Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Ickle Magoo

Count Duckula wrote: »

And now you seem to assuming that everyone who posts in this forum must be an atheist who wants to upset the "status quo".

Yet interestingly you have chosen to completely ignore my question to you in favour of making stuff up. Always a cracking argument, that.

MrPudding wrote: »

No, that isn’t what I meant at all.

You quoted a post that was describing a situation that happened to me in a hotel. What do you mean innocent until proven guilty in that context?

MrPudding wrote:

No, that isn’t what I meant at all. We have a situation where person A asked person B if they wanted to go A’s room for coffee. Some people are assuming that by asking if they wanted to come for coffee that person A was in fact propositioning person B. Then someone else said something like “what if person A actually really just meant coffee?” Then you, I think, said something like “that is just making an assumption as well” which is absolutely correct. My point was simply that as a society we operate on a basis of innocent until proven guilty. I am not suggesting that you cannot form an opinion of someone without going to court, that would be fairly stupid, I am simply saying that when someone does something that can be interpreted in a “good way” and a “bad way”, I think it is better to interpret it in the “good way” (kind of preserving the principle of innocent until proven guilty) rather than the “bad way”. Of course, if you have supplemental evidence to show that the “bad way” applied then by all mean label it that way.

My understanding of this incident is that there is no indication, other than gross generalisations, that this guy had any intentions other than a coffee and a chat.

MrP

I think rather than a fight to make approaching a lone women in a lift at 4 am who has said their goodnight and inviting them to your room as coffee as surely being the most innocent thing in the world geez, how could she or anyone else ever think otherwise - I have no idea what the guy's motives were and tbh, I don't think it really matters - the only acknowledgement should be it made her feel uncomfortable and given the facts we do know I think that's understandable and as such, it was inappropriate and thoughtless. A plea to others from being inappropriate and thoughtless - grand, no biggie.

I'm just astonished at the level of vitriol aimed at the woman, especially the hypocritical nature of Dawkins response in light of the same arguments I've heard both him and others here use. There is a really sad refusal by some quarters to show any kind of empathy as to why a women [not every woman] may feel uncomfortable given that particular scenario - and her right to state that discomfort publicly. There has been comments that if a poster heard a women say something made her uncomfortable, they would make a point of doing it. I mean, wtf?

I guess I just expected everyone would tut-tut at Dickie's out-dated hypocrisy and nod sagely that approaching a women you don't know at 4 am, in a lift, after she's said she's retiring to bed carries the risk of making her feel uncomfortable and is probably best avoided...instead it's become how dare a women not just graciously accept a man's advances, regardless of the situation and regardless of her true feelings in the matter - and even if it does make her feel uncomfortable, don't dare tell anyone. Suck it up, take it on the chin and consider yourself complimented.

What was, I think, a reasonable point to make has - at this stage - become a complete joke. Thanks in the main to the strenuous flapping and protestations of those who claim to apply logical rationale across the board. I'm just astonished I've just witnessed the same posters scoff at those from t'other side for insincerely applying logic and rationale only when it suits them and accusing other posters of wanting the world to operate just the way they like it, with selfish disregard of how others may wish to go about their lives...as I said, disappointing - and I hope the posters from t'other side are playing close attention to all those who are now going to look pretty silly calling anyone else a hypocrite and making accusations of applying rationale only when it is self-serving.

farna_boy

Funny thread is funny.

I mean for an atheist forum, somewhere people are generally sceptical about well, everything, everyone seems to be posting a lot of beliefs and assumptions, without any real proof.

For a start, the only evidence is one persons accounts of events, which is never a good start at all, if history has taught us anything. Even so, if we take this persons story to be true, all that happened was that a shy person asked a famous (?) person for coffee and a chat. The famous person said no and that was all that happened (until famous person posted it on internet).

What can we tell from this version of events? Nothing, we can assume things (he was drunk), we can believe things (he wanted to have sex with her) but in the end of the day we don't know.

