I get email

Uffda:













Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to I get email

  1. So in July, when she wanted to claim she had no privilege, she said, “Also, for the last year or so I’ve been mostly too ill to work.” Here (in response to something you never said?) she works 60 hour weeks.

    Also, you’re going to get sued (but not really) by a group that doesn’t exist under that name you’re to dumb to recognize. But they totes agree with her that complaining about entitled jerks on elevators or people setting up blogs to attack an individual who has complained makes it harder to get rape convictions.

    And she’s blocked you on Facebook…where you’re having the exchange.

    Ouch.

  2. Greg Laden says:

    I should point out that this is only one exchange. There have been a couple of others.

  3. gwen says:

    …one of you is a glutton for punishment….just sayin’
    And I KNOW you’re heartbroken to be blocked from her FB account, and PZ is just as heartbroken that his blog traffic has suddenly plummeted for no reason!

  4. I say it again: She scares me.
    The rest of the gang, Hoggle, Scented Nectar, ERV and all of them, I consider them to be [insert favourite insult here], but she scares me, because her obsession has become very unhealthy

  5. Marnie says:

    I have so many questions like:

    • Why does blu think that Watson doesn’t understand why homeopathy is bunk? I’ve heard Watson rail on homeopathy many times.

    • How can someone who works for a legal firm (but doesn’t work?) not know that underhanded threats are still threats. It’s like watching a show with a cartoonish mafioso type saying to a small business owner “This is a nice store you have here, I’d hate to see anything happen to it. Oh, I wouldn’t do anything, I like you, but, you know, there are so many thugs around these days, right lefty?”

    • My spelling has never been great and my sentences go downhill when I’m excited about something but again, if she works in law, she might realize that it’s “lawsuit,” one word, not two.

    • How is a woman saying “please don’t corner me in an elevator and proposition me” akin to crying rape and thus hurting rape victims? (I admit, I’m particularly touchy about this, both as someone who has been assaulted and who feels uncomfortable when I am propositioned in an enclosed space, by a relative stranger. )

    • Does she realize that arguing with someone online who happens to be female and happens to be disabled is not the same as bullying someone for being female and disabled? In fact, no one has to know either unless you make that information known.

    • I wondering if SAU WA is aware that someone who works in a legal field is arguing that SAU does not support a woman saying she feels uncomfortable alone in an elevator with a stranger who is asking for sex. I also wonder how SAU would feel about the fact that Blu claims the company is considering litigation. I imagine it’s one thing to say that you know people who side with you but another thing altogether to speak on behalf of the company and their stance.

    • Is she aware that you cannot sue someone for defamation for something that someone else said in a public forum?

    I could go on, but these are rhetorical

    I honestly don’t really understand what’s going on and it makes me uneasy to read because I feel like she’s, internally, made a lot of conclussions and connections that the average person wouldn’t draw from a situation. I think it’s hard to find a common ground with some who isn’t even hearing the conversation the same way.

  6. Steve Price says:

    C’mon, Greg and Maria have falllen for each other. Drop the pretence.

    When is the wedding?

  7. lordshipmayhem says:

    She seems to have taken out a restraining order on reality. You have more patience than I, my friend. My deepest sympathies.

  8. Munkhaus says:

    Rarely has a stupid person trying to be clever (Laden) been so fucking boring.

  9. Marnie says:

    With all due respect to the now deceased horse I’m about to hit, I took the liberty of looking up the “sexual assault unit” for Washington and found their tips for avoiding rape.

    https://img.skitch.com/20111101-88tih7hyarwc5rg45598sw59p.jpg

    Link to the page I’ve screen grabbed
    http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547802,mpdcNav_GID,1551.asp

    Link to their home page
    http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1232,q,556783,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C31417%7C.asp

    I would say that a woman saying that being under the influence with someone else who is under the influence, in a confined space is an acceptable reason to trust one’s instinct and consider the situation unsafe. I just find it hard to believe that this unit is considering suing (or not?) because a woman wanted to avoid a situation that could result in rape.

    Ok, I’m done.

  10. Marnie, the thing is, that’s a D.C. police unit. Maria was, best I can tell, talking about some unit in Washington state, since that’s where she lives. Not that it appears to exist under that name. But yes, what you’ve posted is generally the position of anyone trying to prevent rape: Trust your instincts; try to be aware of potential traps.

    It’s only the occasional asshole official, like the police officer Abbie had to deal with when she was stalked, who tries to blame their unwillingness to act on women’s supposed “oversensitivity” to how they’re treated. Well, I say “occasional,” but they’re far too common, even in dedicated sexual assault units.

