For the Record

Apropos of this bizarre post, I should let you all know that I…

  • …don’t follow Ben Radford on Twitter.
  • …have not been contacted by Ben Radford with this statement.
  • …have not been contacted by Karen Stollznow with this statement.
  • …do not expect to be contacted by Karen Stollznow about this statement as all she seems to currently have the energy to do is post new baby pics and recover from her C-section.
  • …have not been contacted by anyone else with this statement to suggest I should update readers.
  • …was not contacted by Hemant before he posted this.

  • …was not contacted by Hemant to let me know he had posted this.
  • …read Friendly Atheist very little these days for reasons partially highlighted by this post.
  • …know that Hemant is in possession of my email address.
  • …have my email address in my sidebar.
  • …do, in fact, think the statement is newsworthy, given that I covered both the accusation and the lawsuit.
  • …do, in fact, think that Ben Radford did quite an adequate job after the accusation was made of demonstrating that he has serious issues with how he is willing to treat people.
  • …assume that Ben Radford is not quite shortsighted enough to forge Karen Stollznow’s signature and think he could get away with it.
  • …wonder why Hemant takes the statement at face value given both the earlier false statement and his own inability to confirm the signature.
  • …find it eminently laughable that Hemant would describe, well, anything as throwing someone under the bus in the context of that post.
  • …object to Hemant’s use of the word “false” in the context of a statement that uses terms like “misunderstandings” and “mistake” to describe events and the characterization thereof.
  • …hope Ben Radford and onlookers have both learned something about getting clear consent for sexual behavior and eliminating misunderstandings.
  • …hope that, should Ben Radford somehow end up in another misunderstanding like this one, he figures out how to deal with the situation without attempting character assassination of the person whose consent he misunderstood.

I think that should about cover it.

{advertisement}
For the Record

12 thoughts on “For the Record

  1. 1

    Adam Lee says he wasn’t notified either, as does Rebecca Watson….Adam tweeted at me a bit ago: “I’m pretty sure no one attacked in that post was contacted in advance. Certainly no one I’ve spoken to.”

  2. 2

    I did see that Rebecca got up a response post pretty quickly.

    I’m only inferring what Hemant’s post said based on various responses and comments. It doesn’t sound worth reading, even if avoiding the certain-to-be-Slymed comments.

  3. 3

    As I recall (and I could go back and check all of the posts, but I don’t care enough to at the moment), the posts on the matter taking Stollznow’s side were saying “If true, this is very serious, and cultural patterns being what they are, we should err on the side of believing the victim, while still allowing for a defense.” Very reasonable.

    I don’t know why Hemant Mehta and his commenters on that post would characterize them as “condemning Radford/automatically believing Stollznow”. Well, I do, but the reason why is depressing.

  4. 5

    I, on the other hand, get to go back to working on my resume because I just found out today that the company I’m working for is terminating all contract positions this Friday.

  5. 6

    OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE.

    Sorry. I just…..what the fuck is going on with people losing their jobs? I won’t name names here because I don’t know which are public and which aren’t, but seriously, is this like, layoff season or something?

    I’m really sorry, Stephanie. That sucks tremendously.

  6. 7

    It’s all a big misunderstanding. Come here manly macho bigfoot-disbelieving atheists: legally enforced hugs and kisses all around!

  7. 8

    The friendly atheist is only friendly to establishment atheism, just another authoritarian atheist. His words may seem friendly on the surface, but the motives behind them are not.

  8. 10

    Reading your post closely, it’s still not clear whether you did or did not know or had or had not heard that very recently there had been some kind of resolution or development in the case.

    So, did you?

  9. 11

    GregB, a few days ago, someone posted a status to a closed Facebook group I’m part of that said something like “Is Radford passing around his fake settlement agreement from last year?” I had no time to dig and less inclination to spend my limited time figuring out what Radford had done now. I figured I would hear more if there was movement. Then I’d figure out whether it was something I wanted to weigh in on.

    I had no idea that, if someone wanted me to take down information about them that they asserted was false, they’d think the best way to go about that was to not contact me at all. Additionally, I had no idea that someone else would purport to defend journalistic values by withholding information he had and waiting to see what I did in the absence of that information.

  10. 12

    It looks like the signed statement (if it’s authentic) is just part of making the civil case go away. Here’s what the judge’s order said (text copied from the justia.com web site):

    Motion to Dismiss. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, the parties to bear their own costs and attorney fees, by Judge John L. Kane on 05/20/2015.

    Source — https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2014cv02620/151101/34

    I had to look up “dismissed with prejudice” — this means the plaintiff (Radford) cannot bring this case back for a future lawsuit.

    The judge’s order references a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice but that document isn’t available to the general public online.

Comments are closed.