edit: For more on this issue as it progressed you’ll have to move down to the comments. From about #100 or so would add the continued debacle
Ok, so we all know I have openly disagreed with a few of the things RW has said and done, most notably her attack on Dawkins following ‘elevatorgate’, and more recently her sexist OTT take on the TAM/Skeptic community et cetera. However, I feel forced to at least defend myself of one thing. Calling someone a C**t.
I don’t use the phrase, and not because it’s a gendered insult (it isn’t, at least not in the UK) but because resorting to abusive words like that mean you’ve lost the argument you’re making. I used to like her, then simply held a different point of view, and although (thanks to her actions over the past year) I now DO dislike her, but I do not ‘hate’ her and would not wish for her to be physically or verbally abused in any way.
So, imagine my surprise when I saw this tweet: (I’m blocked, obviously, as I’m a ‘misogynist’ for disagreeing with her :/ But saw this when I was directed to it)
PZ also blocked me for being part of the “Criticise Watson” brigade I suppose – But, a friend’s question about that certainly prompted an odd response from RW.
As you can see, she claims she blocked me for calling her a C**t. If she can provide evidence of this then please do. However, there isn’t any. I was blocked for disagreeing and calling her out on her lack of realism and logic (search my blog for the posts). After time, I thought it was all a bit silly, so emailed her asking to be ‘unblocked’ on twitter and let childish animosities go. The email I sent is as follows:
Yes, I was ‘harshly critical’ about her actions and behaviour, and thought she was totally out of order. But a c**t? Hardly. Not even close.
I obviously sent it to the Skepchick address, but soon got a response from Rebecca, as follows:
Sarcastic response highlighting my blogs where I disagreed and criticised her. Were they abusive? The harshest word I can see there is “ridiculous”! (Her emails also included sarcastic images, one of which included a penis bird??)
So, my attempt at a reconciliation failed. I accept that, and apologise if she felt offended, but I stand by my disagreements and criticism. As you can see from her tweet, this ‘rejection’ caused me to call her a c**t again… Er, wait, no it didn’t. This is my true response:
Pretty polite I reckon? Hardly an abusive response to her keeping me ‘blocked’. You decide.
So, there you have it. Pure lies on her part.
I still don’t wish her harm but I certainly won’t be pursuing a friendly reconciliation any time soon.
____________
EDIT/update…
Just an addendum. It seems that anyone asking RW for proof, or pointing out to PZ that she wasn’t being ‘honest’ (intentionally or mistakenly) is getting abuse and being blocked. For example: 
Sorry, PZ (is that “Patronising Zealot”?), the only ‘attention’ I wanted was to show people that the truth is different to your lovely RW’s lie. That is all.
You missed the point there, PZ guy. I find it incredible that a man so ‘renowned’ for his scientific, critical mind can display both ignorance and arrogance simultaneously.
And swearing at anyone who points out the simple fact that RW wasn’t speaking the truth. He’s gone a bit loopy, and it’s still going…
171 Comments
She might have just been mistaken?
Maybe. But it’s a very bad mistake to make when so many people read it. Plus, she remembers the conversation – just not the reality of it.
Important note:
In the emails, which are fairly old, the domains being referenced are “tonyryan.org.uk” which is my old domain name – it has been renamed, obviously, as CoffeeLovingSkeptic.com so replace the former with the latter to see what RW took objection to. I am not hiding anything at all.
In the US, we stop this nonsense by saying If you don’t apologize, I’ll sure you in England. Try it?
I’m obviously very angry about it, but I’m NOT asking people to jump all over her for it. I just want the truth to be known. If RW made an honest mistake, then no problem, but I hope she rectifies it.
I commend you on your patience and rationality. It will be interesting to see how this is handled by other parties.
It’s reassuring that this particular discussion is going to take place in the mecca of libel law enforcement.
She has about 25,000 followers. She posted to all 25,000 of them (using your real name) that you called her a ‘cunt’. She needs to post a retraction fast, in light of the evidence (or alternatively, prove that it happened).
I don’t know much about law, but I’m sure people have got into trouble for much less. I recall Marieke Hardy (I think) having to settle for something like $13,000 for naming the wrong guy on a #mencallmethings tweet. This isn’t on the same scale, but…
It’s also nice to know that, being rational as always, PZ Myers isn’t listening to anyone pointing out that it might have been a ‘mixup’ because he thinks I’m an ass.
Dislike me and my words, fine, but that doesn’t excuse Rebecca. How do these people gain such influence when they barely act like adults?
All original emails and screengrabs from twitter are being saved in case these lovely people decide to make more of an issue about it.
Just a thought. I know this is unlikely with her phenomenal skills in rational thinking, but has she possibly confused you with The Justicar http://integralmath.blogspot.co.uk or with one the blogs she mentions here? http://skepchick.org/2011/09/mom-dont-read-this/
It’s not unknown for her to be mistaken…
It is, of course, possible that RW was mistaken.
She can rectify it by deleting her tweet and clarifying I did NOT use that language to her. That’s all that’s needed.
As for PZ, he’s started becoming abusive on twitter now, so wit all the discussions/email I’ve found it necessary to save copies of everything so I can’t be misrepresented later. Sad really.
Nope, I was wrong. She knows exactly who you are. Here she is having a laugh about sending you the “penis bird”!
http://s1053.photobucket.com/albums/s478/GrafVonBek/?action=view¤t=RWCLC.png
Yep, she obviously remembers, but is choosing not to be honest about its content.
This is another one of those times that I glad nothing really ever disappears when it’s done online.
Ah! You are clearly familiar with the “historical revisions” that are rampant on “Free” Thought Blogs.
She said it, it must be true. Lol!
Of course Queen Bee is lying. The whole FfTB house of cards is built of mistruths, narrative changing, hypocrisy and lies.
That’s why they’ve been called out by large parts of the atheist/skeptic movement in the last few weeks.
PZ is rattled, because the facade has started to slip.
Exactly. They are quite the role models for young skeptics to aspire to.
Guy, I found your comments about Rebecca to be ignorant and stupid, and your whimpering about being blocked by people obnoxious and petty. You don’t get to tell other people that they must read you on twitter or the web — everyone is free to block you or not.
So, since you seem both irrelevant and annoying, you got blocked. And that’s all there is to it. It had nothing to do with this “cunt” sidetrack you’re throwing up as a distraction.
Actually, guy, the c**t word was the start of it all.
I didn’t go looking for it. Someone, thankfully, pointed out to me what she said, and that’s what this post was about.
I’m sorry that people are getting at you on Twitter for something you weren’t originally involved in, but your response to them has been nothing short of disgusting. Calling me an ass, asshole and so on, for no reason, is bad enough, but then you start telling people to (I quote) “Fuck Off” when they are polite in their questioning of the incident.
You, guy, are extremely arrogant, and to come here calling me ignorant and stupid is the irony of the day. Thank you for taking the time to comment, but all you have done is show yourself up to be the sycophantic fool that so many people have said you were. It’s such a shame for us ‘ordinary’ people to lose respect for those we once thought highly of, but in your case (and Watson’s) it’s entirely justified. You are both clearly not very nice people, and even more clearly cannot stomach even the most justified simple criticism, yet feel obliged and entitled to shout down anyone you both feel like. I hope you’re very proud of yourself.
PZ, you are way out of line and seem to have gone off the deep end today. I also feel you’re being intellectually dishonest if you are suggesting that you looked at CLS’ blog and immediately decided to block him. I have witnessed you sparring with all sorts of scum, yet we’re expected to believe this blog was too much for you to handle?
That issue aside, your attitude tonight has been nothing short of contemptible. Several people have politely pointed out to you that Rebecca Watson blatantly lied to you. Your responses to these benign tweets have been, as mentioned above, disgusting. It might not be comfortable for you to have to admit that you’re wrong, but that’s what it takes if one expects to be considered intellectually honest.
PZ –
Do you think would like it if you were a lesser-known skeptic and a leader of the movement blocked you?
If, when you asked them why, they claim (or retweet a claim) that you did a bad thing that you can prove you didn’t do?
Do you think you might be seen as ‘annoying’ when you try to hold them accountable (remember – in this situation you wouldn’t have the platform you do now)?
What do you think it looks like when you block and swear at those who nudge you towards looking at the proof?
What do you think it looks like when people know you’ve seen the proof, and yet you refuse to admit you (or Rebecca) made a mistake?
Is it really impossible for you to admit one, tiny mistake?
I have looked at your blog and learned that you were one of those clueless whiners about a woman saying, “guys, don’t do that”. On that basis, I quickly decided you were not someone I wanted to pal around with. I have blocked you and some of your friends on twitter because you are so arrogant that you think I’m obligated to read what you have to say.
I am not.
I am amazed that you are offended that I want nothing to do with you. Your continued piteous bleating is not endearing…it’s just confirming that I made the right decision in the first place.
Bye!
In regards to the “fuck off…” PZ, I *still* respect you, and Rebecca. It is because of that respect I asked for evidence from Rebecca to contrast what I read on this blog. I don’t know “The Coffee Skeptic” from Adam, but was pointed here through various tweets in the #atheist discussion and found the evidence to be credible enough to warrant taking two minutes out of my day to ask for clarification or evidence.
I included you on the tweet because, again out of respect for you (and Jamie), you were both involved in the thread, and I thought that if I had publicly backed a friend who said that some guy called her a cunt (twice), and said guy (the writer of this blog) posted screenshot evidence otherwise, I’d want to know.
You either a) don’t care about the validity of claims made about other bloggers by your friends to the point where it is an extreme annoyance to you to be included on requests to back up said claims, or b) you don’t understand how cc’ing on Twitter works.
