|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2013 : 11:12:51 [Permalink]
|
John Loftus really doesn't like Myers:In a personal email to me Shermer categorically denies these accusations. If what he said about his accuser gets out, it will be apparent to most all reasonable people that PZ Myers published a bold-faced lie. He recklessly tried to destroy another person's reputation without regard for fact-checking. Before publishing it PZ Myers should have contacted Shermer for his side to the story. This is standard journalistic ethics that even newsroom rookies know to do. PZ Myers knows how to email him. Why didn't he do so? Not doing so and publishing the accusation anyway was an unprincipled action devoid of ethical responsibility. But then, that's what we could expect from a demagogue now isn't it? And in a later comment:I have read Shermer's response, as I said. Had PZ asked Shermer like I did he would not have published this unevidenced accusation. Shermer knows the accuser and presents a more likely scenario than hers in my opinion. Jason Thibeault, however, points out that we can't be sure that Shermer and Myers are talking about the same woman. How can Loftus be sure? Has he emailed Myers? Has he emailed Shermer's accuser? If not, perhaps Loftus is hypocritically publishing unevidenced claims without regard for fact-checking, recklessly trying to destroy Myers' reputation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2013 : 12:59:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
John Loftus really doesn't like Myers:In a personal email to me Shermer categorically denies these accusations. If what he said about his accuser gets out, it will be apparent to most all reasonable people that PZ Myers published a bold-faced lie. He recklessly tried to destroy another person's reputation without regard for fact-checking. Before publishing it PZ Myers should have contacted Shermer for his side to the story. This is standard journalistic ethics that even newsroom rookies know to do. PZ Myers knows how to email him. Why didn't he do so? Not doing so and publishing the accusation anyway was an unprincipled action devoid of ethical responsibility. But then, that's what we could expect from a demagogue now isn't it? And in a later comment:I have read Shermer's response, as I said. Had PZ asked Shermer like I did he would not have published this unevidenced accusation. Shermer knows the accuser and presents a more likely scenario than hers in my opinion. Jason Thibeault, however, points out that we can't be sure that Shermer and Myers are talking about the same woman. How can Loftus be sure? Has he emailed Myers? Has he emailed Shermer's accuser? If not, perhaps Loftus is hypocritically publishing unevidenced claims without regard for fact-checking, recklessly trying to destroy Myers' reputation.
|
John Loftus is not very consistent. Basically, he says we should not believe the testimony of the woman that Myers' published, because it isn't verified. Of course, he then turns around and says we should believe the account Shermer send to Loftus because...???
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2013 : 13:55:34 [Permalink]
|
And commenter vexorian points out that Shermer and Loftus have just thrown out the "anonymous accuser" excuse Shermer had been trying to use to dismiss the allegations. If Shermer knows who Jane Doe really is, then she's not anonymous.
Shermer's lawyers probably told him to keep quiet about the case. He can't seem to follow that advice. If this case gets past a summary judgment against Shermer, odds are he and Loftus will get subpoenas for those emails. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2013 : 23:19:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And commenter vexorian points out that Shermer and Loftus have just thrown out the "anonymous accuser" excuse Shermer had been trying to use to dismiss the allegations. If Shermer knows who Jane Doe really is, then she's not anonymous.
Shermer's lawyers probably told him to keep quiet about the case. He can't seem to follow that advice. If this case gets past a summary judgment against Shermer, odds are he and Loftus will get subpoenas for those emails.
|
Which all makes this phase of the mess seem like a comedy of errors. Except that the likely existence of victims keeps it firmly in the genre of classical tragedy. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2013 : 03:15:35 [Permalink]
|
John Loftus on PZ Myers:He is making a shit-load of money from his blog, speaking appearances and his recent book. Myers responds:Where does this come from? I took a major cut moving from scienceblogs to our own network; for the same amount of traffic, I’m bringing in a quarter of what I was doing before…and I willingly chose to take that reduction in income. I don’t get paid for speaking appearances. I got an advance on the book, but when you divide that by the number of years it took to get that to press, it was not a living wage. They love to disparage my position as a professor at a small liberal arts university, but that is my primary source of income — I’m solidly at the lower end of the middle class. My main advantage here is job security and work I enjoy (which are pretty good benefits), not a “shit-load of money”.