The second point is that we do not know that this event actually every happened. Again this is only one persons account and they could be using an anecdote.

The final point is that even if it did happen, we do not know what was actually said, if anything. We could suppose that the two of them were in the lift and he said nothing. Or maybe "he" was in fact a "she" and the idea of "what if" came to her mind. Or, my own personal favourite, what if she propositioned him and he said no?

As for the some of the reactions in this thread claiming that all he clearly wanted was sex, I can not get the following video out of my mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RBYgEZqrJs

omniscient_toad

The initial brief anecdote seems fairly innocuous, Watson points out the futility and awkwardness of propositioning someone after they've specifically mentioned their distate for such propositions at conferences. She supposes that on this occasion her suitor had heard her mention this, but if she was mistaken no great harm was done as she leaves him anonymous. This is a brief minute long interlude in her video and didn't begin the Dawkins dust-up in earnest.

PZ Myers latches onto this brief anecdote and expands it and it's implications (as he sees them) into a full blog post, and it is to this blog post that Dawkins rather inelegantly responds. His not particularly subtle implication that Watson is making a big deal of the situation seems more in response to Myers lengthy analysis than the original loosely told story and i find it strange that he focuses entirely on her.

Up to this point I was of the opinion that Watson had done nothing wrong, Dawkins had been something of a heavy handed dick, and Myers was overly hasty to find a cause celebre. It was Watson's subsequent style of argument that startled me. A number of times she attempts to expand a back and forth internet tiff between her and another so as to tarnish their argument. For example, "So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault " , which seems both an underhanded method of debate and a sure way of further exacerbating the situation into a witch hunt. She uses the same tactics in dismissing Stef McGraw , publicly speaking of reprehensible comments on her appearance, sexual slurs and even threats of rape before smoothly segueing into talking of those in her community who would not oppose such while putting up the name of this student who had simply disagreed with her interpretation of the lift situation. It's one thing for her to argue with an individual over interpretation of male proposition and another to then smear someone by claiming they tacitly support threats of rape

All these insinuations, collections of Dawkins abuse letters and exhortations for everyone to ignore the mans books, talks and very existence serve no purpose but to polarise this into a battle of two cults of personality, the issue that started it almost an afterthought.

MonkeyBalls

Alright, I feel a bit calmer about this having read some of your responses-- many of you are firmly in touch with reality and recognise what utter nonsense this is.

The screeching, breathless histrionics displayed on most other blogs and forums is dispiriting. Dawkins has been called a "rape apologist" and "victim blamer" and "misogynistic", people have called for boycots on his books*, trying to ruin the man. Disgusting little snots. Where does the real sexism and immorality lie. Any excuse to get outraged and blow something out of proportion--it spices up their boring, arid lives and gives them a little sanctimoniousness rush of power. Little ****, grow the hell up.

* The woman herself, "Skep chick" was the one who called for this.

Blogger Amy Alkon nails her: "There's an awfully thin veneer of open-mindedness over a rotten core of fascism in this person".

Exactly. She gets off on the rush of power from this. I can smell bull**** and see sliminess a mile away, and this "skep chick" woman reeks of it to the core. Her initial video was perfectly ok, but how she handled the ensuing uproar revealed what a gombeen she is.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html

Zombrex

Wow, 20 pages in 2 days. this is obviously stirring some debate.

I didn't read all 20 pages, so apologies if I'm retreading some earlier points.

While I think Dawkins' method of sarcasm was some what crude, I think he makes a perfectly valid point, particularly after reading the Bad Astronomy article. Through that article the term "potential sexual assault" keeps cropping up, which I frankly find ridiculous and which was the point Dawkins is making.

This was a guy asking a girl a some what stupid and little bit creepy question. Watson did the perfect thing, she politely said no thanks, and since she was a little bit creeped out left it at that.

And in fairness to Ms Watson she didn't say much more in her video than a recommendation don't do that guys, its creepy. The notion that it was a potential rape seems to have come from others.