Sincerely,
The “gob”
PZ, 3 things:
a) You are free to disagree with the fact I thought RW was OTT about the elevator incident, and totally out of line with her reaction to Dawkins response. That’s not really the issue here.
b) No one, least of all me, thinks you are obligated to read anything. However, if you choose to ignore the facts being sent your way, then be polite enough to stay out of it when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
c) I am neither offended, nor bleating. Your perception of this is skewed to say the least. Please at least demonstrate the power of self-reflection. You appear to lack this in place of your bias and arrogance.
Bye bye.
Wow – not only has the great and powerful Peezus noticed you, but he has pronounced you persona-non-grata, made sure to explain to you why you aren’t worth his time (alpha-posturing here), then flounced off. You should feel special. The only quibble is thinking PZ is some big name in the skeptical movement. He’s always been primarily about atheism, and trying to connect him to the greater skeptical movement has always been a mistake. He’s not mature enough to handle the increase in his perceived authority, and it shows in things like this.
PZ just loves this kind of stuff. Seems to be getting him off. So sad.
PZ,
What you are saying makes no sense. You are twisting yourself in knots just to avoid admitting that you made a mistake.
Actually PZ, I think you’ll find that this is about a leader of the skeptical community making apparently false allegations about a blogger to 24000 of her followers. It does not matter how “relevant” you feel that blogger to be, it is RWs obligation to either prove the allegations or apologise.
Are you really so arrogant that you feel you can simply wave your hand and dismiss Coffee Loving Skeptic based on his popularity versus that of RW? Your post only confirms comments made about your attitude throughout the web. It is you who are trying to create a distraction by attempting to draw attention away from the allegations by your statements about whether or not you blocked him. On that subject, as you admit that you blocked him for being “both irrelevant and annoying”, does that not demonstrate that you lied in your reply to @skepticCanary when you claim that you did not know you had blocked him?
Be honest to yourself about this, and stop defending your friends when they are clearly wrong. Your behaviour and that of RW is appalling.
I’ve been taken aback somewhat by PZ’s attitude. I got involved when CLS told me on Twitter that PZ had blocked him, so I asked PZ why. Initially, he said that he wasn’t aware that he had (of course he had no obligation whatsoever to tell me either way). I thought it must have been a bug on Twitter, simply because I trust both of these guys, and suggested CLS check again. CLS then posted evidence that PZ was indeed blocking him, so I informed PZ, hoping that PZ would then put it down to a Twitter blip and unblock him. Sadly this was not the case.
Then I saw that Rebecca Watson told PZ that CLS was the guy who called her a c**t twice, the whole reason for this post. Now in my book, that’s a pretty serious accusation, which judging by the evidence (remember that word?) presented here, is completely false. PZ has been wilfully ignorant of this, and that I find rather worrying. Instead of addressing the serious issue that CLS has raised, PZ somehow thinks this is about a sense of “entitlement”, that myself and CLS are unhappy that PZ has blocked us. This is clearly not so.
I for one am unhappy that a prominent skeptic thinks that he can insult someone for no reason, and can simply dismiss the idea that Rebecca Watson accused CLS of something serious that he didn’t do. PZ and Rebecca Watson are accountable for their actions, and I’m sure it would only take a simple apology to sort things out.
Erm, PZ, shovel…stop…digging.
I know you can’t help yourself, but for once, do the sensible thing.
Tom, thanks for originally bringing RW’s tweet to my attention. It was a disgusting mistruth. I say ‘mistruth’ and not necessarily a ‘lie’ as I don’t 100% know she was lying. It’s still possible that she could have mixed me up with someone else.
Either way, I never expected an apology, but I did expect her tweet to at least be deleted once she realised her error. She’s a prominent skeptic and feminist, and her followers will often believe what she says. Therefore, I would be badly tarnished by such a tweet.
Since that time, I’ve had the ongoing PZ abuse/dismissal/arrogance, and even been called a pest by Melody Hensley – This all goes to show that us ‘little people’ really can’t win.
edit: It wasn’t Tom who pointed out the original tweet, but someone else. Either way, I certainly didn’t go looking for this ‘drama’, but certainly feel as though I’m entitled to fight my corner.
Peezus, it has not escaped our notice that your reply at 21 was complete whataboutery and evasion.
Simply saying somebody is one of the anti- “guys don’t do that” crowd does not get you out of the very deep slimepit you and Rebecca are now in.
Toodles.
Guy2: you’re dishonest. You have an obsession with defending the despicable Miss Watson. You’re both proven liars, who keep the company which suits you (Laden, Christina, Zvan, Benson, Bieber).
I’m sorry this has happened, CLS! It’s another example of the bullying which supposedly isn’t happening except by people who dare to question the more powerful among us. Anyone who does that is a bully, of course. :-/
Just destroy your opponents with misrepresentations and outright lies. This is the antithesis of what skepticism is supposed to be. Very disheartening coming from self-proclaimed skeptics like Myers and Watson.
Just a reminder to skeptics everywhere; There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as we our willing to admit we are in error and apologize for our mistakes. Skepticism starts with ourselves and our own thinking.
The evidence is clear that CLS did not, in fact, call Rebecca a c***. The appropriate response to that information is to retract the claim that he has done so and apologize for having made or supported the claim that CLS did so. “I’m sorry” should be in every skeptic’s lexicon. Best as an atheist and skeptic not to come off like you are an infallible god, P.Z., because atheists and many skeptics don’t believe in gods. That means you aren’t one and we will call you on your hypocritical bullshit!
Now this?
More comments here:
https://www.facebook.com/CoffeeLovingSkeptic/posts/241505602634170?ref=notif¬if_t=share_comment
PZ has lost it even more than I thought. I’m glad this has been brought to light.
“So there! Take that!” Another day, another non-comment. How unusual for Myers to peek out from behind the protective coccoon of his Iron Curtain…
Really, he’s like a cockroach in the kitchen when you turn the light on. He knows he’s little more than a random nonsense generator and he has no hope of ever sounding rationale in environments he can’t control so he’s out of here. It’s like he has the final stages of syphilis or something. Not a well man.
Well, here are my thoughts:
http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/there-goes-my-hero-hes-ordinary.html
This… this is just astounding. Even if every allegation against you were true, CLS, that still would not call for the blocking of anyone who disagrees with Mr. Myers. Just disrespectful. If he feels, honestly, that he’s in the right here, that his logic clicks through cleanly, then he could just stay out of the fray and not comment.
I’ve posted in other places that I have no idea what this entire war (and that’s really what it is) is about, other than it seems to be the same kind of privilege/framing situation I have witnessed so, so much in academia, and I’ve watched it tear entire departments apart. These never end well. I hope, whoever proves to be the antagonists, that they move on and more rational, compassionate voices move to the fore.
This feels an awful lot like a surrealist play. I’ll just sit here and wait for Godot.
And wasn’t the point of the eucharist controversy that we were supposed to question everything, to not hold anything as sacred?
Aren’t people just asking questions? Especially those of us who cannot tell what on earth is going on with all of these people we otherwise respect?
Wow. This reads like an investigation into the hierarchy of the catholic church. Deny, deny, deny? All groups should beware ‘leaders’ who won’t be criticised and/or won’t apologise for mistakes or wrong doing. It’s pure bullying. Well done to those sticking their necks out to be honest. Hang in there.
Shocking behavior from PZ, but the guy makes a living out of shouting people down, so what do you expect? Sadly, he’s been afforded a big following, and those with a bigger platform get their views heard by more people.
PZ is generally (not about this) right about many things, but the way in which he expresses this seems designed to cause conflict, and rub people up the wrong way.
CLS, I think you’ve fallen into a bit of a similar trap. You are correct (based upon evidence I’ve seen) but you’ve expressed your correctness in a way that’s going to put people’s backs up. The title of this post is a lie, or delusional
or is it just wrong? As you’ve admitted, RW might just be mistaken or wrong. So why go in all guns blazing when a simple “hey, I think you’re wrong and here’s my evidence” will suffice?
No one is going to be respectful towards you and your views if you call them a liar or an asshole straight off the bat.
–
Joker: “why can’t we all just, get along?”
xtaldave,
If you had followed the full twitter stream, CLS did not “go in all guns blazing”. He had a private twitter account and simply found that he appeared to have been blocked by PZ. Another user (@skepticCanary) asked PZ if he had blocked CLS and a discussion began with PZ stating that he wasn’t aware that he had. This is when Rebecca Watson posted that CLS had called her a cunt in previous email communication.
When both RW and PZ were asked to clarify this, those asking questions were met with derision and abuse. So, CLS did not immediately leap to the blogmobile and start calling people liars. I don’t want to try and speak for CLS, but why shouldn’t he be allowed to speak up against 2 “leaders” of the community who have posted a lie about him? RWs tweet was posted to over 24000 of her followers. Some of those may even have been aware of CLS and his blog, despite PZs claim of his irrelevance.
It is not only the big players who should be shown respect, and last night we witnessed exactly how major voices view posting lies about the little guy. PZ does not seem to consider the issue here to be about one of his “precious little flowers” (his words), posting demonstrated falsehoods to 24000 people, but about whether or not we are “entitled” to even address such mighty personas and egos as him and RW. Apparently lowly mortals such as ourselves are not worthy of worshipping his excellency or sampling of his mighty wisdom.
I think it’s important to note that (from what I saw) it was just one tweet by @skepticCanary asking why CLS was blocked. PZ responded that he didn’t know, and I suspect that if RW hadn’t weighed in with the falsehood (lie or honest mistake) then that would have been the end of it.
