Graydon Square allegedly assaults Brian Sapient [Archive]

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 07:05 AM

Graydon Square. is scheduled to perform Friday night at TAM. According to reports on the Rational Response Squad, something is alleged to have happened between Graydon and Brian Sapient in Washington DC recently.

Essentially, the RRS forum thread alleges that Graydon assaulted Brian, that Brian was allegedly severely injured, and that Graydon allegedly spent some time in jail after being allegedly arrested.

Obviously I am not personally making any assertions about what, if anything, happened in DC, but I thought that some members of the forum might have an interest.

Here is a link to the thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14187

Here is more info from No God Blog:
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/06/13/graydon_square_gossip_or_news#comments

Friendly Atheist also has a discussiuon as to what is alleged to have occurred:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/06/12/fight-apology-reconciliation/

ravdin

15th June 2008, 09:44 AM

Essentially, the RRS forum thread alleges that Graydon assaulted Brian, that Brian was allegedly severely injured, and that Graydon allegedly spent some time in jail after being allegedly arrested.

You may have overdone the "alleges" and "allegedly" modifiers... from what I can tell, the facts of the assault, injury, arrest, and jail time are not disputed by anyone.

It's pretty messed up, and I think it warrants a withdrawal of Greydon Square's invitation to perform at TAM.

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 10:44 AM

You may have overdone the "alleges" and "allegedly" modifiers... from what I can tell, the facts of the assault, injury, arrest, and jail time are not disputed by anyone.

It's pretty messed up, and I think it warrants a withdrawal of Greydon Square's invitation to perform at TAM.

My understanding (which comes from the horse's mouth) is that JREF is aware of the situation and has it "under control."

ravdin

15th June 2008, 01:26 PM

My understanding (which comes from the horse's mouth) is that JREF is aware of the situation and has it "under control."

Good to know. I would like for zero TAM attendees to end up in the hospital. I trust that JREF will take whatever steps are necessary to minimize the risk.

phyz

15th June 2008, 01:50 PM

Apparently, Greydon Square suffer from a psychological disorder and was off his meds. It would seem he needs time to get himself back together.

So let's get Jill Sobule on a plane to Vegas! Her Pollstar schedule shows a gig in NY 6/18 and one in Denver 6/27, so in my wishful thinking she's free!

Wolfman

15th June 2008, 01:54 PM

I was at the conference where this happened; Greydon Square had just done a quick warm-up performance, and was supposed to do more later in the evening. But when the time came, we were just told that his appearance had been cancelled. Didn't know the reason until later.

articulett

15th June 2008, 02:02 PM

I like them both... and I have tickets... Hrab will still be there.... yes... let's jet Jill Sobule. She rocks... and Julia... where's Julia this year?

articulett

15th June 2008, 02:17 PM

Just read all the info. I hope they work it out... it will serve as an example, and I don't like divisiveness among skeptics. But it will take time. I don't think I could ever feel the same trust for someone who was violent with me... maybe... if they were off meds and apologized profusely and really made an effort... but emotionally, I'd be wary.

Yet, I hope they are able to be an example. Nobody needs to pick sides. I empathize with Brian... and I recognize that this is a situation where Greydon will need to "man up" and be "big" and sincere and self effacing to come out better from this experience. He has issued an apology. It will be interesting to hear how he explains this to himself... whether he's defensive or contrite... how his mind works through this.

I'm no rap fan, but I'm a fan of Greydon Square. Hrab just broke up with his girlfriend. I think if those guys will find a lot of support in the skeptical community if they don't blame others... but use this as a means of saying... "I'm human like you". Life gets totally muffed up sometimes. And the stuff we think we won't get through... we get through and become different, stronger, better people if we're lucky-- we become "resilient". Greydon is resilient. So is Hrab.

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 02:18 PM

I have not seen an announcement regarding whether the performance is still on either on the JREF site or on Graydon Square's site. There is some confusing language in the appology that Graydon issued to Brian:

To Brian and his family, I apologize for my behavior, and my conduct of late and hope that this humanistic community will find the time to understand me, and eventually forgive me. As of now IM SQUASHING ALL BEEFS that I have with ALL PEOPLE, that includes Brian Sapient, Frank Walton, Ellen Johnson, & Michael Shermer. As a result, I am choosing to once again take a step back from the forefront and examine who I am as a person and as an artist, and while after TAM6 I planned to deal with my legal issues, I also still plan or being active on the battlefront against theistic intolerance as well as the separation of Church & State.

I don't know if his use of past tense is an indication that he isn't doing TAM 6 anymore or just a typo.

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 02:19 PM

And he does seem to have beefs with a lot of people.

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 02:20 PM

How the hell does anyone have a beef with Michael Shermer, anyway?

articulett

15th June 2008, 02:25 PM

I know... maybe Shermer thinks his style is too aggressive?

I like my skeptics feisty, myself.

articulett

15th June 2008, 02:26 PM

Shermer likes the calm, make nice approach...
I think some people need to be provoked into thinking...

Btw, good DFA show, last episode-- Rich.

All the craziness in the name of faith... we need some pointed voices, I think.

I like Greydon's anger... the way he's in your face with his logic (but hopefully not with his fists any more.)

Jeff Wagg

15th June 2008, 02:43 PM

The JREF has discussed this issue with Greydon, and he will still be performing as scheduled. We have no reason to believe he will be anything less than professional.

phyz

15th June 2008, 02:49 PM

I like my skeptics feisty, myself.

1. Really? Since when! ;)
2. rrrRRRAAAOOOwww :D

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 02:52 PM

We have no reason to believe he will be anything less than professional.

I wonder if Brian Sapient thought the same thing before the ---alleged--- punches started flying. I wonder if JREF would have taken the same position if it had not already sold a bunch of tickets to the show Friday night that it might have to refund if it took a different action. I just wonder. . . . :jaw-dropp

Jeff Wagg

15th June 2008, 02:54 PM

I have answer to your wondering...

I have no idea what Brian thought before. I do know that he and Greydon had a history of disagreement. As for the tickets, that was not a factor.

SkepticScott

15th June 2008, 03:27 PM

articulett

15th June 2008, 03:27 PM

Why would you pull him for a problem unrelated to his performance any how? All humans make mistakes. If he tried to justify his actions, you might wonder about his stability... but I don't think a person's singular bad act should erase all their good acts or their chance to do more good in the future. Greydon adds variety to the rational way of thinking... he speaks to young people and minorities... he speaks to others with bipolar problems perhaps too... to others with anger issues... and I paid for a ticket... I don't want to be punished for his transgressions somewhere else. I think there's ways that we can make a bad situation into a learning experience for the future for multiple people. I support JREF's decision not to cancel. I'm interested in seeing how Graydon handles his and others reaction to what he did.

Wowbagger

15th June 2008, 04:07 PM

I was at the conference. When his concert was cancelled, I struck up a rather interesting conversation with a girl, about biology, instead. She was a Gould/Punctuation fan, I was a Dawkins/Gradiation fan. It would never work in the long run. But, the arguing was rather... heated.

