And just so we are clear, that is what Rebecca said, and no one has claimed differently.

The elevator Guy did not ask Rebecca Watson for sex. Anyone with ANY intelligence or common sense can easily see that. And yea if you disagree with that you are stupid. EG made a mistake in asking a woman to his room but that is merely a faux pas. Can we finally start with an intelligent conversation on this manner?

He asked a woman to his room, and that can be scary. But this is not about a man propositioning a woman for sex. No it is not, and you are an idiot if you think so.

In terms of physical items, I think we used to boycott (Royal Dutch) Shell back in the day (due to dealings with South Africa during Apartheid), and currently we run a half assed boycott on Chinese foodstuffs, mainly due to product safety concerns. Otherwise I boycott all software with intrusive DRM unless it’s absolutely necessary for our business.

Of the four points listed in the original post I personally could never get agitated enough to reach points 3 and 4, and as with speech I think point 4 is going overboard for anything but obviously bat-crazy shit that should never be in anyone’s hands (fissionables/seriously dangerous biologicals etc.). I suspect I’m more lenient on point 4 than most, but that has more to do with what I perceive to be the current governments’, that I live under (other than perhaps Norway), complete inability to craft reasonable and functional legislation, and law enforcement being generally unable to follow the law in any case.

I really wish Elevator Guy would step forward and say something like this:

Hello, I am the Elevator Guy, star player in the the greatest internet controversy that should have been a non-controversy.

That is unlikely to happen. He is forever the potential rapist, the creepy weirdo, the night stalker, etc. Mud sticks, so he will lay low.

As for boycotts, everybody has a right to call for one if they want. It is a non-issue.

Asparagus is better for you, anyway.

She has said that she’ll personally refrain from purchasing Dawkins’ books in the future. I think she has that right. Are you going to force her to read them or something? I do not read Deepak Chopra’s books, or Glenn Beck’s, and I’d happily go forth and declare my rejection; that’s different from organizing a boycott.

All we get from the ERVistas is silly, strained arguments that she was making an implicit call for a boycott. If that’s what she’d intended, I guarantee you that Rebecca Watson would not be shy or vague — that’s just not her personality. You would have unambiguous declarative statements to cite.

You don’t have any, do you?

I second Greg’s suggestion that you get help. Pass it along to all of your fellow freakish obsessives, why don’t you?

I personally boycott McDonalds, as a kind of symbolic resistance to US cultural imperialism or something.

And in many people’s opinions, that was an implicit call for a general boycott.

Wrong and wrong.

Watson’s denial means very little. And liar can make any claim they wish.

Her denial that she didn’t do something she didn’t do means a great deal. And yes, once you start lying, as you just did, you may feel that you can claim what you wish.

John, you are one sick puppy. I recommend you seek help. I just hope you don’t hurt someone before you do that.

Watson did explicitly state that she was going to boycott Dawkins.

And in many people’s opinions, that was an implicit call for a general boycott.

Watson’s denial means very little. And liar can make any claim they wish.

As for why Watson gets a free pass on the evidence versus anecdote train is and has been a mystery to me for a long time. So-called skeptics like Laden, Myers, even Novella have stated publically that Watson does not need to present any evidence for her claims; she is sacrosanct.

Given Watson’s influence in the so-called skeptical / atheist / feminist community, the popularity of her blog, her own personal popularity, and the public evangelical support and endorsement she receives from such popular and influential individuals as Laden, PZ Myers, Phil Plait, S. Novella, and many others, to suggest that Watson’s statement to personally boycott Dawkins, couched as it was within a series of strongly evangelical anti-Dawkins posts, was anything other than an implicit call for a general public boycott of Dawkins is either blatant deceit, or the blindness born of a True Believer who is willfully persisting in avoiding critical thinking.

Intentionally and willfully ignoring Watson’s influence, the context of her personal boycott, and the general timbre of the Skepchick blog, the Elevatorgate mess, and so forth, and to deny absolutely the probability of her statement acting as an implicit call for a public boycott is the worst kind of ideological blindess and intellectual dishonesty.