This isn’t about the blocking, but about RW’s false accusation. Instead, PZ (and now, I notice, RW) are trying to make this look like one guy whining endlessly about being blocked, when that is a complete red herring. They know what this is about, and they’re pretending that it’s about something else. It’s dishonest and immoral.
And there you have it folks, PZ Is quite obviously not a reasonable person. The burden of evidence now lays with the accused to prove their innocence of a charge.
Over and above that Mr Ryan has provided said evidence! Which i reiterate he is not bound to!
Ms Watson on the other hand is quite happy to reinvent reality to cater to her drama driven victim complex. Pz facilitates this with his infantile obsession with her which is the only rational conclusion one can come to when you observe his evasion and obfuscation off her decieit. And these two people are considered leaders within the skeptic movement! It is demonstrable of how the skeptic movement is more a cult of personality than a movement commited to the principles espoused by it’s title.
Shame.
GrafVonBek
“All guns blazing” referred to the title of this post – not the twitter exchange – perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I saw it last night. I though Tom (@SkepticCanary) was great – polite, made his points clearly and concisely.
Don’t get me wrong – from what we have seen – CLS is in the right, and has been lied about by two people to a great many people — he has a justifiable grievance.
CLS absolutely should be allowed to question anyone and everyone – this is part of being a skeptic.
I don’t think that anyone, be it the big players or the little players, can claim to be particularly good skeptics if they refuse legitimate and polite requests for clarification over a point of evidence, or refuse to answer legitimate questions.
xtaldave
Cool beans, sorry If I came over as a bit defensive!
GVB – No probs – I think we’re on the same page
You want the truth to be known? Well, don’t involve PZ or Watson in the discussion. =P
It saddens me that things have devolved to this kind of childishness, especially from someone I at least used to have a molecule of respect for (I’m talking about PZ; I never really had any respect for Watson, I always found her to be self-important and far more concerned with positioning herself as the soi-disant voice of women in the skeptic community than actually addressing the issues faced by women within the skeptic community – in some ways I wonder whether she’s made things a hell of lot worse by her attention-seeking, hypocrisy, and narcissistic ego-masturbation).
It’s disheartening that those of us with less than a 1/10th the followers and barely 1/1000th the recognition that PZ and RW enjoy are being made to feel like we need to shut up and let our accidental (or even self-appointed) “leaders” set the agenda, even if that involves slandering one of us in the process. This whole stupid farce would be over in a heartbeat if RW had the decency to present her evidence for the two occasions she claimed Tony called her a c**t. Surely there could be nothing easier? Unless, of course, no such evidence exists, because no such name-calling actually took place.
And so it seems we’re now at a point where two prominent figures in the community are going balls-out on avoiding ever having to admit being wrong, even going so far as to indiscriminantly wielding the ban-hammer on Twitter so they can pro-actively reduce the likelihood that they’d ever find themselves in that uncomfortable position. What’s even more pitiful is that with every tweet, email, or comment that doesn’t involve some version of the phrase, “Actually, you have a point – it turns out I was wrong! Sorry about that!” they serve only to dig themselves deeper, at least in the eyes of a community that once saw them as something other than arrogant, self-serving participants in a circle-jerk who seemingly consider the rest of us beneath them …
PZ and RW: it must surely occur to you that you both hold positions within the community that come with many important responsibilities, none more so than the responsibility to be honest with those who look to you as standard-bearers? It seems as if your increased exposure and prominence over the years has caused you to imagine that you’re somehow protected from criticism by this imaginary wall you’ve built from the trust and goodwill of your legions of followers. Shame on you both …
Tony: I think, whether you want to pursue it or not, you should keep making (polite) demands for the evidence on this one. RW has made a statement about you that many would consider highly actionable … best of luck, mate.
I did, Kris. Today, I asked RW:
http://twitpic.com/a12nz8
You’re a moron.
It is her twitter. She gets to decide who follows her. End of.
If the accusation of calling Rebecca a cunt hurt your feelings, I’m sure we can sympathise.
However, this blog reads like you jumping up and down going ‘look – proof they don’t know what they’re talking about! Now we can ignore everything they say!’
In which case sir, you are a cunt.
Wow Iszi, where do I start? With the hypocrisy? The vulgarity? Or the plain untruths?
Why do you think the skepchick/PZ crowd is being treated like a house of cards? Rebecca Watson alleged that CLS used a gendered insult against her. He did not. If he gets a reputation as a misogynist because of Watson’s tweet, that will be a huge injustice. Are you OK with that?
Rebecca Watson said something wrong that can be very damaging to CLS. He is quite rightly seeking an apology, nothing more.
This iszi person needs a hug, perhaps then they’ll stop embarrassing themselves with hilarious public displays of irony.
Iszi is blatantly of the rw/pz church of skepty, you know the revisionist type that gets their cool skepty information from the cool skepty people. You get a skepty badge and get to put skeptic chick/hottie/emo/girliegirl/radalicious as your blog title.
Anyone that questions the cool skepty leaders is an enemy of truth and light and must be stopped.
Like I said, it appears he didn’t call her a cunt. Therefore, as I stated, I can sympathise if his feeling are hurt.
However, have you read what he thinks about the whole issue? Look at the stuff Rebecca is citing in her response to him.
He didn’t call her a cunt but he did call her irrational, ridiculous, and a liar/exaggerator who can’t tell the difference between consenting flirtation and harassment. What is also classy is that he made light of the elevator situation which not only actually happened to her, but then when she dared to speak about it, exploded her life and caused her (and others like me when I defended her) to get multiple rape and death threats.
I’m not suggesting these rape or death threats came from him, but he obviously lacks the humanity to understand why people might have an extremely reasonable grievance with the community as it stands.
Yes, she shouldn’t have said on twitter that she blocked him for calling her a cunt. But Christ, she gave a damn good reason why she did block him. Perhaps read that and get off your high horse.
Fun fact: I’ve called Rebecca a cunt before now, to her face and she hasn’t blocked me. Funny that.
Good. Can we assume an explanation for her lying to 24000 followers about her reasons for blocking him is on its way then?
I don’t give a monkey’s about being blocked (by RW or PZ) and I understand why she doesn’t like me. We vehemently disagree about her reaction to Dawkins Elevator comments, hence why I don’t like her.
However, the lie she said, and the perpetuation of it, does bother me, and I simply wanted it retracted. Abusing her, PZ, or Iszi doesn’t help, so I’m not going to, but I also don’t think the abuse from Iszi or PZ is justified either.
I wish I hadn’t wasted my time and money seeing Iszi recently if I knew she was this sort of person. Nevertheless, she’s entitled to her opinion.
I’m being accused of all sorts today. Attention seeking, obsession, aggression, abusive language, and so on… None of which there is really any evidence for. If you disagree with me, then that’s totally cool, but at least look at ALL the facts before jumping in with disgusting language.
LOL at Tony and Tom’s affected state of high dudgeon. I’ve gone off PZ lately, but he’s right about one thing: this bleating is pathetic.
I don’t care why RW blocked him. Or why PZ did. They can call him whatever they want, too. For all that, they owe no explanation. And I believe RW probably mistook CLS for someone else who did use the gendered noun in reference to her. CLS may have very well said some rude things to her. But the second she got specific–especially since she’s devoted posts to the use of the c-word–she should have been prepared to back that up. Once presented with the evidence he didn’t use that word, why would it have been so hard to say, “I’m sorry, you didn’t call me that. You were rude and (yadda, yadda, yadda) but you at least didn’t use that offending word.” That would’ve solved this mess right there. Mistakes happen. I believe RW didn’t intend to defame CLS, but, intent or not, the result is the same: RW’s followers believe something about CLS that is not true.
Which brings me to PZ. I totally get that he took RW’s word at face value. I even have no problem with him retweeting it based on that trust. But again, once it was challenged, he should have asked for evidence and apologized for exacerbating the libel, even though he did so in good faith. But that’s not what he did. He started name-calling, suggesting CLS was only in this for the attention, and blatantly ignoring the issue “Also, you haven’t shown that she lied. Do you guys even understand logic & evidence?” How is this consistent with his reasoning about anything else? Person A makes a claim (“God exists” or “He called me a c—t”). Person B says nothing in the available evidence supports your claim. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PERSON MAKING THE INITIAL CLAIM! Hmm, where have I heard that before?…
So call it “bleating” if you must, Simon. If a person with 24,000+ followers, many of whom you derive a sense of community from, claims they heard you say something you didn’t (and provide no evidence for said claim) and then another person with over 75,000 more followers repeats your claim as “evidence” I’m guessing you’d probably be more than a little annoyed.
Look, CLS may very well be a jerk. I’m not defending him or his character. If PZ and RW did the same thing to Casey Luskin or Bill Donahoe, I’d still call it wrong, even though I’d happily block both Casey and Bill and frequently call them names. Don’t apologize for not liking CLS or blocking him. I don’t care why. You’re entitled to it. If you really think he’s a jerk, you should have plenty of legitimate examples to demonstrate that. But perpetuating a mistruth (which I still believe it was, until it was defended without evidence, at which point it became a lie) does in fact damage your credibility.
/rant
I must say, I do sympathise with your obvious frustration.
What I find most ironic is that you still cannot sympathise with Rebecca who has had this overwhelming mound of shit poured on her by people who take the opposing view. Life threatening shit in her case. Even her heroes like Dawkins told her to shut up.
I think many skeptics naturally want to take a contrarian position when members of the community make statements. I think this is dangerous as we are talking about ethics and politeness, not science. Gathering evidence of feeling threatened or harassed, I’m sure you would agree, is not easy. It is a ‘he said she said’.
