Gerald McGrew wrote:
So according to RW, everyday life is not a safe space for women?
In the sense that they tend to face a lot of harassment and bullshit that they shouldn't have to put up with, yes. Deacon Duncan described it as "sexual panhandling". one or two little incidents may not seem so bad but when you have to put up with it constantly it wears you down.
Riiiiiiight. It was just a coincidence that female attendance dropped 30-40% after she said those things.
Well yes actually, it probably was. Do you have any actual evidence to suggest otherwise? That it wasnt the economy, the timing of the event, the lack of anything new in the way of events or speakers...
The offending, tear-inducing t-shirt is yet another incident that people can cite as an example of the hyper-reactionary, irrational behaviors of the FtB/Skepchicks/A+ crowd.
Again the T-shirt was just the last straw, there was a weekend long campaign of bullying that went on. Oh, that's right, I forgot...it;s only bullying when it happens on PZ's blog....
Wow, you just keep getting worse and worse, don't you? You asked for examples of RW's accusations being accepted without question. I provided some. If all you can do in response is the above, again that speaks for itself.
The elevator story is hardly an extraordinary claim; I don;t need forensic evidence to accept it as true any more than I need it to accept the claim that someone had dinner last night...it happens all the time and I don;t go around assuming people are lying just because they don't have lab reports to back up everything they say. As for the rape threats....
http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads ... .00-PM.png
Again, the fact that me merely suggesting that RW is not immune from criticism caused you to immediately imply that I therefore think she deserves rape threats is a perfect illustration of the irrationality surrounding this subject people are talking about.
You still haven't said that she doesn't deserve them. All you've done is accuse her of lying about them because the last thing you can let yourself do is admit there might be a problem...
AFAIK, not to where he specifically apologized for saying everyone is either with him or against him.
You need to read more carefully, and no I'm not going to post it again just because you were too lazy to read it the first time.
What if you told that person they could say anything they wanted, including ripping on others at the party?
It's my party and I can decide where the line is. If I ask you to stop harassing the other guests and you refuse I have every right to kick you out. Same goes for blog platforms; no one is obligate to give a platform to someone who treats them like shit. Thunderfoot doesn't have some special right to other people's space. Oh and he's not immune to criticism any more than Watson is...
You just keep digging that hole deeper, don't you? You asked where anyone at A+ had suggested monitoring people on the internet, and I provided an example of exactly that. You can't even bring yourself to admit that I was right on that point, can you?
Because you did noting of the kind; all that part says is that if you are known to be pissing on people in another forum you won't be welcome in this one. If you're rude to me in a bar I don't have to invite you into my house...same principle here. That isn't "monitoring" anyone, and there's no "banishment". That's just you being hysterical.
But this is what you do isn't it? You take stuff out of context, twist it, rewrite it with new, prejudicial language to make it sound like something it's not and then pretend that you're the one being wronged when someone calls you on your bullshit.
..