They like to simultaneously claim I’m some inconsequential peon of no particular worth, and a filthy rich profiteer. Their inconsistency is painful to behold. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2013 : 14:14:40 [Permalink]
|
Latest John Loftus about Shermer's claim to know the victim:Initially he didn’t. Then he thought about it and thought he did. Now he tells me he doesn’t. Don’t make too much of this. He’s trying to guess, that’s all, just as anyone would. So much for "If what he said about his accuser gets out, it will be apparent to most all reasonable people that PZ Myers published a bold-faced lie." In fact, that sounds exactly like publishing something damaging to someone's reputation with reckless disregard to its veracity. Own goal: Loftus. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2013 : 17:34:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Latest John Loftus about Shermer's claim to know the victim:Initially he didn’t. Then he thought about it and thought he did. Now he tells me he doesn’t. Don’t make too much of this. He’s trying to guess, that’s all, just as anyone would. So much for "If what he said about his accuser gets out, it will be apparent to most all reasonable people that PZ Myers published a bold-faced lie." In fact, that sounds exactly like publishing something damaging to someone's reputation with reckless disregard to its veracity. Own goal: Loftus. |
To me, this latest chapter in the farce seems consistent with the idea that Shermer is thrashing about quite a lot in trying to figure out a defense.
Think about it: Identifying the accuser might seem, to someone of a particularly Machiavellian and narcissistic sort of mind, to have the advantage of being a preparatory step in allowing the defamation of that accuser. Maybe he thought the mere implicit threat might be enough to silence the accuser. But then, identifying her might end up seeming to imply something like, "There were hundreds of other women there, but after all, I ought to remember someone I raped."
Awk-ward!
In this conjecture, either Shermer eventually noticed that little dilemma all by his lonesome, or maybe his lawyer explained to him the implications of remembering (and then defaming) the victim. Either way, this trial balloon (via his hatchet-man, who must be regretting his role just a wee bit by now) turned out to be an iffy construction made of lead.
That's all purely blue-sky speculation, but it fits the few known facts. (Yet given how few facts are publicly known, also fitting the bill are the Good-Shermer/Evil-Shermer Identical Twins Hypothesis, and the Vast Illuminati Conspiracy Against Shermer Conjecture.) |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/27/2013 17:54:30 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2013 : 11:51:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
When it rains it pours...
PZ Myers reports in "What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade?" that people has been confiding in him about someone else than Radford.
Now I’ve been sitting here trying to resolve my dilemma — to reveal it or not — and goddamn it, what’s dominating my head isn’t the consequences, but the question of what is the right thing to do. Do I stand up for the one who has no recourse, no way out, no other option to help others, or do I shelter the powerful big name guy from an accusation I can’t personally vouch for, except to say that I know the author, and that she’s not trying to acquire notoriety (she wants her name kept out of it)?
And continues eventually to name a skeptic "authority" more widely known than Ben Radford.
Time to duck as the shit hits the fan, or the grenade goes boom.
|
This makes me ill.
I used to like PZ, used to be a fan. No longer. (Not for a while, actually)
The right thing to do is very fucking simple. You report it to the police.
PZ's claim that too much time has passed to go to the authorities is is easily shown to be questionable by a simple google search on statutes of limitations.
http://www.relieffundforsexualassaultvictims.org/resources/statutesoflimitationcrim-D.pdf
Florida appears to have the shortest limit for prosecuting rape, 4 years, but many states have no time limitation on when you can be prosecuted for rape and a lot seem to be between 5 and 15 years.
Writing a concern troll blog entry was the exact wrong thing to do. It very likely harms any criminal investigation and prosecution, in fact. It will certainly be used to question the victim's credibility in any trial.
He should have gone to the police instead of using it as an opportunity to smear a guy he doesn't like. If he (Shermer) raped anyone then he needs to face a jury, and if the actual motive was to see justice done he'd have taken the appropriate action.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2013 : 21:54:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
This makes me ill. |
What makes me ill is that the alleged victim's desires seem to have no weight in your calculus of what should have been done. Despite the fact that the accuser says she did report the event at the time, there's lots of reading you can do on this subject.