It's one thing to talk (or sing) with rage. It is another to take that rage out, into actual physical harm against others. Perhaps we will give Greydon the chance to prove this was a one-time mistake. If he develops a reputation for causing undue harm, it would probably be in JREF's best interest to distance itself from him.

ravdin

15th June 2008, 04:14 PM

I trust Jeff on this. If anyone ever does anything at a TAM, Jeff will probably have hotel security there in 30 seconds or less. This is Vegas, where the security has to be ready to deal with aggressive drunks.

I trust him too and I'm looking forward to the show.

Of course, if he's wrong I would take it into account when considering future donations to JREF or attendance at future TAMs. I suspect a lot of other people would as well. I trust what Jeff is saying because I assume he has a very good reason for the public show of confidence.

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 04:57 PM

I have answer to your wondering...

I have no idea what Brian thought before.

My question about what Brian may have thought was a rhetorical question.

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 05:08 PM

Why would you pull him for a problem unrelated to his performance any how? All humans make mistakes.

For the sake of argument, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Say you are the entertainment director for a large Las Vegas hotel and casino, and you have booked an act (for the sake of the hypothetical question, we will call the act Johnny Joker).

Two weeks before Johnny Joker is scheduled to appear, you get news that Johnny Joker has phycially assaulted someone in a vicious and unprovoked attack, and maybe that he has prior brushes with the law relating to threats of violence. You are now on notice about Joker's potentially violent propensities. Lets say that you go ahead and bring in Joker for the gig and he goes ahead and pops someone--like one of your paying customers--in the nose in another unprovoked attack, resulting in $10,000 in medical bills and substantial pain and suffering. Who would be financially responsible for the damage? Joker certainly would, but would you? As I said, you were on notice that you were bringing a potentially dangerous person into your business. Was it negligent of you to do so? Did you owe your customers a duty of care not to do so? Even if you did not owe your customers a legal duty of care to do so, did you owe them a moral duty?

If you managed a restaurant, would you want someone facing these types of recent allegations interacting with your customers?

I am not saying that there are easy answers to these questions, but that is why the question is asked.

I would also note that the allegations are that Graydon assaulted Brian in a professional business situation. He was--for all intents and purposes--at work. Would you hire someone who did what Graydon is alleged to have done in a work situation?

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 05:12 PM

I trust Jeff on this. If anyone ever does anything at a TAM, Jeff will probably have hotel security there in 30 seconds or less. This is Vegas, where the security has to be ready to deal with aggressive drunks.

Come on, Stott. Assuming you are correct about security response time (and I think that you are overly optimistic), a person can inflict a large amount of damange on another person in 30 seconds--certainly much more than I would want to be subjected to.

articulett

15th June 2008, 05:21 PM

For the sake of argument, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Say you are the entertainment director for a large Las Vegas hotel and casino, and you have booked an act (for the sake of the hypothetical question, we will call the act Johnny Joker).

Two weeks before Johnny Joker is scheduled to appear, you get news that Johnny Joker has phycially assaulted someone in a vicious and unprovoked attack, and maybe that he has prior brushes with the law relating to threats of violence. You are now on notice about Joker's potentially violent propensities. Lets say that you go ahead and bring in Joker for the gig and he goes ahead and pops someone--like one of your paying customers--in the nose in another unprovoked attack, resulting in $10,000 in medical bills and substantial pain and suffering. Who would be financially responsible for the damage? Joker certainly would, but would you? As I said, you were on notice that you were bringing a potentially dangerous person into your business. Was it negligent of you to do so? Did you owe your customers a duty of care not to do so? Even if you did not owe your customers a legal duty of care to do so, did you owe them a moral duty?

If you managed a restaurant, would you want someone facing these types of recent allegations interacting with your customers?

I am not saying that there are easy answers to these questions, but that is why the question is asked.

I understand your point... and I'm sure JREF has good legal counsel. But I don't think this applies. What are the odds that a single person who has a temper flair with a business partner will recreate that scene with random people in a different environment? How many times has Greydon performed without incident? I just think the odds are more than in our favor that this will not recur-- and I can't see what would be accomplished by canceling him. The odds that "someone will get hurt in some foreseeable way" due to what happened are low compared to the odds that all will go well or that some other unpredictable crazy thing will happen by someone else we cannot foresee at this time.

It takes some time to develop wisdom and forethought... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Wisdom_does_come_with_age/articleshow/3127602.cms
Greydon is young. We need the young... and the good and bad that comes with it.

Of course, I'm a bleeding heart who gives too many chances... but in doing a quick cost benefit analysis to all the parties involved, I think JREF made the right choice. Fortunately, we'll all have a chance to find out if this is the case.

Jeff Wagg

15th June 2008, 05:36 PM

As I said, you were on notice that you were bringing a potentially dangerous person into your business. Was it negligent of you to do so? Did you owe your customers a duty of care not to do so? Even if you did not owe your customers a legal duty of care to do so, did you owe them a moral duty?

Everyone is potentially dangerous. If I had reason to believe that Greydon was a threat to anyone at TAM, I'd do something about it. I do not have reason to believe that. There have been many meetings and discussions about this, and the result was that the JREF feels there is no danger, and we have no reason to disallow Greydon from performing.

And it goes without saying that we in no way condone his behavior last weekend, but I said it anyway.

kittynh

15th June 2008, 05:46 PM

seriously, just think what Hitchens could do if he could only walk straight!!

Don't worry, I can fill in at a moments notice if needed. And I'm flying out anyway.

articulett

15th June 2008, 05:51 PM

I'm sure hitch will be on his "meds"... that placate his moods.

What's your talent, Kitty-- interpretive dance? I can't see you rapping, but skeptchicks are full of surprises.

Jeff Wagg

15th June 2008, 06:09 PM

Hitchens will not be at TAM 6. He canceled on us.

cj.23

15th June 2008, 06:37 PM

The Greydon/Brian Sapient situation arose out of a dispute over sales and distribution of CD's -- a business matter -- according to both parties. Greydon has said on his MySpace page where he offered an apology and explanation that he has ended all "beefs" (his words I believe) with individuals including Michael Shermer. I hardly see this in any way impinges on his ability to entertain at TAM6.

You can find full commentary on the incident in many places, and www.richarddawkins.net/forums and RantsnRaves are two communities where to be fair the news of the attack was described in full on threads.

To be fair, dissension and arguments in the Atheist/Freethinking net communities are nothing new - in the last six months we have seen a "meltdown" at IIDB, long an excellent place, the creation of RnR, and a very bitter argument between YouTube atheists and the RRS before a series of clashes between the RRS and members of the RDF. I sometimes thinkI spend too much time on atheist activist communities!

So as a Christian I'm jubilant right? Not at all. While in several cases money has been a motivating factor, we have had all kinds of REALLY unpleasant muck thrown by people who should know better. Still all this added up is probably just your average church politics, backbiting and gossip.

People are people, regardless of ideologies - they argue, they slander, they do stupid things. Being an atheist does not make you a saint, and nor should it. In a sense it's really healthy - a free though community, bound by little more than negatives like "we don't believe in God" is bound to have arguments, factions and strong willed individuals. That just shows people are thinking and arguing passionately.