This guy might have been planning on raping her, he might have just been an awkward nerd who doesn't know how to interact with women properly.

But there was no harm done here. Viewing this in terms of a potential sexual assault so we must all discuss what this guy did to Ms Watson is, to my mind, nonsense.

Rape, while terrible and horrible, is rare in the context of all male/female social interactions. Or to put it another way, most men aren't going to rape you. Most men aren't even thinking of raping you. Most creepy socially awkward men are not thinking of raping you.

The most you could say here to this guy in the elevator is "I wouldn't say that you will sound like a creepy", rather than "I wouldn't say that you will sound like you want to rape her".

I have never sexually assaulted someone in my life. I have on the other hand said many many stupid things to girls I've fancied. And girls who have fancied me have said many stupid things to me.

Being too forward, saying something stupid, saying the wrong thing, saying something a bit creepy, is the sign that someone is social awkward. It is not necessarily the sign that they are a rapist. Sure a rapist may be socially awkward (though not always), but the mapping does not go 1 to 1 back again.

I think its perfectly fine for a woman in such as situation to go "That was a bit creepy" and move on, but not perfectly fine to say "That was someone setting me up to be raped" and view the situation as an escape from a potential rape.

This was no more a potential sexual assault than being in an elevator and having another man say "I like your watch" is a potential robbery. Someone waiting your watch doesn't mean they are going to take it from you. Someone wanting to have sex with you doesn't mean they are going to rape you.

In the context of societies where rape is common place, where women are viewed in society as commodities, viewing this encounter as a potential rape is a ridiculous over-reaction, which ultimately is the point Dawkins is making.

axer

omniscient_toad wrote: »

PZ Myers latches onto this brief anecdote and expands it and it's implications (as he sees them) into a full blog post, and it is to this blog post that Dawkins rather inelegantly responds. His not particularly subtle implication that Watson is making a big deal of the situation seems more in response to Myers lengthy analysis than the original loosely told story and i find it strange that he focuses entirely on her.

Maybe it is because Skepchick gave her full backing to the article via a twitter post:

@rebeccawatson wrote:

Ah, actually I don't have to post about it b/c I see @pzmyers has already done it perfectly: http://bit.ly/j5npCV

Ickle Magoo

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Disgusting little snots. Where does the real sexism and immorality lie. Any excuse to get outraged and blow something out of proportion--it spices up their boring, arid lives and gives them a little sanctimoniousness rush of power. Little ****, grow the hell up.

I dunno, I think you could throw that accusation both ways....

omniscient_toad

axer wrote: »

Maybe it is because Skepchick gave her full backing to the article via a twitter post:

Blogposts, twitter posts, responses to third party blogposts , can't someone just handcuff them alone in a room to two opposing lecterns. Alternately lock them in a room with a pair of pointed sticks, as has been noted in this thread men are generally stronger, but Dawkins is old and neither has god on their side.

liamw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

- and I hope the posters from t'other side are playing close attention to all those who are now going to look pretty silly calling anyone else a hypocrite and making accusations of applying rationale only when it is self-serving.

Please point out specifically how it is hypocrisy to point out that this whole episode is a vast overreaction and/or where I have been irrational so I may reconsider my position.

Monty Burnz

liamw wrote: »

Please point out specifically how it is hypocrisy to point out that this whole episode is a vast overreaction and/or where I have been irrational so I may reconsider my position.

I think I can help: you're not actually wrong.

Ickle Magoo

liamw wrote: »

Please point out specifically how it is hypocrisy to point out that this whole episode is a vast overreaction and/or where I have been irrational so I may reconsider my position.

That depends on where you first place the over-reaction, I guess. I find it incredulous that someone who earns their bread and butter from rebutting claims that things aren't just fine the way they are just because there are those worse off elsewhere and because other people are happy with how things are, then relies on that very point to make light of someone else's perspective - á lá Dawkins...

As I already stated, you could easily substitute Dickies hypocricy, your position and others dismissive ridicule for a woman daring to state she was uncomfortable at being propositioned in a lift at 4am for one that's oft trotted out and dismissed on this very forum.

Yahew

sink wrote: »

Take the sexual element out of it for a second. Say you were standing in a lift at 4am in a strange city with a complete stranger who you had not shared a word with before and they said "Don't take this the wrong way but I couldn't help noticing what a nice watch you have, would you mind if I tried it on?". Is wrong to have doubts about this polite persons motives? There is not a rational person who would not immediately think "thief" and feel deeply uncomfortable.

He was asking for consensual sex ( or coffee), not threatening rape.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As I already stated, you could easily substitute Dickies hypocricy, your position and others dismissive ridicule for a woman daring to state she was uncomfortable at being propositioned in a lift at 4am for one that's oft trotted out and dismissed on this very forum.

I see you are still trotting out this canard. I don't know if anyone is arguing that she had no right to feel uncomfortable, certainly not Dawkins at least.

Yahew

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That depends on where you first place the over-reaction, I guess. I find it incredulous that someone who earns their bread and butter from rebutting claims that things aren't just fine the way they are just because there are those worse off elsewhere and because other people are happy with how things are, then relies on that very point to make light of someone else's perspective - á lá Dawkins...

As I already stated, you could easily substitute Dickies hypocricy, your position and others dismissive ridicule for a woman daring to state she was uncomfortable at being propositioned in a lift at 4am for one that's oft trotted out and dismissed on this very forum.

Her uncomfortableness is her business. The rest of the world doesn't have to care except that she, and the ridiculous Myers, made this into a blog post about male privilege. It is almost certain that a 4AM request for coffee is a request for consensual sex. Most invitations to a room past a certain time- male to female, or female to male - are a request for sex, or intimacy. A rapist in a elevator wouldn't ask.

People who were never intimate sometimes get intimate. It happens, in general, at night. Someone has to try it on, with a polite request or an attempt at a kiss. When rebutted the polite person, looking for sex - a fairly normal activity - will return to his room, and try another day.

If this didn't happen the Earth would not be populated. It is not rape. It is a pass. It assumes equality because either sex can do it, and either sex can refuse it.

All we are seeing from the feminists here are massive amounts of hysteria, and whines about male privilege. Dawkins was spot on.

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I see you are still trotting out this canard. I don't know if anyone is arguing that she had no right to feel uncomfortable, certainly not Dawkins at least.

....can't seem to remember that being the problem meself. Its when 'coffee?' leads to 'YOU'RE SEXUALLY OBJECTIFYING ME' that the problem begins.

enfant terrible

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How often? Well, that depends on location and ratio tbh. Sometimes it can be ridiculously often and horribly inappropriate.

Your best best would be to wear a wedding ring to stop most guys approaching you.

Then approach the guys you are interested in, would save you a lot of hassle.

sink

Yahew wrote: »

He was asking for consensual sex ( or coffee), not threatening rape.

Ah but the person asking to see the watch was also only looking for your consent, not threatening to rob it, but it would still make most people nervous.

Ickle Magoo

enfant terrible wrote: »

Your best best would be to wear a wedding ring to stop most guys approaching you.

Then approach the guys you are interested in, would save you a lot of hassle.

With men making up the majority of my friends since school days, I've never had an issue approaching men in a social situation. I'm now married - have been for years, I wear a thick wedding band...seriously, doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Presumably much like the portion of women who'd jump at the chance of an invite to a strangers room off a 4am lift invitation, a portion of married women who would be interested in such a dalliance automatically makes such approaches unobtrusive and not annoyingly wearisome? :pac:

Zombrex

sink wrote: »

Ah but the person asking to see the watch was also only looking for your consent, not threatening to rob it, but it would still make most people nervous.

They can be nervous. That isn't the issue. The issue is when you spray the person with mace and start screaming 'thief! thief!'