Which is why we have harassment policies. And why people should not be attacked for talking about problems they’ve encountered. Which, from what I’ve read, is what you did. You took the hard line on an issue where someone’s feelings were the main evidence. It is therefore easy to see why you might have hurt those feelings enough for them to block you.
Which is why I doubt Rebecca will apologise for the apparent false accusation. You didn’t call her a cunt but while the world was against her, and from her perspective (and mine) all she had done was report on what had happened, you didn’t a) support her or b) ignore her. You ‘attacked’ her.
This wasn’t about an abstract bit of science, this is her life. She has had more shit thrown at her than you can imagine. All she did was report the facts as she saw/felt them and the people she thought were on her side declared war on her. You could have simply gone ‘cool, we’ll make sure harassment policies are in place at events and they are followed through’ and ‘I see your point. Sounds bad. Let’s move on.’
Being personally attacked for reporting facts is tough. As you know from the current situation you are in. I get why you might feel genuinely hurt, and once again, I sympathise with that.
But I doubt you will get an apology as I doubt you will apologise to Rebecca for opposing her when she most needed support. This is about emotion not logic.
And finally:
Dude, if you’ve seen me live you know I call everyone a cunt. Also you know that I’m a massive feminist with clanging ovaries of steel. But honestly, if you feel bad I called you a cunt, I retract it and I’m sorry.
Iszi, thank you for your response.
I agree with a lot of what you say. At a time when RW was feeling at a low ebb (elevatorgate) I was one of the people critical of her. But, I was critical of her actions, and not her as a person. This is because my interpretations, opinions, and knowledge of the incident will naturally skew my thoughts in one direction or the other. I don’t apologise for disagreeing with her, but I certainly want to be clear that I have not ‘abused’ her like so many horibble people have done over email/twitter etc…
Yes, you are quite funny as a stand up, and that’s why I went out of my way to see you. We probably agree about 90% of things, and in my ‘real life’ I deal with vulnerable women and spend my time helping them. That’s not to say I am perfect, as I can’t understand what it must be like to BE them.
I wish I hadn’t reacted to RW’s tweet, as it’s caused me more stress, abuse, self-doubt than ever, but now that I have I feel obligated to stress a simple point. That she said something untrue, and hasn’t even deleted it. I don’t want an apology. I don’t expect any public acknowledgment by RW, but I don’t want to be labelled as someone who uses that language against women, especially in the context of her as a feminist activist, as it takes on an even more sinister tone. Use the word to your friends, no problem, it’s all about context.
Tim, I agree – of course I’d be annoyed about that and I do sympathise on that point. The bleating I refer to is the whining about getting blocked and the whining about being sworn at on the internet.
“Dude, if you’ve seen me live you know I call everyone a cunt. Also you know that I’m a massive feminist with clanging ovaries of steel. But honestly, if you feel bad I called you a cunt, I retract it and I’m sorry.”
Awesome. And that’s not sarcasm. Apologies like that go a long way.
“Tim, I agree – of course I’d be annoyed about that and I do sympathise on that point. The bleating I refer to is the whining about getting blocked and the whining about being sworn at on the internet.”
Fair enough. Personally, I did not feel CLS was bleating about either of those. It was someone else who pestered PZ about the blocking, not CLS. And then PZ went on a blocking spree when people started asking legitimate questions (“Can you prove he said that?” and not “Why did you block him/swear at him?”). But, sure, there’s enough of the latter going on with others.
Yeah, I abuse everybody that doesn’t support me …
The simple fact is she should not have said CLS said something if he didn’t. RW should retract or apologise. Whilst her past experiences can be used to explain behaviour or attitudes they should not be used to excuse it.
“The bleating I refer to is the whining about getting blocked and the whining about being sworn at on the internet.”
Simon, that isn’t the point. Initially I was interested to know why PZ blocked CLS. He didn’t have to reply, I was just interested. It might have been a Twitter blip.
Also the problem with the c word is that it has an almost completely different meaning in the states compared to the UK. In the states some would consider calling a woman a c**t almost as bad as calling a black person the n word, whereas in the UK it’s practically a term of endearment. Would you want that sort of reputation when it’s not justified?
It’s not fun being lied about is it Tony?
You write a whole blog over this really silly thing because it was a lie and yet I have been hammered and you have not said one word against the flagrant abuse, lies, defamation, libel and outright craziness that has been going on with those two kooks Barbara Evans and Kimberly Glasnapp on your blog.
Thank you for allowing me to keep a record for the law suit I plan on filing against the two cunts.
But as far as this Rebecca cunt is concerned . . . who cares? She is not worth the time you spent writing this blog.
Iszi,
So, you feel CLS should apologise for hurting RWs feelings in order to get an apology for her publishing a blatant lie about him? Differing opinions or attacks on a point of view are totally separate from publishing potentially harmful statements about someone.
True, the attacks and abuse RW suffers for her work are not acceptable, but this does not provide any justification for the fact that what she said concerning the emails was untrue. Anyone with any moral and intellectual courage should be able to admit to making a mistake. This failure by both PZ and RW to even address it or acknowledge the contrary evidence presented is shameful.
And no, I do not accept that you seem to feel you have the right to restrict anyone’s right to argue a differing opinion (provided, of course, they are not simply making shit up).
Am I the only one who notices the profound irony that since the Skepchick Girlyban Invasion, Free Thought Blogs has gone on a banning spree the likes of which would make Ken Ham proud? That single misguided action undermines ANY worthless bit of Girlyban propaganda they throw in our direction since it totally undermines the idea of free speech altogether.
I got a blog. I screen everything and block nearly nothing. Certainly not the vulgar stuff meant to put a “butt hurt” on me. That stuff is priceless historical artifact. I don’t waste time on PZ anymore because of his stance. Here’s a guy willing to desecrate a holy communion wafer (not that I care, but there are plenty who do) and take the heat for it, but he can’t stand the exposure to reason all the logical inconsistencies being churned out by the gasbagging Girlyban? I think they got his picture next to the word pussy whipped in the dictionary, and I don’t give two tugs on a dead dog’s cock whether you quote me on that, or block me for saying it.
Enjoy.
So, PZ blogs about me but blocks me from commenting. How very liberal.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/27/the-latest-drama-comic-opera/
He is either wilfully ignorant, or genuinely obtuse, if he thinks this is really about him blocking anyone. It really isn’t and anyone who reads the comments here can see why.
He’s misrepresenting the issue intentionally, because when taken objectively he has made himself look awful once again. No need to sling any abuse his way. He’s capable of undermining his own limited credibility all on his own.
His sycophants are amusing as they believe every disingenuous phrase he utters.
Christ, read the comments over there! They’re all saying things like “I can’t believe he’s getting so uptight at you blocking him! You can block who you want!”
Flipping between PZ’s blog post and here, it’s two different conversation on two different incidents. Is this what happens when a community of (relatively) skilled rhetoricians knows so much about framing a debate?
This is all incredibly nuts.
You know what would stop all of this? Everyone blocking everyone else.
It’s all about control. All of this.
I say that knowing very little about all of these original incidents. My only observation, from someone who is new to all of this, is that I feel safer commenting over here than over there. For what that’s worth.
I’m a troll.
Hypocrisy: exposed!
My you are a cowardly hypocritic piece of shit, aren’t you, coffee septic?
Oranje – don’t believe the rhetoric on either side. All the evidence is public – so I’d say make your own mind up!
CLS: As far as I can tell, this is the only post you’ve written that has received any attention whatsoever. You should probably send PZ and RW a fruit-basket to convey your gratitude.
RW claims you called her a ****, you point out she didn’t, she says “I apologize, you didn’t, PS I still have a problem with you for X, Y and Z reasons”.
I don’t see any unresolved issues here.
The PZ side appears to be:
PZ blocks you, someone asks why on your behalf, PZ looks into it and finds valid reasons to block you (since calling RW a **** wasn’t true). So again, what’s wrong here? You seem to be fixating on a perceived technicality, not on the actual conversation (which is long since over).
Classy. Very classy.
Robert, where did she apologise? I must have missed it.
Robert,
“she says “I apologize, you didn’t” – Have I missed something here? Where is the apology?
Here’s i’ll save ya the trouble:
I’m a troll.
Because i’m not a sycophantic arse kissing misogynistic fuckwit like your allies who crawled out of the ooze. I’ve never been happier to be a troll!
Oh I see, she acknowledged she didn’t. She did not apologize.
Now I have fallen into the same trap! Oh noes. I made an honest mistake and am hereby acknowledging it.
Is that enough or must I too apologize?
Sense of entitlement, engage!
Robert, her tweet is still there, she was telling someone else that HE was thinking of a different person.
Keep digging that hole…
… or you know, move on…
So we’re skeptics, but we aren’t allowed to ask for EVIDENCE?
We learn over and over and teach people that memory is often wrong, and that “Well I say a Big Foot, so you should just believe me. I’m a nice person, with a good job and all these people can vouch for what a truthful person I am. I have no reason to lie. Why are you asking me for evidence?” is not PROOF.
It’s not asking that much for a person making a horrible accusation against someone to provide PROOF, especially when they HAVE IT!. She has the “proof” she was called that name. She can post it in a minute.
No, if you are not 100% supportive, you are accused of being bad for asking for simple proof. Unquestioning acceptance is all that is allowed.
I truly believe her first point about the elevator guy. Please, don’t do that, to anyone. (Where I disagree with her was her “especially when I have just been giving a talk about women being treated with respect”. No Rebecca, never should any man do that to any woman…it’s equally wrong in any situation. A woman that is making her living by selling sex will approach you first in an elevator guys…otherwise, not a good place).