However my point in essence - Greydon will be dealt with in accordance with law, and if you expect atheist advocates to be plaster saints, you have a peculiar idea of humanity. NONE of us really know what led to this, and I refuse to pass judgment. Let he who has never been annoyed with a colleague throw the first punch - I hope Greydon does a blistering set at TAM, sells a lot of albums, and that Brian makes a full recovery.

cj x

SkepticScott

15th June 2008, 06:52 PM

Come on, Stott. Assuming you are correct about security response time (and I think that you are overly optimistic), a person can inflict a large amount of damange on another person in 30 seconds--certainly much more than I would want to be subjected to.Yeah, I exaggerated the response speed, but I think security would be called as soon as any argument got heated. And for all we know, Randi might carry a Taser. :eye-poppi

articulett

15th June 2008, 06:55 PM

Hitchens will not be at TAM 6. He canceled on us.

Did he say why?

Let me guess... greydon and he have issues too! :p

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 09:16 PM

Everyone is potentially dangerous. If I had reason to believe that Greydon was a threat to anyone at TAM, I'd do something about it. I do not have reason to believe that. There have been many meetings and discussions about this, and the result was that the JREF feels there is no danger, and we have no reason to disallow Greydon from performing.

And it goes without saying that we in no way condone his behavior last weekend, but I said it anyway.

I am sure that you know much more about the situation than I do, but according to some online accounts that I have read, this is not exactly his first brush with the law (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/97243), although there were apparently no charges filed out of the earlier incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greydon_Square#cite_note-YouTube-3) (see Legal issues section of the link)--The Wikipedia entry indicates that he allegedly boasted of besting another individual in an previous altercation.

I find it somewhat disquieting that JREF says that there is "no danger." I will quote that again, "no danger." Not "an acceptable degree of risk." Not "very little chance of danger." Not "an extremely remote risk of an incident." But "no danger." From a risk assessment perspective, I find this to be questionable, to say the least. I, for one, will be keeping my distance from this person if I see him in my general vacinity.

RSLancastr

15th June 2008, 09:23 PM

Did he say why?

Let me guess... greydon and he have issues too! :pI believe it was a scheduling conflict, and was announced quite some time ago. Months, I believe.

TsarBomba

15th June 2008, 09:25 PM

I'm sure JREF has good legal counsel.

I don't think that there is any evidence to support this claim. :cool:

Aerik

15th June 2008, 09:44 PM

What is with you people adding "allegedly" as if brian is the only person in the world saying greydon attacked him? Everybody who saw it, including several non-rrs or even non-rrs-friendly people, who told what happened to the police, who escorted Greydon to jail, and brian to the hospital. It's a FACT that greydon is guilty of assault. Deal with it. Put aside your prejudice against brian and stop implying he's making it up as default

Here's where I first read of this:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/06/12/fight-apology-reconciliation/

The friendly atheist reports that the story of it, such as reported here:

http://theusernamejoewastaken.blogspot.com/2008/06/brian-sapient-and-greydon-square.html

Is accurate, as is Brian's re-account at the RRS website here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14187#comment-171438

Stop your damn crusade against Sapient and stop slurring him as if he's making it up. Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Greydon purposely takes himself off his meds to be more creative. This is the result. And just so you know, the fight was not about a scheduling conflict or anything like that. It was about Greydon wanting RRS to hault selling CD's that they had already purchased. RRS refunded the money of anybody who purchased them. If anything they went above and beyond what Greydon wanted.

And to everybody who calls it "just drama" -- Edited to remove inappropriate remark. IT was first person, "real life" violence. That's not drama. It's not gossip by default. Just because you read about it on the internets doesn't mean you should treat it lightly.

This "oh, the drama!" sarcasm is nothing more than an excuse to deride others to boost oneself up upon the misfortune of others and downplay one's own viciousness and contempt. It's the fake "just kidding" of fora. Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point and do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

Wowbagger

15th June 2008, 09:55 PM

Greydon has said on his MySpace page where he offered an apology and explanation that he has ended all "beefs" (his words I believe) with individuals including Michael Shermer.

I'm not afraid of Greydon Square... I'm a vegetarian! I wouldn't want any beef with him, anyway.

RSLancastr

15th June 2008, 09:58 PM

fatewilleatyou

15th June 2008, 10:15 PM

I'll let this thing play out legally, in the meantime I was inspired to create a portrait of Greydon. There is no editorial intended here other than a comment on the power of truth. I wasn't sure if I'd go to the Hrab-Square show, but I think I will.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v220/fatewilleatyou/th_greydon-square.jpg
Click to enlarge (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v220/fatewilleatyou/?action=view&current=greydon-square.jpg)

ravdin

15th June 2008, 10:37 PM

I find it somewhat disquieting that JREF says that there is "no danger." I will quote that again, "no danger." Not "an acceptable degree of risk." Not "very little chance of danger." Not "an extremely remote risk of an incident." But "no danger." From a risk assessment perspective, I find this to be questionable, to say the least. I, for one, will be keeping my distance from this person if I see him in my general vacinity.

Jeff has put the JREF's considerable reputation behind assuring us that no TAM attendees will be beaten to a bloody pulp by Square. I for one have chosen to believe him.

That was my main objection to having him present- my concern wasn't over punishing him (the law will take care of that, I hope), but making sure that no one will end up in the hospital over a similar misunderstanding.

I usually don't have a problem separating the art from the artist. So even though I find Square's personal conduct to be inexcusable, I plan to enjoy the show.

articulett

15th June 2008, 10:53 PM

Who is showing prejudice against Brian. Nobody is required to "pick sides"... and rich used allegedly for legal reasons, I'm sure... he's hardly prejudiced against Brian... he thinks Greydon shouldn't perform. I think he's young and it takes time to refine your handling of emotions... he was wrong... but I don't think he's a threat, and I don't think canceling him makes anything better for anyone. Brian is going forth with his lawsuit... and this is being handled civilly... everyone is allowed to express their opinions on the subject. It doesn't mean that anyone has a prejudice.

I only know the both of them from the media. And I hope we can all learn something about getting along from this. If you like someone in particulars post in this thread, perhaps you should point out in particular what bugged you so it doesn't seem like you are attacking the group for not sharing your opinion or mode of expressing it aerik. What would you prefer people say and do. We weren't there. We all have differing views as to what this does or doesn't mean for the future... and they are all opinions. And it's not something that requires people to take sides. Greydon already admitted that he was at fault. I am certainly not prejudiced against either. I don't know everything. All I know is enough to support JREF's handling of the matter... the legal handling of the matter and the ability of both men to resolve the situation.

I don't know what it's like to get so angry that I want to hit someone, but I know most guys have been that angry... most guys I know have punched holes in walls before... but some of these are the nicest and best people I know. It takes time to develop control of strong emotions. And for Greydon it takes meds. And some people have to be reminded to take their meds through hard lessons. It sucks that Brian has to be a part of that lesson, and I hope that whatever makes it better for him happens. But I don't think that even Brian wants people shunning Greydon because of this.

