By indirections find directions out »« Good, now shut down this book too

Very pointed

Hey remember the other day – February 27th it was, last Thursday – I wrote a post about how Ben Radford wrote a post about False Accusations of Sexual Assault? And how it was more or less simultaneous with one by Carol Tavris on the same subject? And how it all seemed rather pointed? And then Orac wrote one? About conflicts of interest and how Ben Radford hadn’t disclosed his?

Yes well today Radford did a public post on Facebook that was a photograph of his lawsuit against Karen Stollznow. That was a secret last week but now it isn’t.

So Radford’s post last week looks even more pointed once you know that, doesn’t it, and the conflict of interest looks even more undisclosed.

I don’t know: that’s not what I ever thought blogging was for.

Comments

  1. says

    Filed 17 February. So he started a lawsuit claiming Karen Stollznow was making false accusations, and then published an article for CFI deploring false accusations. Did CFI know what he was doing? Did Radford’s lawyers know what kind of game he was playing?

  2. noxiousnan says

    Smarmy.

    Agree with PZ, As I was reading the FB post I was thinking his lawyers must be face palming.

  3. says

    Precisely.

    And if CFI didn’t know what he was doing…dang, I bet they’re annoyed with him now. There are a lot of lawyers in that organization.

  4. karmacat says

    I read some of the comments. One commenter said that since he did not harass her or anyone she knows, then he must be innocent of all sexual harassment anywhere. The lack of logic is quite remarkable.

  5. Maureen Brian says

    I know, Ophelia! I couldn’t resist piling on just a bit more. Lack of self-control.

  6. captainahags says

    Hahahaha ohhhh this is going to play out well. Now I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, in order to successfully win this suit, Radford would have to prove that Stollznow’s statements were not only harmful and false, but negligently (or perhaps recklessly?) so. I believe he is a public figure, so I think that’s what it is… but if you don’t trust me, listen to Ken White. Money quote:

    …the Supreme Court held fifty years ago that when someone makes a false statement about a public official’s official conduct, the official can’t prove defamation without proving actual malice — that is, without proving that the defendant acted knowing that the statement was false or reckless disregard as to its truth.

    So by my understanding, if Radford can’t prove beyond a preponderance of evidence that Stollznow was completely lying, he cannot possibly win. But then again, people go to school for a long time and get paid a lot of money to understand these things better than me, so there’s my disclaimer.

  7. karmacat says

    What I find interesting is that a couple of people have said this has split “the community.” As if the community is all about these 2 people and no other issues. I guess points to people’s desire for tribalism and need to feel relevant

  8. says

    Also as if, for the sake of keeping “the community” unsplit and undivided and all on the same page, we’re supposed to accept bad behavior without complaint.

    Yes, let’s agree on all the things and ignore all the bad conduct, and that way we will have a fabulous Community of Skeptics.

  9. karmacat says

    And just focus on chupacabras and big foot and none of the pesky social, human stuff…

  10. militantagnostic says

    Yes, let’s agree on all the things and ignore all the bad conduct, and that way we will have a fabulous Community of Skeptics.

    That strategy has worked so well for the Catholic Church hasn’t it?

  11. says

    I’m gonna guess that, since (as I recall) Stollznow previously made official complaints about Radford’s behavior, and that since it’s been corroborated and we’ve seen some of the e-mails and whatnot, that Karen probably has some documentation to substantiate her claims. In which case Radford’s best hope is that the suit is so expensive that he’ll bankrupt Stollznow with court costs.

    Gee, seems skeptics were fighting against just that kind of silencing, bullying tactic not so long ago. But I guess there’s a major difference between Simon Singh and Karen Stollznow.

  12. says

    It’s also great to see Radford going for the “crazy ex” claim. Just in case you hadn’t gotten the message that he’s a giant misogynist shitweasel.

  13. medivh says

    Slight OT for Ophelia: in order to produce the < sign, you need to type in “&lt;”. That’s little L rather than capital i. “LT” standing for “less than”. The corresponding opposite is “&gt;”.

    The commenting field reads HTML tags, and assumes that anything within <tag> brackets is a tag, and sends it straight through to be included as an HTML tag on the page. &lt; is a way of substituting in a special character; the one for the ampersand symbol is “&amp;”, for instance.

  14. says

    Noticed on Orac’s post
    Orac:

    I’m not sure what the fallout will be, however. Mr. Radford has friends high in the skeptical movement, and I know from various sources that he is not pleased with me. Oh, well…

    He’s already been inducted into the “rageblogger” category, with statements like this he is clearly an #FTBully too!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>