My issue is not that this creeped Watson out. It is that she and others have turned this into the notion that she some how avoided a potential raping. That is nonsense. Now he might have been thinking about raping her, who knows. Watson, to her credit, didn't stick around long enough to find out. But in all likelihood he probably wasn't. He was probably a social awkward idiot.

You cannot simply go from a creepy situation to the idea that a rape was about to take place.

enfant terrible

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

With men making up the majority of my friends since school days, I've never had an issue approaching men in a social situation. I'm now married - have been for years, I wear a thick wedding band...seriously, doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

I can imagine being approached when your married very tiresome.

Surprised it happens so much to married women though.

MonkeyBalls

Yahew wrote: »

Her uncomfortableness is her business. The rest of the world doesn't have to care except that she, and the ridiculous Myers, made this into a blog post about male privilege. It is almost certain that a 4AM request for coffee is a request for consensual sex. Most invitations to a room past a certain time- male to female, or female to male - are a request for sex, or intimacy. A rapist in a elevator wouldn't ask.

People who were never intimate sometimes get intimate. It happens, in general, at night. Someone has to try it on, with a polite request or an attempt at a kiss. When rebutted the polite person, looking for sex - a fairly normal activity - will return to his room, and try another day.

If this didn't happen the Earth would not be populated. It is not rape. It is a pass. It assumes equality because either sex can do it, and either sex can refuse it.

All we are seeing from the feminists here are massive amounts of hysteria, and whines about male privilege. Dawkins was spot on.

smiles302

Hmm apparently Elevator-guy has come forward

http://integralmath.blogspot.com/

Chances are nobody cares but I stumbled on it and thought I would share. I can't quite tell if it is real or a joke...

Monty Burnz

smiles302 wrote: »

Hmm apparently Elevator-guy has come forward

http://integralmath.blogspot.com/

Chances are nobody cares but I stumbled on it and thought I would share. I can't quite tell if it is real or a joke...

I had a quick look through and can't find the relevant post - any clues? Cheers!

Justicar

smiles302 wrote: »

Hmm apparently Elevator-guy has come forward

http://integralmath.blogspot.com/

Chances are nobody cares but I stumbled on it and thought I would share. I can't quite tell if it is real or a joke...

Mellow greetings, everyone. I noticed a link from your site to mine because of this entry, and I've quickly read through the last 22 pages involving this kerfuffle. I don't aim to make any complete argument at the moment as in the fullness of time I'll have a complete vivisection of the Rebecca Watson ordeal. However, I will make notes on a few misrepresentations of the actual facts - note, misrepresentation doesn't impute one's motives. It is simply that there exist statements which claim x is the case when x+a is actually the case. Never ascribe to malice that which is explained by ignorance and all that jazz.

Suffice it to say, some people here have been arguing on a rather curious set of facts which are either a.) not borne out by the evidence or b.) omit countervailing evidence even when said evidence is on the same document. I am under the impression that one of them is a moderator. This does not affect my decision to make an argument.

I will, of course, be happy to answer any particular questions on which I have data, and I'll state outright the confidence of the claim based on the available data. For instance, in the blog post I've done about Rebecca Watson's consistent history of using to her advantage any position of power she's given to punish as well she can those who have the temerity to not agree. This is something I can trace back directly to her early days on JREF fora, culminating in the decision to ban her ass made by James Randi himself. This goes straight up through the Stef McGraw incident following the elevator incident.

This isn't an argument; it's an assertion for the purposes of this post; if people are curious they can read my blog entry on it, or do the detective work themselves.