Greydon did something violent... but not unforgivable by me. It's up to Brian whether he finds it forgivable or not. As a TAM attendee I don't feel any more threatened by Greydon than I do by other TAM members. Who knows what secrets people have. And some forum members have made me uncomfortable with insinuations about confronting me at TAM. But I'm taking a risk with them... and I'm more than willing to take a risk with Greydon. It's not like he attacks his fans. And I strongly suspect he'll be on his meds.

Even the most conscientious bipolar person often has to go through multiple relapses before they stay on their meds... even professional psychiatrists like Kay Redfield Jamison.

Greydon grew up on the streets... it takes a long time to tone down the ready to fight instinct that's cultivated there... I work with these kids... Mens testosterone and violence levels start dropping in their later 20's... Greydon is getting there... he has the opportunity to teach others who have been where he has been in a way that others don't.

JREF is not the bleeding heart that I am. I thought Rebecca should not have been banned. If they feel fine with Greydon.. so do I. And my opinion counts as much as yours.

phyz

15th June 2008, 10:56 PM

Put aside your prejudice against brian and stop implying he's making it up as default.

Stop your damn crusade against Sapient and stop slurring him as if he's making it up. For F's sake.

And to everybody who calls it "just drama" -- F you. You read that right. F you.

Stop it, you miserable excuses for human beings.

Aerik, kindly review the Forum Rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744). Please take care to read them right.

articulett

15th June 2008, 11:02 PM

Who is showing prejudice against Brian? Nobody is required to "pick sides"... and rich used allegedly for legal reasons, I'm sure... he's hardly prejudiced against Brian... he thinks Greydon shouldn't perform. I think Greydon is young and it takes time to refine your handling of emotions... he was wrong... but I don't think he's a threat, and I don't think canceling him makes anything better for anyone. Brian is going forth with his lawsuit... and this is being handled civilly... everyone is allowed to express their opinions on the subject. It doesn't mean that anyone has a prejudice.

I only know the both of them from the media. And I hope we can all learn something about getting along from this. If you dislike someone in particular's post in this thread, perhaps you should point out what in particular what bugged you so it doesn't seem like you are attacking the group for not sharing your opinion or mode of expressing it, aerik. What would you prefer people say and do.? We weren't there. We all have differing views as to what this does or doesn't mean for the future... and they are all opinions. And it's not something that requires people to take sides. Greydon already admitted that he was at fault. I am certainly not prejudiced against either. I don't know everything. All I know is enough to support JREF's handling of the matter... the legal handling of the matter and the ability of both men to resolve the situation.

I don't know what it's like to get so angry that I want to hit someone, but I know most guys have been that angry... most guys I know have punched holes in walls before... but some of these are the nicest and best people I know. It takes time to develop control of strong emotions. And for Greydon it takes meds. And some people have to be reminded to take their meds through hard lessons. It sucks that Brian has to be a part of that lesson, and I hope that whatever makes it better for him happens. But I don't think that even Brian wants people shunning Greydon because of this.

Greydon did something violent... but not unforgivable by me. It's up to Brian whether he finds it forgivable or not. As a TAM attendee I don't feel any more threatened by Greydon than I do by other TAM members. Who knows what secrets people have. And some forum members have made me uncomfortable with insinuations about confronting me at TAM. But I'm taking a risk with them... and I'm more than willing to take a risk with Greydon. It's not like he attacks his fans. And I strongly suspect he'll be on his meds. Who knows, I might need him to protect me against people who don't like me.

Even the most conscientious bipolar person often has to go through multiple relapses before they stay on their meds... even professional psychiatrists like Kay Redfield Jamison.

Greydon grew up on the streets... it takes a long time to tone down the ready-to-fight instinct that's cultivated there... I work with these kids... Mens' testosterone and violence levels start dropping in their later 20's... Greydon is getting there... he has the opportunity to teach others who have been where he has been in a way that others don't.

JREF is not the bleeding heart that I am. I thought Rebecca should not have been banned. If they feel fine with Greydon... so do I. And my opinion counts as much as yours. Moreover, I see no prejudice at all against Brian Sapient.

Jeff Wagg

15th June 2008, 11:28 PM

I find it somewhat disquieting that JREF says that there is "no danger." I will quote that again, "no danger." Not "an acceptable degree of risk." Not "very little chance of danger." Not "an extremely remote risk of an incident." But "no danger." From a risk assessment perspective, I find this to be questionable, to say the least. I, for one, will be keeping my distance from this person if I see him in my general vacinity.

Pardon me for not speaking more precisely. If you are registered for TAM, and believe that you are in danger, DO NOT COME. That advice goes for anyone.

I don't know what more you want me to say about this. We have evaluated the situation, and we believe that continuing with the planned schedule is in everyone's best interest. If you disagree with that, even with your admittedly less complete knowledge, that's fine.

phyz

15th June 2008, 11:41 PM

TsarBomba

16th June 2008, 06:02 AM

Pardon me for not speaking more precisely. If you are registered for TAM, and believe that you are in danger, DO NOT COME. That advice goes for anyone.

I don't know what more you want me to say about this. We have evaluated the situation, and we believe that continuing with the planned schedule is in everyone's best interest. If you disagree with that, even with your admittedly less complete knowledge, that's fine.

I sit here at my computer with my mouth agape at what I consider to be an inappropriate, personal, petulant, and downright nasty response. All I can say is WOW . . . actually I will say more.

Jeff, you should be more concerned with inviting a ALLEGEDLY violent thug to TAM than the fact that I may have hurt your feelings by asking some pointed questions and raising (in my mind) quite legitimate concerns. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that my questions and concerns arise from two worries: (1) Someone at TAM might get hurt and (2) JREF may be on the hook financially if that happens. Anyone in a position of authority should be delighted that someone raises concerns like this--maybe pointing things out from perspectives people had not previously considered, maybe not. The proper reaction would be something like: "I really appreciate your concerns, we have assessed the risks, made our decision, etc."

For you to tell me, in ALL CAPS NO LESS, "DO NOT COME" bespeaks of--in my humble opinion--an inability to handle anything that even comes close to constructive criticism (and frankly, all I did was ask questions, not even criticize really).

I await your apology.

TsarBomba

16th June 2008, 06:08 AM

What is with you people adding "allegedly"

I wrote "allegedly" for the same reason they do on TV and in the newspaper, not because I have any thing against Brian Sapient.

Doubt

16th June 2008, 07:33 AM

I sit here at my computer with my mouth agape at what I consider to be an inappropriate, personal, petulant, and downright nasty response. All I can say is WOW . . . actually I will say more.

Jeff, you should be more concerned with inviting a ALLEGEDLY violent thug to TAM than the fact that I may have hurt your feelings by asking some pointed questions and raising (in my mind) quite legitimate concerns. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that my questions and concerns arise from two worries: (1) Someone at TAM might get hurt and (2) JREF may be on the hook financially if that happens. Anyone in a position of authority should be delighted that someone raises concerns like this--maybe pointing things out from perspectives people had not previously considered, maybe not. The proper reaction would be something like: "I really appreciate your concerns, we have assessed the risks, made our decision, etc."

For you to tell me, in ALL CAPS NO LESS, "DO NOT COME" bespeaks of--in my humble opinion--an inability to handle anything that even comes close to constructive criticism (and frankly, all I did was ask questions, not even criticize really).

