicked about that.

You have also suggested that furthering ones agenda or ideology is a possible reason to fabricate a story.

Yes. Not a moral reason, mind you.

None of those are nefarious reasons.

We disagree, once again.

 

[wareyin]

So she perpetrated a gigantic lie out of pride, arrogance, and self-importance? Nothing wicked about that.

Yes. Not a moral reason, mind you.

We disagree, once again.

We also disagree on whether it was gigantic, I see. Yes, it sparked a large debate, but only after Watson abused her position as Speaker. I doubt Watson ever expected the reaction to her story.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Three reasons I often prefer Google searches to direct links:

3. They don't go dead when the original page does.

No, they just change depending on time, the search history of the person following the link, and even the geographical location of the person following the link. As I noted above, had I linked to a google search to a quote of Watsons, rather than the actual blog I was referencing, the link that I actually wanted people to follow would have moved from ranking 2nd to ranking 7th. Is it reasonable to say that you've linked to something in any meaningful way when people have to click on 6 links before they find what it is that you're actually referencing? Seems more like a technique by which you can obfuscate what it is you're ostensibly trying to link to.

And, of course, google does link to dead pages.

For example, links directly to the original "Dear Muslima" comment from Dawkins are dead links now[...]

And this is a great example.

So, you want to talk about the content of Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" comment. I follow your link and am confronted with a list of links, rather than the content of the comment in question. So I click on the first link, which is the RationalWiki page for Elevatorgate then I CTRL-F to find the text, which I can then read. But that page doesn't cite the original source, meaning that I'm actually no better off reading the text there than I would be if I had tried to follow a dead link in your post from which you, yourself, had quoted the text.

2. They allow me to highlight the exact phrase or passage that I'm referring to on the target page, as I did in post #2733 above.

This is done more efficiently by quoting the relevant text.

1. They provide a sense of how viral some given snippet or meme has become, as in the case of "deep rifts" as a term of art at FtB, or "cobweb ****" on the Pit.

Do they? I've already mentioned that the first article on the google search for "deep rifts" that you posted doesn't actually mention Rebecca Watson. Give that that was the assertion you were trying to support, what am I supposed to do then? Follow the next link and search within that hoping for a mention of Watson? And if she's not mentioned in that link, then what? Follow every link on that page and search for mentions of Watson? Is not the point of providing a citation that what you're citing supports your assertion? How is providing a link to a google search and expecting those following the link to do the work for you in order to find the evidence that supports your assertion substantively different to simply saying "google it" when asked for evidence to support something you've said? How does it not fall foul of exactly the problems that the burden of proof was created to avoid?