But to go around accusing people of stuff right and left, without proof, I’m sorry as a skeptic I believe there is no “exception” for the most basic of critical thinking lessons we are trying to teach others. Easily available proof, put it up and I will be first in line to tell the guy he is an asshole and ask that he be banned from any skeptic/humanist/ atheist conferences. Seriously, I will demand he be not allowed to attend as calling a woman the c-word in an email or online is wrong. I don’t want that man at any conference I will be attending. I swear, if she produces the PROOF, I will follow through by emailing and blogging and even letter writing to the 3 conferences I am signed up to attend this year. I will also report the guy to security if he does attend as a “person of interest”.
She has every reason to prove she was called this because she should not put up with it. Only by keeping “quiet” about it and not giving proof, is she being a victim. Blocking someone is protecting her, but really, why not provide the proof?
I’m not sure why anyone is surprised by PZ’s behavior here. I’ve followed his blog for years and this is pretty standard behavior for him. His blog is a collective of juvenile groupthinkers who seem to get off reading their own opinions. I gave his website a chance for several months after I first heard his name (off Richard Dawkins site). But I quickly learned that it was not a venue for rational civilized people. If he and his fans represent a large percentage of atheist/skeptics then we will always be a fringe group.
Robert, PZ is very much mistaken. RW did not retract. Her comment is still there, and the ‘mixup’ of identities is by one of her followers talking about someone else. It’s not difficult to comprehend.
eh, sue her…then she will do this little thing skeptics do called “fact checking”. Also report her to twitter. (you can).
Your very own post contains an e-mail from her indicating it was a mistake.
Case closed. Game over. Issue resolved.
Until entitlement kicked in.
I’d like to point out that most of the attacks (though far from all) Watson suffers on the internet are not about her telling guys not to “do that,” which, in context, is not all she did. Rather, she chose to publicly humiliate someone, who may or may not even exist, with various inconsistent stories, lies, and accusations of misogyny. Then she publicized the incident in every way, attacked everyone who disagreed with her, and bragged about the additional publicity on Twitter. Gross, right? So this is not about her feelings of “discomfort,” it’s about her actions — like, for instance, using her blog as a tabloid to perpetuate libel and misinformation about others. Like speaking off-topic at atheist conferences. Like making light of death threats against her co-panelist (Dawkins), while ascribing tremendous importance to similar attacks against herself. Like misrepresenting women in the skeptic community as histrionic and illogical “fragile flowers.” Like attacking a fellow female atheist during her keynote speech with accusations or rape-enabling and “parroting misogynist thought.” And those are just a few examples in a career based entirely on hypocrisy and incompetence. You can’t become important in a movement that has little to do with sexuality by using your sex appeal and objectifying other women, then blame people for noticing that you’re a woman with sexual characteristics. Or, wait… I guess you can; because that’s exactly what Watson has done.
Further, what happened to Watson in the elevator may have been bad social judgment on the hypothetical man’s part; but it wasn’t anywhere near legal harassment or assault. As such, there is no policy that can be put into place to prevent similar conduct. If Watson wanted to tell men that they can’t approach *her* with coffee invites in elevators, she had every prerogative to do that, and should have done so, without pointing to some vague anonymous individual (that she can’t identify because of face-blindness!?) in the process. However, she can’t speak for other women — like me — who don’t feel the same way. I’m far more scared of PZ, Laden, and the lot of them, than I am of men who might be slightly socially clumsy, because these self-proclaimed skeptics and “feminists” have actually used this tempest in a tea pot to attempt to destroy the lives of professional women who dared to disagree publicly. This is ironic, as having more professional women in the skeptic movement would be a good thing, and would serve to dispel some of the stereotypes about women in general.
BTW, while what the elevator man did to Watson is neither harassment nor assault, what she did to the author of this blog is defamation (and one of many such examples in her “body of work”). All the evidence is here; and by not offering a retraction, her mistake has become a lie.
In sum, aside from the defamation which has occurred here, there is a problem when in order to be a “skeptic,” you have to leave your critical thinking abilities and skepticism at the door. There is no real threat of rape when you’re going up one floor in an elevator in a crowded, upscale hotel; there is only a perceived threat. You can’t blame people for pointing that out. Further, whatever “EG” said inside the elevator did not increase or decrease the chances of Watson’s rape, and since it’s neither obviously sexual nor harassing, it’s completely irrelevant. Given that EG had mere seconds to accomplish the rape, if he were to attack, one would think he’d remain silent and use his time more effectively.
Sorry for going off-track, but it’s important to remember why people were angry with Rebecca in the first place, and it had little to do with her legitimate complaints about rape threats, death threats, abusive name-calling, and the like. I don’t support any of that, but I have noted that the “feminists” do as much of it as the “misogynists.” If I can’t question Watson’s behavior without receiving abuse myself, then she’s no leader (and, for the same reasons, neither is PZ), and this is not a club I want to belong to.
So to answer the original question, no, Watson is not delusional; she is a calculating liar attempting to further her career by creating division and controversy. Sexism, harassment, discrimination, violence, and rape are extremely serious problems, which she is not addressing in an effective manner. Her actions are irresponsible and counterproductive. And that’s no joke.
Robert – Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but the issue seems to be that Ms. Watson claims she was called a derogatory word – something highly inflammatory within the context of the harassment issues others have documented – and the individual alleged to have used this word (twice) has defended himself, documenting evidence that he did not use such language.
Given the charged nature of the conversation, that is a serious claim, and something that should not just be brushed off. This is his reputation we’re talking about here, within a community that takes such charges seriously.
Defending himself against these charges does not seem to be a matter of entitlement. It seems to be attempting to clear his name within this charged atmosphere. This is irrespective of his other opinions, which speak to a certain understanding of harassment and feminism. Disagree with him on this, but do not muddy his name disingenuously.
Unless, of course, Ms. Watson can provide proof. By all means, I hope she does so. This conversation is already twisting into a matter of who is blocking whom, rather than the original charge of name-calling to which Mr. Ryan is objecting.
What have I misunderstood?
In a link in a comment somewhere above, is a screenshot of her saying (about being called the name?) that she thinks it was another guy, but that she had sent you an ASCII picture of a penis bird (paraphrased so that I don’t have to find the link – there are lots of comments here).
Um, WTF? If someone had sent HER a penis drawing, she’d be screaming sexual harassment so loud we wouldn’t need the internet to hear her! Yet, she sends sexually harassing things to men she doesn’t like. The hypocrisy is just astounding.
WAAAAHHHH!!! PeeZus won’t obey me!! Watson won’t shut up cuz i want her too! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! The world doesn’t revolve around me!!!! I’m not the center of the universe that I think i am because I’m a whiny, clueless white dude! WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
LOL awesomely pathetic.
Oranje: For one your third paragraph says “unless she provides proof” that would be rather difficult since SHE HERSELF has indicated he did not use that word against her
I have trouble reading your comment as honest since it replies to me but either willfully or recklessly disregards what I said.
You focus on the seriousness of the claim and the charged atmosphere, as do many others in these comments, while ignoring what actually happened – RW says “wasn’t him” and moves on. PZ says “there are other reasons to block this guy” and moves on. Now what? Why is this whole post and discussion here? Because, just as I often do, CLS feels a need to have this addressed. This need was nto satisfied by HOW it has been addressed so it ends up being framed as not having been addressed. This is a symptom of entitlement or privilege. It’s difficult to drop an issue that has been dealt with when you feel like it should be dealt with differently.
I think Phili @92 is correct – if this is so bad, take action. I feel it’s not and I advocate not digging the “but I’m a nice guy and entitled to have this handled the way I expect to have it handled” hole. But that’s just me.
I hope you won’t get defensive over my opening comment, if you do you’ll be falling into the same trap that leads to this type of stuff. CLS just needs to move on.
As for her email, Robert, it was a response to Mr. Ryan’s question as to whether or not it was an error that he was blocked from Ms. Watson’s Twitter account. She seemed to sarcastically agree that it was a mistake, while following in the postscript that she was, in fact, not being serious in acknowledging his being correct.
That non-apology has nothing to do with the Twitter post stating that Mr. Ryan called her a derogatory word. I really do not see how I can read her email as an acknowledgment that he did not say what he said. That, and the fact that the Twitter post has been reported as not being deleted, seems to contradict your perception of events.
Robert, as mentioned (twice), RW has NOT said anything of the sort. She says I called her a c**t, her follower asked if I was X, but she says no, that was someone else. I am the one she sent the ASCII penis bird to.
So, she clearly remembers the conversation WE had, and who I am. She clearly states I called her a c**t. She is correcting someone else for misidentifying me. She did not retract/correct herself.
If you want the penis bird picture I can post it, but I didn’t see it as too relevant until now. It does, however, show her level of intellect and maturity.
Bruce: Really? Is that you sum total of input on this? Well done. Your parents must be proud.
Robert – I thank you for your response. Not defensive, but as I’m trying to reconstruct this narrative, I don’t see where she is claiming that he did not, in fact, use this. Is this evidence not included above? Again, I have no dog in this fight other than I, for the life of me, cannot put this narrative together in a sensible way. I use the term honestly because I mean it, and I honestly appreciate your help in attempting me to understand this.
“RW says “wasn’t him” and moves on.”
Except that’s not what happened. Rebecca’s comment “I think it was another guy” is in response to this tweet: https://twitter.com/jamiekilstein/status/217690716548251648
She was responding to Jamie’s question if the guy in question (CLS) is the same one that he (Jamie) got into it with. She was not saying her accusation CLS called her the c-word twice should have been attributed to another person.
Scented Nectar – yes, the email she refers to (where I’ve shown I didn’t call her a c**t) is the one she responded to and included the penisbird!
I wasn’t offended by it, just thought it was typically childish, but here it is:
Oranje: That’s not how I read the postscript. I see no retraction of the acknowledgment in the e-mail. I see a “however, you’re still an idiot” message in her postscript.
As for non-apology, she has no obligation to apologize, nor to delete the twitter post as far as I can tell.
In the end it’s all a crusade about one person with privilege feeling that things should be dealt with on his terms.
If you had sent her something with female genitalia, much less genitalia with an animal gripping it, she’d have flipped a lid. But it’s ok for her to send penis birds to men she’s mad at. I guess it’s always ok if it’s only a man who is the recipient.
This reminds me of how she whined in a speech about getting threatening email, and in the same speech laughed about how she used Dawkins reading his hate mail as her ringtone.
Privilege? Really. That’s straight from RW Quotebook.
What privilege, exactly? The privilege of having a much wider audience to complain to? Oh wait…
She only seems to operate in extremes. Things are either ‘really cool and funny’ to her or ‘really offensive and life threatening’. Balance and objectivity don’t really exist.
Robert – Thank you again for your reply. I’m imagining we’ll disagree on details here, but I do see what you’re saying.
I don’t think Ms. Watson, with as powerful of a voice as she has, should have made the initial claim about Mr. Ryan’s language use. I think there is plenty of material w/r/t Mr. Ryan’s statements on Ms. Watson for her to block him and claim he is sexist, etc. I don’t think this is a situation where a love-in is going to break out.
All I can surmise is that Mr. Ryan does not want to be known to a significant audience of feminist skeptics to be using a sexist derogatory term. If I were Ms. Watson or someone who shares her point of view, though, I would consider there to be plenty to directly reference from Mr. Ryan to point to and claim sexism.
That’s why the claim of name-calling has me so confused.
Robert, you are aware that the emails are months old, and her twitter post is AFTER those? She corrects her follower for confusing me with someone he defended her against previously, and points out EXPLICITLY that I’m someone else. It doesn’t really get much clearer. Most objective people can see this obvious fact. You may be wearing skepchick blinkers.
That “penisbird” sums up Queen Bee in a nutshell.
I notice Sally Strangeways and PZ are pairing up to muddy the waters – stating that Queen Bee had already responded with that tweet about the penisbird, and how it was aimed at the wrong person, blah blah.
It is not entirely clear what Queen Bee was saying, and there is no admission that she got it wrong/lied about it.
I wouldn’t worry about not been able to join the circle jerk on the Baboon board. The fact that PZ has written about it, and his adoring baboon troops arse-sniffing him up, tells you everything you need to know – PZ knows he screwed up, he knows Watson lied, and he knows that we are right. The supportive comments from his baboons are “religious” style comfort pills to ease the cognitive dissonance.
Haha. I love the absurdity of Itzi [as a skeptic, I'm still waiting for evidence of her being funny] using the ‘British’ cunt against the blog owner, for complaining about RW lying that he used a pair of ‘American’ cunts against her, when RW has been using “I’ve been called a cunt” as a showstopping trump-card of victimhood against Grothe and countless others for the last eon. What bizarre, self-obsessed make it up as you go along world are these people living in?
At least Itzi has proved a point: that the “C-word” isn’t necessarily misogynist. Can someone tell that priviliged old white cunt Benson[British usage]?
Oh, I believe the FTBullies refer to that as a “notpology”.
Oranje, I’m confused as to what overt/covert sexism you’re referring to.
If you point out what I’ve done that is sexist, rather than simply disagreeing with a particular female’s point of view, perhaps I can address it.
You can email me, if you prefer, as it won’t derail this thread. Or, if you prefer, comment on the blogpost(s) in question and it will remain public.
CLS – I’m dealing in other people’s point of view here, not in what I believe. I know that’s a stretch, but I am an academic in the humanities, so I do have some firsthand experience with this general discussion. The idea that one female’s experiences are not being valued within the context of safety and equality is a serious charge in the feminist circles I have been around. In a community of skeptics, the training generally goes along the lines of demanding more evidence than one person’s claims. This, to me, seems to be the core of the issue regarding whatever this elevator situation is.
Let me make clear that I am not calling you sexist, nor do I think you’re sexist. From a feminist perspective, though, some of your statements will be seen in that light, and you will be dismissed for it. I am imagining a good portion of Ms. Watson’s followers would fall into the category of those dismissing you, and so I would think using the words you’ve actually said to make claims about you would make more sense, rather than making what, from my eyes, seem to be false claims about language you have used.
I do not envy the position you are in. Nor do I understand it.
Oranje says:
This.
This is not a feminist organization. This is a community that’s supposed to focus on critical thought. As such, nothing should be sacred or free from inquiry. That *is* the major premise of skepticism. (The major premise of atheism is the lack of belief/disbelief in god.) If someone — male, female, pink, purple, gay, straight, trans, cis — can’t accept these premises, they should go play elsewhere. Actual issues of harassment, assault, and/or discrimination should be addressed properly, through appropriate disciplinary actions or by contacting the authorities. Instead, what’s happening is that everyone who disagrees with one extremist school of feminist thought is being labeled a misogynist (or gender traitor/sister shamer), in a community where what the elevator incident should have been a non-issue simply based on the way the community defines itself.
Also, the personal attack blog posts need to end, and I’m not talking about ones written in self-defense, like this one. Especially personal attacks against non-public figures. The other major premise of skepticism? Engage the argument, not the person.
A Gentle Lady – To follow up on my comment, I think the skeptical community is one that prefers to deal in quantitative data, while the areas currently causing conflict are largely qualitative. One group seems to want evidence for the claims being made, while the other seems to pointing to a collective narrative history as an obvious source for evidence. I think this is where Justin got into trouble suggesting people were talking past each other, but this might be the area where that is happening.
I think, from reading Pharyngula, that Oranje now knows first hand what PZ’s sycophants are like when you try to reason with them. I hope I can at least offer an open ear to talk into.
Thank you, CLS. I was hoping to get their point of view, trying to be the good skeptic and considering all information. And I don’t think asking for civility is out of line, but perhaps I’ve misjudged. I freely acknowledge that I am privileged, and I do whatever I can to walk in everyone else’s shoes, to borrow the image from To Kill a Mockingbird.
I suppose that feeling isn’t universal. They certainly do have passion for their arguments over there. I hope they find the social justice they feel is lacking.
Oranje: I think you’re right. But considering the abuse I’ve gotten for simply making comments such as the ones above — including being called a bitch and a whore — it’s hard for me to take this school of feminist thought seriously, even though I believe in equality, affirmative action if necessary, and can’t stand name-calling, gendered or otherwise. I’m now posting under a silly ‘nym because of receiving real life threats that could easily be carried out, disclosure of my home address, and similar bullying and abuse.
While RW is cheerily sending people the penis bird.
More, more, more . . . how do you like it, how do you like it?
My spirit guides are singing the above because we all find it so amusing that you Coffeelovingskeptic hypocrite are so upset over such a tiny little fib but you have no problem being friends with Kimberly Glasnapp and Barbara Evans and allowing them to lie and lie and lie about me and you totally sided with them and remember you and Kris King are the ones that went over to her blog and told her to come here and bash me. And now you are up in arms over someone claiming you called them a cunt. Kimberly claimed I took a dying vet for his life savings . . . and that is one of a hundred lies . . . but as you said, “You’re not a victim Bea”
Look in the mirror Tony. You’re not a victim either . . . you are a shit stirrer of the highest order though
And that these men and women of “reason” are jumping on board and making a case of it shows how human we all are and that skeptics are no better than anyone but they are very good at insulting people.
They do love to sing in heaven . . .
Bea — this thread isn’t about you, or me, for that matter. It’s about two public figures of slight prominence, who lie consistently, and who are getting an ever-growing and conforming following based on those lies. This public spectacle, in turn, harms everyone who associates themselves with the terms “atheist,” “freethinker,” and/or “skeptic,” themselves included — not that these were much-loved groups in the first place.
“It’s about two public figures of slight prominence, who lie consistently.”
That’s how elections are won . . . nothing new there. The more prominent the person, the bigger the liar.
Welcome to Planet Earth . . . Where there is no rhyme and no reason . . .
Tony, if you stand for injustice . . then you have to do it across the board . . . not just when it’s about you.
Read PZ’s latest response. I don’t think “warding off assholes” is the only reason he’d like to wear a pendant with Rebecca’s face on it.
But what got me is what has been pointed out here already. PZ claiming that she redacted her statement, when she did nothing of the sort. Either he misread those tweets or is flat out misinterpreting them on purpose. Given his recent behavior, I’m inclined to believe that latter.
Her smokescreen against her blatant lies, misrepesentations and utter vile egocentricity continues.
She specifically talks about our email conversation where she states I “called her a cunt, begged her to unblock me, then called her a cunt when refused”. She remembers the email specifically because she remembers the penis picture she sent as part of it. This was a complete lie, as I’ve shown.
In a blog I said the term feminaziism a year ago. Is feminaziism an appropriate term? No, it’s ridiculous, but I’m not deleting it a year later as it’s in the past so I can’t change what I said. However, she blatantly lied. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I happily hold my hands up and admit my mistake. It’s there for all to see. I’m not proud of it. The difference here is, I haven’t lied about anything, anyone, or been too arrogant to admit it.
RW has acknowledged that you didn’t call her a “cunt”, though she doesn’t reference you by name in doing so. Then again, she didn’t name you in her original tweet either.
I figure I’ll save everyone some trouble, you can see at least once instance of “feminazi[ism]” at http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=582. (We’re not going to quibble of the [ism] part, are we?)
No, no quibbles, see above.
You owe me an apology then Tony. . . you have lied about me . . . or edited what I said and gave your slant which is all this woman Rebecca did. It is annoying isn’t it when people twist your words and change your meaning? And that is exactly what you did to me for all to see. I wrote to you privately, not in an abusive manner at all basically saying, “I think your gay and it’s OK” and you posted in a public venue and tweeted that I was sending you abusive emails.
Your double standards are unreal Tony!
coffeelovinghypocrite.com
Called on PZ on him saying she redacted her statement two minutes after. He responded by saying, “I decided to look again at the problem you pointed out. I see now that she did not really say it wasn’t him that called her a cunt. I shall issue an apology.”
Oh wait, that’s not what happened. his response was: He blocked me.
I’m not someone who agrees with you on issues surrounding sexism and misogyny, but I do think PZ’s actions have been wholly disproportionate. If you don’t mind, I thought I’d share the thoughts I just left on his blog post condemning you.
—
“First off, I whole-heartedly agree with PZ and RW on feminist issues, both broadly and within the skeptic community, so don’t be so injudicious as to tar me with the brush of people whose flavour of ill-conceived skepticism you despise.
However, although you have every right to tell these people to fuck off if you so choose, do you not think it’s a little pointless? Even self-defeating? It seems to me that the entire point of a skeptics’ community is to surround ourselves with people who *disagree* with us, not people who agree with us, and that includes atheists with irrational stances on social issues as well as religious morons.
It ought to be an obvious fact that not everyone who disagrees with you on these feminism issues is going to be either incorrigibly thick or deliberately trolling – some of them are, quite simply, going to be misinformed and a little slow, but arguing about it (sometimes but not always with obscene frustration) ought to be our primary goal. I think perhaps in your prolonged frustration with ceaseless misogyny, you’re so sick of seeing it that you’ve become occasionally willing to say “fuck you” even to those people who are just mistaken but otherwise amenable to reason.
Sure, it’s a personal decision to block whoever you like, but if we want to have any impact and want to actually change people’s minds, surely you ought only to publicly condemn people who are positively and repeatedly harassing you rather than people whose world-views you just happen to find repugnant. This reminds me of a short clip I saw of Richard Dawkins in a Q&A session where a Christian stood up to ask a really quite stupid question about DNA and the crowd started heckling. Rightly, Dawkins told the crowd to be quiet so he could generously answer the question. I think this is a moment when the crowd needs to be told to shut up so dissenting views can be dealt with in accordance with reason rather than stifling all opposing opinions so that the next person at the mic is someone who happens to already agree with everything you’re about to say.”
Bea, pack it in, you know you don’t have a moral leg to stand on with Tony … we’ve both been on the receiving end of your abuse, homophobic and otherwise, and we have the blog comments and emails to back it up … so don’t even go there.
Everyone else should be aware that if they give Bea any additional oxygen of attention, she will consume this thread in the firey cauldron of her own narcissism so intense even Dante would need fireproof knickers.
Just wanted to point out that the title of this blog post is a false dichotomy. I lost hope of a skeptical angle from there.
Gentle lady your post at no. 94 is an excellent synopsis of the viewpoint of those who disagree with the characterisation of elevator guy by RW and her subsequent behaviour. Plenty of women like myself agree with you and have been roundly abused for saying so with language equivalent to that Rebecca and PZ are now objecting too but are perfectly content to support on their own blogs.
With regard to PZ Myers behaviour towards the author of this blog I can’t say I’m surprised. It became clear to me back when he became personally abusive to Francis Collins that he was no role model for sceptics/atheists and there have been too many incidents since which have confirmed that belief. I think a life time spent with college age males and their surging testosterone levels and limited vocabulary have severely impacted that man’s psychological maturity. Even so his arrogance in dismissing an unknown blogger as irrelevant is supremely Romneyesque in it’s magnitude even for him.
C S Burgess – I’ve changed the title. It no longer states that she might be deluded. She is simply a liar. Simple. Proven. Fact. Her misdirection has simply confirmed it further.
You are a liar too Tony. You’ve straight up lied about me.
But hey you go and have at it.
Rebecca Watson does not need any help from me to give you a well deserved bitch slap.
And don’t be surprised if the skeptic community turns it’s back on you for being a misogynist which is exactly what you are . . . with the exception of your demon freak goth pez dispenser head Kris King of course.
You two were made for each other . . . add a few rats from Kris King’s collection and you’ll have the perfect family.
Bea @ 128
You wrote to him saying “I think you’re gay and it’s OK”?
That seems a very odd and somewhat inappropriate thing to do.
Coffee Loving Skeptic @127: Great; note timestamp, we were writing at the same time. (And that part was definitely intended to be for everybody, not just you.)
@134: I’m confused. It’s clear from the tweet I quoted above that she misremembered which particular offensive name you called her, and has publicly acknowledged that. How does that confirm that she’s a liar?
She hasn’t retracted. She’s just referring back to a different comment altogether.
The ‘cunt’ email was a lie. However, the use of the term ‘feminaziism’ in a blog post last year was not. 2 different occasions. One is a lie, one is not.
She’s putting one lie on top of another by referring to a different incident altogether.
She remembers our communication. The truth of that set of emails is I was polite, she sent a BirdPenis amongst other things. (Yes, it’s silly, but specific enough to show she remembers). She patently lied about what I said. Simple.
By diverting it she’s actually made it worse, irrespective of how ‘insensitive’ my “feminaziism” comment in the feminism/atheism post might have been.
I think it’s clearer here in the comments: http://heresyclub.com/2012/06/blocking-on-twitter/#comment-2877
@Rob . . . there was a perfectly good reason and it was not abusive at all. Just an observation and I sent it to him in a private email but he posted my FB page with something like . . . “This woman is sending me abusive emails. How spiritual of her” Something to that effect . . . it is still up there on his FB page.
Tony hates women that’s for sure . . . at least that’s my experience of him . . . and using names like feminazi is not exactly embracing the feminine is it?
I called Kris King’s transgender girlfriend a “girlie man” (from Hanz and Franz) and that makes me a homophobe. My picture is of me marrying gay men in the 90′s. How many homophobes do you know that do that? Kris King is a lying p.o.s and the most pathetic excuse for a man ever to walk the earth.
It’s funny how all your “screenshots” of emails are of reply included text, WHICH YOU CAN EDIT, and then screenshot. So sad.
Any IT-literate person is welcome to the originals to ‘authenticate’ the fact they are original.
They’re stored on my server for anyone, as mentioned in my original post.
Finally, I am tired of the lies being perpetuated and twisted by piling on more lies.
I’ve been character assassinated enough.
I have spoken nothing but the facts regarding this whole RW and PZ bullying situation. 125,000 followers + their blogs have been subjected to their lies against me.
It ends now.
(Beatrice Marot): called Kris King’s transgender girlfriend a “girlie man” (from Hanz and Franz) and that makes me a homophobe
No, it makes you a transphobe, especially when my partner is my boyfriend. Nice use of the “look at me with some gay friends, I can’t possibly be a homophobe!” defence … give it up, Bea, that kind of hollow pandering to paper over the cracks in your bigoted facade don’t fool anyone.
I would like someone with a little history or background of Skepchick, vis-a-vis her relationship history with the guy she apparently met, dated, and eventually married (AT A TAM EVENT NO LESS!!). I don’t think they stayed married very long. I suspect the hostility and irrationality we see in Skepchick is somehow rooted in that personal trauma. Does anybody know her ex? That’s the interview I want to see.
How a girl who went from wearing T-shirts that sported suggestive sexual connotations about hooking up and co-evolving in her pants, to a die-hard, intransigent wench deserves more scientific scrutiny. Oh, and please spare me the responses about how she is a private person and how my questions regarding her past experiences with men are sexist in and of themselves. Blow me. They are extremely relevant since the claims she makes are incontrovertibly ludicrous and damaging to the skeptic cause. She lost whatever media privacy she could reasonably expect when she assumed the position of head Girlyban Gasbagger.
Enjoy.
Tim,
Do you have a method of contacting you privately?
Priceless — the Skepchicks apparently hired a guy to walk around their Skepchickcon party almost nude, and then receive simulated oral sex from partygoers….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmLdaBTFtoA
No worries about “objectifying” him, and none of the partygoers were surveyed as to whether this went beyond their “personal boundaries…”
Watson was, apparently, filming this….
Man. This is the final straw for me, as far as PZ goes. I’m done.
I’ve been getting increasingly disheartened with his seemingly knee-jerk and unquestioning support for the highly dubious Ms. Watson, not to mention his increasingly shameless hypocrisy on subjects such as verbal abuse of others and the publishing of emails. But this… he flatly refuses to see that the issue here is about a false accusation from Watson (and a damning one at that), and his reaction to having this repeatedly pointed out is to trivialise, sneer and point-miss, and to do so in an almost gloating manner.
He’s acting almost like a troll, and he seems incapable not merely of apology but also of even recognising that one is richly merited. I’m glad this thread exists, along with the various others that are starting to expose just how badly these people have acted and are continuing to act. I think too many of us have been looking at the ongoing post-Elevatorgate debacle with discomfort and disbelief, and we have perhaps allowed ourselves to be cowed by that, and by the veritable shitstorm of abuse and condescension that gets heaped on even the mildest questioning of Watson’s behaviour and credibility, and that of her supporters.
We need to stop that and start calling these people out on their bullshit. Firmly and unrelentingly. Because, to use a favourite phrase of theirs, they just don’t get it. And they have become a problem that needs addressing.
PZ and RW have graduated in the art of trolling and straw-manning.