  11. Marnie says:

    Thanks Stephanie

    Living in Oregon it should have occurred to me that she may mean Washington state. There doesn’t appear to be a single washington state “sexual assault unit.” There are county specific units and something called the “WashingtonCoalition of Sexual Assault Programs”

    It makes one wonder about the veracity of this gem from the conversation:

    Absolutely not. I’m saying that lawyers working in Wa SAU (Sexual Assault Unit = translation for morons) are upset about [t]his matter, because it makes women complaining of real rape taken less seriously.

  12. bluharmony says:

    @Marnie: The positing of a hypothetical situation is not a threat. I was talking about some things Watson has written and not Laden, and his assertion that he would help her. Laden’s only defamatory statement about me has been that I sent him email, which I never have. About two FB messages before this thread, which resulted immediately after both he and PZ called me names on my Facebook page.

    Watson’s latest video does not represent how homeopathists claim their bunk system works. Watch any actual video on homeopathy.

    Also, there’s no such thing as a fecal atom.
    Fecal matter is not the same as E. Coli.
    And you don’t get sugar water by mixing ocean water and swimming pool water, among many other inaccuracies.

    Watson often says things about things in her blog that are of doubtful veracity, and Laden has vouched to help her in doing so! That’s what I was speaking to here. Engaging in constantly talking about other people rather than *ideas* is not the best way to approach a blog — or life, for that matter.

  13. bluharmony says:

    Sorry for the typos, “I get upset.”

  14. bluharmony says:

    For the record, I have never nor will I ever consent to any private and/or copyrighted material written by me being published in a Public Blog, namely Greg Laden’s X-Blog (provided any of it was accurately transcribed and such material even exists). These issues are covered by both state and federal law, if anyone is curious enough to do the relevant research.

  15. bluharmony says:

    Also, sexual assault units (common name, left specifically vague) do not sue for civil claims such as defamation, libel, slander, copyright, and privacy violations; they ONLY sue criminals for rape and sexual assault. So it is impossible for any prosecutor’s office to sue Laden unless he commits a crime and gets caught.

    What I was trying to communicate, but did so poorly, was that lawyer friends who work with rape victims are upset by false complaints of potential rape threats. If I recall correctly, Myers has called this incident both harassment and assault, while it is clearly neither. Rebecca was not “cornered,” that’s ridiculous spin. This was a five-story hotel, and she was staying on the first (or second — depends on how you’re counting) floor. The clerk estimates the elevator ride to be about five seconds, slightly less than it takes to say the words claimed to be spoken to Rebecca at an ordinary rate of speech. The man asked a question and took no for an answer. Assuming Rebecca is as face blind as she claims, she can’t know if she saw him or even spoke to him before the elevator incident. Further, she can’t know what he heard. I don’t approve or disapprove of what the elevator guy did; I certainly wouldn’t recommend it, but it is perfectly legal and consistent with what women have been asking men to do for ages — to take no for an answer immediately. And that’s what he did, at least according to Rebecca.

    Finally, just because I was not working at the time of an earlier blog post does not say anything about my work situation now. PZ won’t lose site traffic because of me, I was just finding it funny that he blocked me when the only thing I ever did on Twitter pertaining to him was send out Friday Follows recommending his site, (and he RT’d my jokes, getting me new followers as a result).

    I wanted to discuss the matter with Laden prior to blocking him, but that proved to be impossible, as this thread clearly shows, so he is now indeed blocked. I only found this thread because it has been published in various other places on the web. As to the legal ramifications of posting private and/or copyrighted content both on Facebook and a high traffic public blog, I suggest you guys do the research yourself.

    My position remains as it was. Greg has nothing to fear from me; I don’t have the power or money to file a suit, nor do I think that a civil suit would necessarily be successful. Frankly, I haven’t even researched the law beyond the obvious rule that I hope everyone knows: do not publish private communications online without explicit, written consent. Doing so may violate state and federal law, and is also a gross and shameful breach of netiquette. So, in any case, Laden’s bullying and any possible legal violations will go unchecked, at least by me.

    • Greg Laden says:

      Maria/Blu Harmony, as long as you keep up these thinly veiled threats of (impossible) law suits you have to stay away from my blog. The very next thing I want to hear from you, ever, no matter what, is one and only one of the following two exhaustive and mutually exclusive choices:

      1) A note from YOUR LAWYER stating your case: or

      2) Absolutely nothing. Silence.

    • Greg Laden says:

      Blu Harmony, I’ll add this: You are very fortunate that I’m moderating/not printing your comments from here on out. They are terribly embarrassing for you.

      You’re welcome.

      You should really try to sober up before commenting on the internet. Or adjust your psych meds, or whatever.

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>