Also, I should like to take exception to a trope which has been running rampant by a certain subset of the population here; viz., Rebecca Watson was stating she felt uncomfortable. This is true, but not accurate as it's incomplete. The message of her actual claim, explicitly made one notes, has been too narrowly tailored to drive a result favorable to Rebecca Watson and her coterie of people. She goes on after that piece to admonish all men to not do that. That is to say, she couples 'I felt creeped out' with 'therefore, you 3.5 billion people may not approach a woman in an elevator at 4am and invite her for sex'. Some will say she didn't say that, and that is technically true. She didn't say these precise words. She said that it creeps her out, men may not do that because it's uncomfortable being "sexualized" in that way. So, she's not saying he invited her up for sex, but there is no other plausible reading of this.

If she's not aiming to imply a sexual motivation, she wouldn't have mentioned a sexual motivation. It's akin to saying look, the reason we're not hiring you isn't because you're black . . . See? They've settled it right out of the gate, except that this is transparently not the end of the question "was it about race?" I digress.

Her opening gambit is to marry her discomfort to the supposed sexualization. To say otherwise is to quotemine her. Remember, she is a communications major, and this is her livelihood - she makes pretty good money making people hear what she needs them to hear without needing to say it. It's a little something known as working an audience.

Further, she goes on to explicitly say that for Dawkins to have not taken her mere discomfort seriously trivializes her experience. In the selfsame document, she ties this all directly to sexual assault.

Further, and this is convoluted somewhat, she has a post which has as its opening salvo praise lavished on certain other prominent bloggers. Oddly, I wasn't among them - wonder why! On that list you will find Jennifer McCreight, among others, whose blog post is endorsed without caveat. It is therefore reasonable to presume that she agrees with the totality of the message.

Jennifer McCreight in turn takes Dawkins to task. Yesterday, Jennifer McCreight writes another post saying she fully endorses Rebecca Watson's article (to which there's a hyperlink) with only one caveat; viz., she disagrees that Dawkins' books and lectures should be boycotted. It is therefore reasonable to to conclude that everything else in Rebecca Watson's article has full support. Mind you, we now have a web: Watson links to McCreight fully supporting McCreight. McCreight in turn writes another post linking back to the post linking to her own site saying she endorses part and parcel minus the caveat earlier mentioned.

Why does this matter?

Well, in this whole web, which we can now merge as a set since it's a neat circle, a perfect circuit indeed, one will find that Dawkins is told that because he's never been called a ****** (untrue; southpark did an episode about this showing him screwing another guy among other things), a ****** (technically not true, but I'll grant it to avoid being persnickety), a Kyke (again, not true; he's part of the Jew conspiracy), or a **** (again untrue. This is among some of the milder things Dawkins has been called).

She presses on to explicate that he can't understand the fear of sexual assault because he's privileged by being a.) white, b.) British, c.) male, d.) stupid, e.) highly education, f.) a denizen of some supposed ivory tower, and g.) rich. Note, he's privileged against having to consider the mere petty inconveniences these oppressed women fear every day because he's male and it is thus not a concern for him.

Also note that this is completely untrue. Dawkins in 2006 posted an article detailing the sexual abuses that befell him by a priest.

Anyway, this is already longer than I'd planned, but there was a lot of stupid in the last 22 pages which required a once over. All of this will be explained more fully in my blog as I continue evaluating and collecting data.

Disclaimer: my earlier contributions on this topic were entirely satirical; however, among the ridicule I'm heaping on Rebecca Watson, and others, there is actual meritorious, legitimate analysis. I try to make the derisive ones obvious that they're satirical. But apparently I've not succeeded since the person whom I herein quote failed to notice I'm not actually elevator guy. So, if you do happen to go my blog, and decide to send me some hate mail over the tone and content of my satirical videos, do be sure to write them well. Nothing is more offensive than a person who's outraged enough to take action, but lacks the energy/ability to write a coherent message in support of opposing the thing about which they're outraged. Thanks in advance.

I find curious the fact that people have no cognitive dissonance whatever (with very few exceptions) to the fact that Rebecca Watson "named and shamed" an unknown female blogger named Stef McGraw during Watson's own keynote speech, a small part of which she rewrote specifically to call McGraw out on the carpet knowing full well McGraw wouldn't be given any opportunity to respond on equal footing. This lady Watson calls out in the section of her speech where she's explaining the rape mail she gets, and the threats of other forms of sexual assault. Then she goes on to say that McGraw's blog disagreeing with Rebecca Watson's position is a "threat" that is "harming" women, is itself sexist and misogynistic and is a great disappointment to see someone so young doing so much harm to actual women.

But the guy who "corners" her in an elevator and "sexualizes" her and put her in fear of being "sexually assaulted", well, his identity she decides to protect. The features of elevator guy that she will describe make him indistinguishable from someone she's just invented. There is no reason to think a.) "he" was male, b.) he sexualized her, c.) even existed, d.) was heterosexual, or e.) was after nothing more than coffee and conversation.
Remember, she was an invited and paid speaker at this convention. But so many of the people who see rape, oppression and misogyny behind every zipper find it nigh impossible that at a conference where she's an invited speaker there might exist in the audience someone who would . . . wait for it . . . want to talk to her. I can understand their recalcitrance. Having heard her speak before, I can definitely see why someone would find it hard to believe anyone would be interested in hearing her twice. But he was drunk, so we can't rule that out.

She refuses to even describe his clothes. Remember, she claims he was in the bar along with PZ Myers, Aronra and a few others. Surely a man who is that kind of threat needed to be called out so that all of the bar people could help get his description out? One of them probably saw the guy. If he was a threat to the extent saying her discomfort isn't a big deal is trivializing her experience because of Schroedinger's Rapist and potential sexual assault (which Rebecca directly says herself), then why was she not balls deep in trying to wake everyone up to let everyone know that the creepy potential rapist asked her to coffee?

Faced with being "cornered" in an elevator by a man who is "sexualizing" her after she told him not to, she escapes by the skin of her teeth and runs straight to the police and event organizers to get the word out to the other women/potential victims her hotel room to make a video for youtube, and tell everyone else in the world except those women who could have been victims of this creepy guy. Well, I guess we all have our priorities; hers is attention since that's what pays all of her bills.

Yet, all of you "skeptic" people are swallowing hook, line and sinker her story on no evidence at all. Remember that when you're discussing EG or Dawkins; you're arguing about a man who may not exist, and even if he did, is guilty of no crime.

But facts don't seem to matter here, as Churchill would say, "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."


Rebecca Watson delenda est!

- Justicar

Justicar

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I had a quick look through and can't find the relevant post - any clues? Cheers!

If it's permitted, I can link you to the correct entry. If not, go to the one titled "Welcome to my blog, now get the **** out"

And then there are a couple of other posts about her detailing various related concerns. You can ignore the Paula Kirby one; the event organizers somehow managed to find a panel they luckily couldn't stick Watson on.

Rebecca Watson delenda est!

- Justicar

sponsoredwalk

Justicar wrote: »

Yet, all of you "skeptic" people are swallowing hook, line and sinker her story on no evidence at all.

I wouldn't consider this of the x variety or the x + a variety if you'd put
yourself through the torture of reading this thread, more like a statement
of the xಠ _ಠa variety because there were occasional glimmers of sense.

Justicar

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I wouldn't consider this of the x variety or the x + a variety if you'd put
yourself through the torture of reading this thread, more like a statement
of the xಠ _ಠa variety because there were occasional glimmers of sense.

Yes, I was careful to point out that there some people who were just very wrong; this implies the existence of some who were less wrong, to include possibly even people who were correct.

Indeed, I noted in the very first sentence that I read the entire thread.

Dades

And I thought this thread was daft already... the plot thickens.

Monty Burnz

Justicar wrote: »

Indeed, I noted in the very first sentence that I read the entire thread.

That's more than can be said for most contributors.

Justicar

Dades wrote: »

And I thought this thread was daft already... the plot thickens.

I've been called worse by better, smarter people. Thanks though!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's more than can be said for most contributors.

I'm not the average contributor. =^_^=