PZ seems to be getting involved in a dispute that may have been started over an exaggerated claim?! Notice I said ‘may’ as I did not claim that anything untoward or improper was or was not said. It just seems this isn’t the first time this ‘skeptic’ has claimed to have been victimized. Note the word victimized as it seems to be a common theme on the FTB blog. PZ seems to be blowing his hot air on to this for his own political stance. Fanatic like that he should see this through to its conclusion with PZ being the one right. PZ doesn’t seem interested that there is someone’s reputation being traded here. Maybe PZ is frightened to let this drop as he has already been totally powned by TF and now he is just digging a bigger hole for himself. Free-thought should mean exactly that in moderate terms. Free -to -express your opinion without being controlled or kicked because someone doesn’t like what you say. I would expect similar moderation from the blogs of evangelists but from rationalists?! This just tells me everything I need to know about FTB
Thank goodness I have PZ and RW to tell me how a woman should behave and believe. What kind of skeptic questions the validity of claims? Misogynist victim-blaming ignoramuses that’s who!
I’ve seen your blog dissed before somewhere, so I was a little hesitant to read it, but after reading the comments section here and some of your articles I think the aforementioned diss was in error. I gained a lot of respect for you when you admitted to being wrong on the feminazi thing, that’s a quality that I feel is a good barometer of a person’s trustworthiness. I’ve always been a little leery of PZ just because his blog posts seemed far too mean-spirited, like he was a really bitter person or something in real life. This incident, combined with his shameful skewing of the Thunderf00t incident where he misrepresented TF’s statements (with some careful creationist-style editing), and then had the audacity to call TF a “troll”, as if TF had nothing better to do than plan an epic trolling from the moment he heard about FTB.
Anyway, I do like Rebecca on SGU because she’s funny and adds an interesting dynamic to the podcast, but this has definitely made me lose some respect for her. I wish she had just admitted her mistake and apologized. It’s sad because I really respected her prior to all this, but I guess everyone is human and it’s not good to put people on pedestals in the first place, especially people who aren’t any more qualified than yourself to be in a position of authority or influence. Stuff like this makes me miss Hitchens so much, he was so far above this kind of shit that he would have eviscerated her the second she derailed that panel that Dawkins was on and the issue would have been settled.
Thanks for the kind words Steve.
I’ve never professed to be perfect, or even always right, and have apologised on occasions where an apology was required. This is what being adult is about IMO.
I have no reervations about calling Watson a cunt, nor Myers, for that matter. Both of them are cunts.
Hello, allison, I like you
What Dawkins did was indeed creepy and weird. Sounds like it was even planned-
After a night of drunken revelry and stimulating, non-stop, pseudo-intellectual discussion, and mutual adoration of all the attendees towards one another, a 70 year old, British, intellectual, academic, corners and propositions a 20-something, hipster-chick in elevator. To add to the insult and injury, he creates a silly and transparent subterfuge, based upon sipping coffee in his lair and the continuation of same pseudo-intellectual jabber.
Hipster chick predictably becomes ‘creeped out’ and offended. Understandably so. Thinking about Richard Dawkins naked, or even having a sex drive, would scare any rationalist thinker.
Just a few comments I need to get off my chest here- Is Ms. Watson actually naive enough to believe rationalist academics types, are in full control of their penises and are immune to evolutionary-based, sexual urges? Perhaps more importantly, does she believe rationalist/skeptic types are in any way better or superior to other folk in morals, character, etc? This is her fundamental mistake. I think this incident perhaps ‘burst her bubble’ a bit that ‘skeptical types’ are above such coarse aspects of human nature.
Disclosure- I am myself an engineer/scientist, cold rationalist, atheist, pseudo-intellectual, and I am in no doubt, in many regards, eerily similar to Ms. Watson and her crowd of skeptical skeptics, with one keen distinction- I find that group of people, no more interesting and no more worthy of respect, adulation, or adoration, than anyone else. I find them just as annoying, if not more so, than born-again x-ians and their lot. The idea of “atheist/skeptic conventions,” groups, organizations, and such is quite nauseating to me. Replete with its heroes, best-selling authors, evangelists of the movement, etc. I would not want to be in the same city as one of these gatherings, never mind the same hotel. It’s just a mutual-adoration, mutual-verbal-masturbatory, society. Surrounding yourself, because of the lack of intellectual security, and for reasons of self-doubt and comfort-zones, with a bunch of like-minded, clone-ish, people. All eerily similar in their thinking and beliefs.
Anything humans organize into a group, goes to hell in a handbasket, whether it is religion, politics, “skeptic societies,” etc. In any case, I still have hope for Ms. Watson. If she is smart, she’ll become a misanthrope such as myself, and start to see the pettiness and hypocrisy within her own movement and crowd of people.
Oh dear Benson. You’re attempt to make yourself seem so superior has been dented by the fact that you quite clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Watson was pissed at Dawkins for something he wrote after the incident came to light. He was not the guy in the elevator.
As any self respecting pseudo-intellectual skeptic knows, it is always best to make yourself familiar with the facts of the situation before commenting. That way you won’t end up appearing foolish.
Had you given the same consideration to your comment as you did to learning the facts we could have been spared your pompous, sanctimonious rant.
hi!,I like your writing so a lot! proportion we keep in touch
extra approximately your post on AOL? I require an expert in this house to resolve my
problem. May be that’s you! Having a look ahead to look you.
Wow, that is very flattering, thank you for those kind words. I apologize to everyone for not having my facts correct and thinking it was Dawkins himself who had propositioned her in the lift. He had merely made light of her outrage. Fair enough, big difference. If you are not offending people by your writings, you have failed as a writer.
Sure, anyone who wants to contact me directly can fee free to do so. I am up for some AOL!
Use this- at7000 at hotmail dot com. Happy pseudo-intellectualism.
Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board
and I find It truly helpful & it helped me out much. I’m hoping to present something back and help others such as you helped me.
Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own
a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot
of spam comments? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin
or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it’s driving me insane so any support is very much appreciated.
You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation
but I find this topic to be actually something that I think I would
never understand. It seems too complex and extremely
broad for me. I’m looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!
Not so hard to understand-
Un-named Atheist Conference Man talks in a creepy way to a rationalist woman, in an elevator late at night. World’s leading pseudo-intellectual, atheist-rationalist, calls said woman out, in a rather demeaning way, over making too much over the incident. Atheist-Rationalist world goes wild in a vitriolic battle for mankind’s soul.
Hi there, yeah this paragraph is truly nice and I have learned lot of things from it concerning blogging.
thanks.
It’s wonderful that you are getting thoughts from this piece of writing as well as from our discussion made at this time.
Akismet, through WordPress, cuts most out.
Excellent blog here! Also your website loads up very fast!
What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host?
I wish my site loaded up as fast as yours lol
Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets
I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my
newest twitter updates. I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.
What’s up, yup this paragraph is actually fastidious and I have learned lot of things from it about blogging. thanks.
Remarkable! Its actually awesome piece of writing, I have got much clear idea about from this
piece of writing.
High heat and chemicals can destroy the MCFAs
and Lauric Acid in the coconut oil and therefore greatly decrease any
potential health benefits. You will see a dramatic improvement within a matter of days and improve you overall
health at the same time. It is not hard to do, and it is easy to keep off the
weight that you lose.
Hey there, You’ve done a great job. I’ll certainly digg it and personally recommend
to my friends. I’m sure they’ll be benefited from this web site.
Hi to every single one, it’s truly a fastidious for me to visit this web site, it consists of useful Information.
They have polyphenol, an anti-inflammatory that helps ease your wrinkles and lines.
Has your neck firming cream failed you and you now have resorted to wearing clothes with big collars or turtlenecks to hide unsightly neck wrinkles.
Here are some more practical uses for this miracle
oil:.
It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d definitely donate to this outstanding blog! I guess for now i’ll settle for book-marking and
adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to new updates and will share this site with my Facebook group.
Talk soon!
Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful post. Many thanks for providing this info.
Most treatments assure you of clarity of skin making it soft, smooth and pimple-free.
Other treatments have promises of skin looking young. Jojoba oil mimics scalp
sebum and can help regulate the sebum on
the scalp.
9 Trackbacks
[...] and PZ Myers are lying through their teeth again. Watson blocked Coffee Loving Skeptic (@TPRyan007) on Twitter. She outright lied, claiming it was because he called her a cunt. She also [...]
[...] to Tony Ryan’s blog page, Rebecca Watson (@rebeccawatson on Twitter) has accused him (@TPRyan007) of calling her THE [...]
[...] have deeply offended a small group of indignant skeptics. But here, I’ll let you read their side of the story first, although I’m sure that while they have been complaining about not getting my attention, now [...]
[...] latest flap is between Myers/Watson and Coffee Loving Skeptic. CLS posts here. Myers replies [...]
[...] Tony posted his email conversation with Rebecca on his blog. The post has the title “Rebecca Watson (The Skepchick): deluded or intentionally a liar?“ [...]
[...] would be lying if I told you that I would ever have imagined a day when so many of us are left scratching our heads and thinking, “What the fuck happened to PZ? The only [...]
[...] probably true. But I have been a little disappointed to see a couple of comments alleging ‘misogyny‘ in the direction of Tony Ryan of the Coffee Loving Skeptic blog. In short, I consider them [...]
[...] help but notice that out of some eight thousand sympathetic comments, 14 of them featured rodential men making rape threats. And so we think it’s time we revisited Rebecca’s testimony on July [...]
[...] Tony posted his email conversation with Rebecca on his blog. The post has the title “Rebecca Watson (The Skepchick): deluded or intentionally a liar?“ [...]