I await your apology.

Unsolicited advice to follow:

1. Get a thicker skin. Nothing there appears to be personal, petulant or nasty. But that is just one person's opinion.

2. Jeff's statement is rather logical. If you are really concerned, take the safest course of action as recommended.

3. TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING INSULTING. Granted, it is not considered polite. But it can be used to make a point. Which I think is the reason it was done.

4. No, the appropriate reaction to having a problem pointed out is not to be delighted. Appreciative, maybe. But not delighted. It is not something to be happy about.

Dunstan

16th June 2008, 08:16 AM

All bolding mine:

The JREF has discussed this issue with Greydon, and he will still be performing as scheduled. We have no reason to believe he will be anything less than professional.

Everyone is potentially dangerous. If I had reason to believe that Greydon was a threat to anyone at TAM, I'd do something about it. I do not have reason to believe that. There have been many meetings and discussions about this, and the result was that the JREF feels there is no danger, and we have no reason to disallow Greydon from performing.

And it goes without saying that we in no way condone his behavior last weekend, but I said it anyway.

Pardon me for not speaking more precisely. If you are registered for TAM, and believe that you are in danger, DO NOT COME. That advice goes for anyone.

I don't know what more you want me to say about this. We have evaluated the situation, and we believe that continuing with the planned schedule is in everyone's best interest. If you disagree with that, even with your admittedly less complete knowledge, that's fine.

The proper reaction would be something like: "I really appreciate your concerns, we have assessed the risks, made our decision, etc."

Looks to me like that's pretty much what Jeff did.

I await your apology.

Pack a lunch. You'll likely be waiting a long time.

Wolfman

16th June 2008, 08:22 AM

I sit here at my computer with my mouth agape at what I consider to be an inappropriate, personal, petulant, and downright nasty response. All I can say is WOW . . . actually I will say more.

Jeff, you should be more concerned with inviting a ALLEGEDLY violent thug to TAM than the fact that I may have hurt your feelings by asking some pointed questions and raising (in my mind) quite legitimate concerns. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that my questions and concerns arise from two worries: (1) Someone at TAM might get hurt and (2) JREF may be on the hook financially if that happens. Anyone in a position of authority should be delighted that someone raises concerns like this--maybe pointing things out from perspectives people had not previously considered, maybe not. The proper reaction would be something like: "I really appreciate your concerns, we have assessed the risks, made our decision, etc."

For you to tell me, in ALL CAPS NO LESS, "DO NOT COME" bespeaks of--in my humble opinion--an inability to handle anything that even comes close to constructive criticism (and frankly, all I did was ask questions, not even criticize really).

I await your apology.Geez.

Jeff has already said -- several times -- that the JREF has evaluated the situation, and considers it safe. After saying that, he still has people commenting on the potential danger.

Just about the only thing LEFT for him to say is, basically, "We don't think there is any threat represented by Greydon Square, but if you disagree, and believe there is a threat, then don't come." It is a rational, logical response. Not only do I not see why any apology is required, but I'd consider your response to be the one that is over the top, not his.

There is, obviously, NOTHING that Jeff is going to be able to say that is going to satisfy you, personally. However, what he has said satisfies most of us here. He has no requirement or responsibility whatsoever to pander to the individual eccentricities or perceived insults of every person who happens to interact with him.

I'll repeat what he said. The JREF has made a decision. And they have informed everyone of that decision, and the reason for it. If you agree with it, great...no problem. If you disagree with it, you have the option not to attend TAM. They made their decision, you can make your decision. Its as simple as that.

TsarBomba

16th June 2008, 10:03 AM

Geez.

Jeff has already said -- several times -- that the JREF has evaluated the situation, and considers it safe. After saying that, he still has people commenting on the potential danger.

Totally. And I will continue to comment on the potential danger to my heart's content. I didn't realize that continued comments and questioning was somehow antitthetical to a skeptical viewpoint.

Just about the only thing LEFT for him to say is, basically, "We don't think there is any threat represented by Greydon Square, but if you disagree, and believe there is a threat, then don't come." It is a rational, logical response. Not only do I not see why any apology is required, but I'd consider your response to be the one that is over the top, not his.

I guess that we will just have to disagree on this point (along with apprently every other point in this thread). When Jeff says "DO NOT COME" IN ALL CAPS I consider that equivelent to him saying: "If you disagree with me, than take you ball and go home." I know that you will disagree on this point, but that's how I see it.

There is, obviously, NOTHING that Jeff is going to be able to say that is going to satisfy you, personally. However, what he has said satisfies most of us here. He has no requirement or responsibility whatsoever to pander to the individual eccentricities or perceived insults of every person who happens to interact with him.

I am not interested in being satisfied. I am interested in pointing out what I consider to be valid concerns.

I'll repeat what he said. The JREF has made a decision. And they have informed everyone of that decision, and the reason for it. If you agree with it, great...no problem. If you disagree with it, you have the option not to attend TAM. They made their decision, you can make your decision. Its as simple as that.

Frankly, I don't think that they have really given us any information on the reason for the decision, except to say that the decision was made, and that they think that there is zero danger of an incident. That doesn't explain why JREF would have someone appear at TAM who allegedly assaulted another person at a secular thinking conference, and who has acknowleged having a "beef" (of unknown origin an rationale) with another person who is doing a presentation at TAM. In my post I said that I would keep my distance from the individual involved. That was my answer to my concerns. That should have been the end of discussion about me as far as I thought. For Mr. Wagg to then suggest, if "suggest" is the right word, "DO NOT COME" is where he went over the top. I had already figured out a way to deal with my pereptions of the situation, and I really think that the "DO NOT COME" suggestion was not necessary, was abusive, and was inappropriate.

Jeff Wagg

16th June 2008, 11:17 AM

NiallM

16th June 2008, 11:32 AM

Wolfman

16th June 2008, 11:32 AM

I guess that we will just have to disagree on this point (along with apprently every other point in this thread). When Jeff says "DO NOT COME" IN ALL CAPS I consider that equivelent to him saying: "If you disagree with me, than take you ball and go home." I know that you will disagree on this point, but that's how I see it.And again...myself, and others who are reading this, don't see it that way at all. It is the equivalent of those who simply won't agree with how the forum is run...they make their suggestions and complaints, and those things are listened to, but a decision is ultimately made with which they still disagree. Those people then continue complaining, insisting that their opinion is the more correct one.

At that point, the only real possible response is "you can either accept it, or you can move on and find another forum that meets your personal needs". When I ran a forum, I said this all the time. It didn't mean "I want you to leave". It meant "I'd like you to stay, but I'm not going to change things, and if you really have a problem with that, it is probably better for you to find somewhere else that better meets your needs".

That is exactly how I -- and, judging from the responses of everyone else here -- perceives Jeff's response. And, looking at Jeff's apology (which is more than I felt was really deserved, but kudos to Jeff for that), it is pretty darn obvious that this is exactly the way that Jeff meant it, too.