Don't fall for the Just-World Fallacy, Dude. What Myers did actually minimizes the damage for everyone except him given the facts at hand at the time. Which should be obvious since the only person who has to date been threatened with any sort of legal sanction is PZ Myers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2013 : 03:52:41 [Permalink]
|
The right thing to do is very fucking simple. You report it to the police.
PZ's claim that too much time has passed to go to the authorities is is easily shown to be questionable by a simple google search on statutes of limitations.
|
So could you please explain to me how likely reporting this to the police would be to lead to an investigation in the first place, let alone a trial? For what, as far as I can tell, will in the end be a "he said, she said" accusation?
And if she reported it to the police today, would it then be okay for PZ to report on it, according to you?
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2013 : 12:10:37 [Permalink]
|
Alex Gabriel also has a pretty good article up explaining why focusing on whether Shermer's actions could be proven to be rape in a courtroom is a bit of a red herring: The ‘Take it to court, or else’ approach – the all-or-nothing suggestion that, until and unless a trial is held and a guilty verdict reached, no statement can ever be more than idle gossip or demand concern – is profoundly naïve and illogical. We know only a tiny percentage of rapes that occur end in conviction; refusing to entertain, even hypothetically, the notion someone may at some point have raped because no court has deemed them guilty is likely, in the real world, to mean ignoring almost every instance of rape. It evokes, too, the ‘Just tell the police’ response to conference harassment.
Personally, I wouldn’t want legality to be the sole requirement for conduct at my event, and reporters of harassment don’t always want punitive action in the first place (they might just want to be listened to; they might want organisers to look out for them throughout the conference, have a private word with someone who’s bothered them or keep an eye on that person; they might want to be placed with a friendly, reliable companion or group during social hours, so as to feel less stranded). But things like expulsion from conferences do not, in any case, require criminal convictions or the standards of proof that those demand. Innocent-till-proven-guilty, with no shades of intermediate, probabilistic grey is how court systems rightly work when incarceration or registration as a sex offender is on the table; it is not how the rest of the world has to work, where degrees of reasonable suspicion exist, and the idea accusations less than perfectly watertight can never be made is a dangerous, damaging one which silences a great many victims. |
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2013 : 12:31:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
The right thing to do is very fucking simple. You report it to the police.
PZ's claim that too much time has passed to go to the authorities is is easily shown to be questionable by a simple google search on statutes of limitations.
|
So could you please explain to me how likely reporting this to the police would be to lead to an investigation in the first place, let alone a trial? For what, as far as I can tell, will in the end be a "he said, she said" accusation?
And if she reported it to the police today, would it then be okay for PZ to report on it, according to you?
|
A person tells you they have been raped. What do you do. You, personally. And why would you consider the likelihood of a police investigation a prerequisite to reporting it? WTF man.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2013 : 12:39:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
This makes me ill. |
What makes me ill is that the alleged victim's desires seem to have no weight in your calculus of what should have been done. Despite the fact that the accuser says she did report the event at the time, there's lots of reading you can do on this subject.
Don't fall for the Just-World Fallacy, Dude. What Myers did actually minimizes the damage for everyone except him given the facts at hand at the time. Which should be obvious since the only person who has to date been threatened with any sort of legal sanction is PZ Myers.
|
In what way does her telling PZ, and giving him permission to blog it, diminish PZ's responsibility to report a crime to the police? Or are you suggesting that those who have knowledge of a crime are under no moral or legal obligation to report it to the appropriate authorities?
You guys are confusing me. There appears to be a growing body of evidence against Shermer. Why would you support not reporting a rape?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2013 : 13:21:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
A person tells you they have been raped. What do you do. You, personally. |
I would discuss various options with the victim and then let them decide how to proceed.
| And why would you consider the likelihood of a police investigation a prerequisite to reporting it? |
Why wouldn't you? Odds of an unbiased investigation or successful conviction most certainly should be weighed against the pain and stress of seeking one.
I know. How dare victims place more importance on protecting themselves from further harm than "justice."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/30/2013 13:23:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbelievable
