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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.