Personal opinion does not constitute reality. Incorrect interpretation of intent does not automatically require apology. These are pretty much standard cornerstones of any logical or skeptical discussion of anything. Same thing for me -- if I say something here, and someone entirely misinterprets what I said, or twists it around to an entirely different meaning, I may make a further post to clarify my meaning intent -- but I'm not gonna' apologize because one person out of fifty fails to grasp the meaning of what I've said, or interprets it incorrectly.

Its not so much the difference of opinion that bothers me here. It is the rather arrogant assumption that your interpretation of Jeff's statement is the only proper one, and the demand that an apology is needed. Disagree all you want -- but don't expect apologies every time someone says something you don't like, or when your feelings get hurt because *gasp* someone else dared to disagree in return.

kittynh

16th June 2008, 11:33 AM

Look, one of my favorite people I have met via JREF has a long history of serviing time in prison. Great guy. I have had this man over to my home many times, and indeed enjoy these visits. He is open and honest about his prison time and his many convictions. He has even meet with Randi and I had him over to Jeff's house. He's a good guy. If you met him, you would agree. But meet him, don't just judge by his rap sheet.

JREF does not do a background check on everyone that registers. With the large number of people attending I can promise you there are going to be a few people that are "off their meds" or whatever. There have been 2 cases I can think of (I've attended every TAM) where there were issues, and they were handled with a professionalism that made me feel very comfortable and confident. Don't forget, we have Hal Bidlack there, and many others with law enforcement experience that can size up any situation in a flash. Far safer at TAM than my last Elementary School Art Teachers conference (I'm not kidding, ex husband showed up with a gun, it was interesting and handled very poorly).

This is rather sounding like a fundie conference. "HE can't speak because we're going to judge him ..." or the old "he is not worthy". Yeah, people screw up. But they can also do great work and have wonderful things to pass on to us. As skeptics I hold us to a higher standard of tolerance and forgiveness. Unlike most fundies I know, skeptics are a forgiving understanding and tolerant lot (for the most part).

Openess and honesty is the result.

When we start judging the result is suppression, shame, guilt and covering up. That's why a lot of religion is totally messed up.

With Hal Bidlack (A hero in my opinion) and the other good people I know from JREF, we'll be fine. There are far far more things in Vegas to be scared of (see Roadtoads sad post about losing a family member) than our speakers.

Smart people running the JREF. I trust them.

Wolfman

16th June 2008, 11:40 AM

Lotsa panic in this thread. "OMG, there is someone in this room who hasn't actually been convicted of assault!"

You've stressed "professional" about the meeting between "Sapient" and "Square", but there was nothing at all professional about the waythat CD"s were not delivered to paying customers and Square's reputation was damaged.

For the moment, Greydon Square has not been convicted of anything and is considered safe to be on the streets.

There really is no more to say than that you should go along unless you have an over-wheening fear of being in the same room as someone who has committed an assault. Just remember that next time you're with any more than a very few people.

Hell, a TAM meeting? Between all of thpeople and the staff I'd bet that there is more than one criminal involved, and statistically it's highly likely that there'll be someone there who has taken a life.

Stop being so precious.Good point -- perhaps the JREF should demand that Richorman (and every other TAM attendee) present a legal, verifiable copy of their legal record, in order to demonstrate that they have no history of violence, and do not represent a potential threat to others at TAM. And anyone with pending legal charges should not be allowed at least until the charges are resolved (one way or another).

And then let's outlaw drinking at TAM, since there's always the danger that, under the influence of alcohol, someone at TAM would lose their temper and get in a fight with someone else. How DARE the JREF hold an event where so many innocent people could be subjected to the physical or verbal abuses of a drunken individual?

Or perhaps TAM could simply equip a group of 'enforcers' with tasers, and at the first indication of violence by anyone at TAM, simply zap them, thereby protecting everyone else, and doing their best to ensure everyone's safety.

Jeff Wagg

16th June 2008, 01:26 PM

I suggest we just put aside our differences and enjoy the conference.

kittynh

16th June 2008, 02:05 PM

yeah, let's have fun.

If you want controversy, let's talk about why skeptics gamble.

I dunno, but I'll be putting money into slot machines. Talk about things that can't be explained.

Dicon

16th June 2008, 03:40 PM

I dunno, but I'll be putting money into slot machines. Talk about things that can't be explained.

Especially since the craps tables are the only logical places to throw your money away enjoy an evening of quality entertainment!

This message automatically corrected by the Las Vegas Gaming Commission.

Ed Baehr

16th June 2008, 04:45 PM

I suggest we just put aside our differences and enjoy the conference.

I'm with you Jeff...

Susan Gerbic

16th June 2008, 05:52 PM

Especially since the craps tables are the only logical places to throw your money away enjoy an evening of quality entertainment!

I LOVE CRAPS! But I can't justify the money I will spend. Oh well!

Anyway,

I have heard Greydon Square on the SGU podcast, and am very impressed with this man, he is anything but a thug. I think he has his Masters and is working on his PhD. Can't quite remember, but he is articulate and engaging.

I want to thank JREF for trying to encourage more young people and people of color. We have far too few in my opinion. Greydon helps out in both areas, and we need more like him.

I am very happy he is attending, and am more worried about the casino drunks puking on me than Greydon harming anyone.

Susan

bpesta22

16th June 2008, 06:11 PM

Not going to the conference, but theoretically, couldn't there be liability for the JREF if GS smacks someone down at Tam (under the principle of negligent hiring/retention)?

cj.23

16th June 2008, 06:18 PM

Not going to the conference, but theoretically, couldn't there be liability for the JREF if GS smacks someone down at Tam (under the principle of negligent hiring/retention)?

Why? They have no reason to believe he is more likely to than say James Randi or Michael Shermer? Nothing in his contract gives him the right to hit people?

I am astonished at people who seem unaware of the background to this unfortunate incident being so worried by this chap.

I agree it's an interesting legal question though, and worth asking. I could pay GS to punch me, collect on the suing and split the money with him if so. :) Actually, maybe I'd just ask him to insult my tie.

Sadly I won't be at TAM. I can't afford a bus to the library let alone a ticket to Vegas. Any chance of a UK event?

j x

EverLastingGodStopper

16th June 2008, 07:28 PM

As long as none of you have been accepting money for sales of Greydon's CD, but refusing to ship the orders, you probably have nothing to worry about.

ravdin

16th June 2008, 07:35 PM

I LOVE CRAPS! But I can't justify the money I will spend. Oh well!

Anyway,

I have heard Greydon Square on the SGU podcast, and am very impressed with this man, he is anything but a thug. I think he has his Masters and is working on his PhD. Can't quite remember, but he is articulate and engaging.

I want to thank JREF for trying to encourage more young people and people of color. We have far too few in my opinion. Greydon helps out in both areas, and we need more like him.

I am very happy he is attending, and am more worried about the casino drunks puking on me than Greydon harming anyone.

Susan

Let's make no mistake about it. He is a thug. It doesn't mean he's not as intelligent, articulate, and charming as you say. But giving someone a vicious beating over a business disagreement, and putting him in the hospital... that's not done by people who aren't thugs. We do NOT need more like him.

That said, I'm sure he's very impressive on stage- so I plan to relax, enjoy the show, and leave it at that.

TsarBomba

16th June 2008, 08:23 PM

Good point -- perhaps the JREF should demand that Richorman (and every other TAM attendee) present a legal, verifiable copy of their legal record, in order to demonstrate that they have no history of violence, and do not represent a potential threat to others at TAM. And anyone with pending legal charges should not be allowed at least until the charges are resolved (one way or another).

Wolfman, the law imposes on everyone something called a "duty of care." Jref would owe conference attendees no duty of care to check into the background of other attendees, or even take action if it knew that a paying customer has a violent criminal history. Although I have not studied the pecularities of Nevada law on this subject, I think that I am safe in assuming that it is similar to that of other states. Under most circumstances a legal entity that brings an employee or contractor in contact with the public has no duty to inquire of that person's history, but once that history is known, the entity might very well owe a duty of care to its employees, other contractors, and customers to protect them from the risk of being subjected to contact with the individual. If that duty is violated, the entity might very well be on the hook for civil damages in court if someone sustains an injury that a proper exercise of the duty of care would have prevented. The concerns I have expressed in this thread have centered on that reality. If there was an incident, and if Graydon hurt someone signifigantly, you can bet that most aggreived people would file a lawsuit against the JREF in a New York second. A jury considering such a case might look at the situation very differently than you would. That is my concern, and I am not so sure that JREF has really thought it through.

Any assertion we should all just be quiet because the JREF has made their decision and it therefore must be the correct decision is little more than the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

I have been around a lot of very violent and dangerous people in my professional life and I know one thing--people who break into violent rages canot be trusted to act rationally, calmly, and according to the rules of society, no matter what the conseqences might be for their behavior.

EverLastingGodStopper

16th June 2008, 08:35 PM

Let's make no mistake about it. He is a thug. It doesn't mean he's not as intelligent, articulate, and charming as you say. But giving someone a vicious beating over a business disagreement, and putting him in the hospital... that's not done by people who aren't thugs. We do NOT need more like him.

That said, I'm sure he's very impressive on stage- so I plan to relax, enjoy the show, and leave it at that.

I know Greydon, he's a sweetheart. I also know Brian "Sapient," and have for years. I assure you that Greydon's temporary lapse of judgment was just that: temporary. He has expressed remorse for his actions in his MySpace blog. He's not a "thug," he's a college student and a talented rapper. I'm glad you're going to have a chance to see him perform, he's great. Don't be discouraged by the recent gossip. Knowing both of the men involved in this unfortunate encounter, I can only say that it was surely an isolated incident.

TsarBomba

16th June 2008, 08:37 PM

Lotsa panic in this thread. "OMG, there is someone in this room who hasn't actually been convicted of assault!"

You've stressed "professional" about the meeting between "Sapient" and "Square", but there was nothing at all professional about the waythat CD"s were not delivered to paying customers and Square's reputation was damaged.

And that's relevent how? We have this wonderful thing in civilized nations called "courts of law," where we settle disputes that cannot be sittled informally between the parties. That, and only that, would be the appropriate respone to some kind of business relationship gone wrong, assuming that they couldn't come to a more informal settlment. Fisticuffs are not considered a legal means of settling disputes in any society that would be considered "civilized." If I miss a mortage payment, I certainly don't wan't the bank sending some hired goons to rough me up. The bank can try to informally resolve it with me or take me to court. You would seem to imply that physical altercations is the appropriate means to settle such disputes.

For the moment, Greydon Square has not been convicted of anything and is considered safe to be on the streets.

True, he has not been convicted, and is therefore considered by the court to be innocent until proven guilty. That presumption does not apply to anyone except the court. Since he apparently spent two nights in jail before getting out, I assume (with some justification) that he was required to post bond. The general purpose of bond is to insure the presence of the accused for the trial. For a misdemeanor case, there would be pre-determined bond schedule, or a set amount of bond imposed by the judge. In very few cases is there any type of formal assessment that someone is "considered safe to be on the streets."

There really is no more to say than that you should go along unless you have an over-wheening fear of being in the same room as someone who has committed an assault. Just remember that next time you're with any more than a very few people.

Oh please. My main concern was--and is--the potential liability faced by JREF.

Stop being so precious.

Don't know why you feel you need to get personal with me, dude.

shelleymtjoy

16th June 2008, 08:57 PM

Since he apparently spent two nights in jail before getting out, I assume (with some justification) that he was required to post bond. The general purpose of bond is to insure the presence of the accused for the trial. For a misdemeanor case, there would be pre-determined bond schedule, or a set amount of bond imposed by the judge. In very few cases is there any type of formal assessment that someone is "considered safe to be on the streets."

He spent two nights in lock up because incident occurred on Saturday evening. Arraignment was held Monday. He was not ordered to post bond.

kittynh

16th June 2008, 09:16 PM

ohhh for goodness sake ...

Piffle

Jas

16th June 2008, 10:46 PM

Gee whiz guys, I have an assault conviction. Hope that doesn't make the conference too dangerous for you to go to.

Troylus

16th June 2008, 10:50 PM

skepticality

17th June 2008, 12:42 AM

My issue with Square isn't the reported violence, rather it is that simply I don't think he's very talented. But his concert is an optional event for those who do enjoy his abilities, so I have no problem at all with him performing.

In general, my opinion is that the main meat of the conference should be enlightening speakers, panels, and discussions. Artists and entertainers with a skeptical flair are the tasty side-dishes.

It's a double bill of musical talent with a critical thinking bent which is an even rarer bird than a skeptic's convention - however (and I am biased because I love him to pieces) even if Greydon isn't your cup of tea, you're missing a fabulous show if you don't see George Hrab.

He's a phenomenally talented musician whose day job is playing with notable bands like The Philadelphia Funk Authority, and whose solo career has really exploded in the last few years. If you like jazz, satire, and cutting wit all with a skeptical world view, you really will enjoy seeing George.

I for one, never miss a chance to see him. If you haven't heard George yet, his albums are available on iTunes, or you can get his Geologic Podcast also through itunes or www.geologicpodcast.com for free.

I do not get any kickbacks by promoting George, I just think he's awesome. The flap surrounding Greydon and Brian is unfortunate for everyone involved, but I doubt it can cast any sort of a pall over the spirit of TAM.

- Swoopy
co-host, Skepticality (the unofficial George Hrab fan club)

articulett

17th June 2008, 01:32 AM

I am also part of the unofficial George Hrab fan club... I learned of his podcast from this forum, and I am hooked. I adore him. He's megatalented on many levels--hysterical, brilliant, great impressions and characters and a talented musician.

kittynh

17th June 2008, 05:16 AM

well and why do I feel that richorman perhaps is tip toeing around what HE sees as the gorilla in the room.

Doubt

17th June 2008, 05:44 AM

Gee whiz guys, I have an assault conviction. Hope that doesn't make the conference too dangerous for you to go to.

Well that is it then. No TAM for me. I just cannot stand being around such violent people!!!!

hmmmm.....Not enough exclamation points....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D

Doubt

17th June 2008, 05:48 AM

well and why do I feel that richorman perhaps is tip toeing around what HE sees as the gorilla in the room.

We can ask.

Richorman, what do you think the JREF should do beyond what it has already done?

And well we are at it, take a WAG at what you think the risk factor is here. Feel free to come up with probabilities for the risk.

ottle

17th June 2008, 06:33 AM

My main concern was--and is--the potential liability faced by JREF.

Richorman, as Jeff has said, they have internally discussed this several times at JREF through various meetings and discussions. So whatever liability does exist is most certainly a risk that JREF is willing to take, based on their understanding of the situation.

Is the liability of JREF really your concern or is it your own personal safety? Or is it something else? You have already said that you can't be satisfied in this, so what exactly are you looking for here?

HarryKeogh

17th June 2008, 06:50 AM

Don't let Graydon Square catch you double-dipping at the forum party. He hates that.

Thranil

17th June 2008, 07:43 AM

It's kind of odd to have this be my first post, but I stumbled across this forum/thread when I was digging into what happened between GS and Sapient. After reading what users of this forum had to say, I felt compelled to register and just offer my perspective... of course take this for what it's worth :).

I personally have a lot of concern about what he did, and I'm honestly torn on how I feel that the atheist community should respond to it. I agree that is ok to make mistakes, and that we should not shun people for making mistakes. However, I also agree that if someone exhibits a pattern of behavior that is violent/destructive, then that person needs to make significant changes in their life... and that people who continue to support this individual's way of being are only enabling his/her destructive behavior.

So what do I make of GS's behavior? Well, he clearly has a recent record of run-ins with the law. Some of it appears to be violent or borderline violent. Now from what I gather of the incident in question, here seem to be the baseline facts: He had an argument with Sapient where, from what I can tell, he was angry about the situation with the distribution (or lack thereof) of his CDs. As this argument continued, he became physical with Sapient to the point of putting Sapient into the hospital. Sapient did not initiate the physical attack, nor did he fight back. After his event took place, GS posted a video on youtube where he was clearly gloating about having 'beaten up' Sapient. A little while later, he issues a strangely worded apology to the community where he claims that he will have 'no more beefs' with anyone.

So here are the parts of this story that cause me concern. First, he has a recent history of doing this. People tend to continue in their behaviors unless they actively seek change (and help in making this change). Secondly, At the incident in question, GS did not simply take a swing at Sapient... he pummeled him. I can understand (but do not condone) someone taking a swing at the person they are having a heated argument with, but continuing with the beating in a way that lands the other person in the hospital causes me great concern for the aggressor's mental state. Third, at first he comes out gloating, then he issues a strange 'apology' where he makes it clear (to me at least) that he doesn't understand just what it was that he did that was unacceptable. It also causes me concern for him that he thinks the problem is that he has 'beefs' with people. It is foolish to think that one just needs to not get angry again to remain non-violent... I'm sure any anger management therapist worth their salt will tell you that this is a surefire way to becoming violent again in the future.

So, now that I've done some arm-chair analysis of the situation, what do I think that the atheist community should do? I'm honestly not sure. Clearly it's not as simple as the xtian response of shunning... but I feel like we do have to be careful here. There is the public face of Atheism that is being presented that needs to show compassion, but at the same time needs to show that it will not tolerate destructive behaviors. There is also the private face of Atheism that, I hope, cares about each other so that we try to help each other out when we need it.

I guess what I'm saying is that, again in my opinion, the Atheist community should stop supporting GS in his current behavior pattern. We should encourage him to seek help, and preferably even help him get it. So I'm not ok with shunning him, but I do think it is appropriate to stop booking him at gigs until he gets the help that he needs... and I also think it would show the humanity of the Atheist community if we assisted him in this (financially etc).

But to quote GS: "But maybe it isn't, maybe it just seems, maybe I'm the crazy person, maybe it's just me".

Susan Gerbic

17th June 2008, 08:17 AM

Well thank you Thranil. You have just made my point.

It's kind of odd to have this be my first post, but I stumbled across this forum/thread when I was digging into what happened between GS and Sapient. After reading what users of this forum had to say, I felt compelled to register and just offer my perspective... of course take this for what it's worth :).

We need to attract more young people and people of color to our community. I do not know if you fit these categories, but my point was that we need to continue branching out to attract new people. And clearly this has happened only a few posts from my statement.

Greydon Square is only one avenue, but one that has not been explored previously.

Susan

Thranil

17th June 2008, 10:53 AM

Well, I'm a 30-something white male, so I doubt I'm in some sort of hard-to-find demographic for atheists... ;)

cj.23

17th June 2008, 01:40 PM

Clearly it's not as simple as the xtian response of shunning...

Surely you mean forgiving? I'd buy him lunch and have him crash over. Punching BS was a lot less painful than many atheists repeatedly expressed desire to do far worse to him...

cj x

Thranil

17th June 2008, 01:53 PM

Surely you mean forgiving? I'd buy him lunch and have him crash over. Punching BS was a lot less painful than many atheists repeatedly expressed desire to do far worse to him...

cj x

Then you are a rarity. I wrote what I meant from my many years of experience as a xtian.

RSLancastr

17th June 2008, 04:58 PM

Well, I'm a 30-something white male, so I doubt I'm in some sort of hard-to-find demographic for atheists... ;)I think you're in the demo right behind gray-bearded old bald guys.

articulett

17th June 2008, 05:19 PM

I don't think the atheist community nor the skeptical community need to respond in a singular way. I think this is an issue everyone is free to have their own opinions about and assorted organizations can handle their decisions without having to act in accordance with other skeptical groups or communities.

I, personally, am glad that JREF didn't cancel Graydon's performance. I think that would have been an over-reaction in regards to potential threat and not JREF's role as far as using social pressure to shun bad behavior. I think that Brian Sapient and individuals are free to express their opinions to Graydon and the law seems to be taking care of it as well.

What's the big picture? I'd like to see skepticism grow... and not divide into sects. We have people "in charge" to handle these sorts of human mini-dramas. I can't see what good is possibly served by demanding that JREF take action or issue a public declaration or anything like that. I don't think what happened between Graydon and Sapient is JREF's business beyond the safety of TAM attendees. And I hardly think Graydon is a threat to any attendee... at least no more sore than many others. I'll take my chances. Everyone is free to access their risks involving Graydon and can choose accordingly... none of us know our risks involving the other members, however. I'm okay with that. I'm not sure I'd even want to know. As Kitty's PTA gun episode pointed out... the dangerous events are seldom predictable. There have been shootings in churches.

Plus if you feel Graydon should be shunned or hear your opinion, then I would hope you'd want his presence so that you could do it in person. You can post your opinion all over the blog on the subject as well. But don't expect others to share your view or put muscle into it.

UnrepentantSinner

17th June 2008, 06:17 PM

Atheist community huh? He doesn't sound like someone I'll be viewing his performace or hanging out with much anyway.

Meh.

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 07:15 PM

well and why do I feel that richorman perhaps is tip toeing around what HE sees as the gorilla in the room.

I think that I have been pretty direct in stating my concerns. I really have no idea what you could be talking about.

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 07:17 PM

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 07:47 PM

Richorman, as Jeff has said, they have internally discussed this several times at JREF through various meetings and discussions. So whatever liability does exist is most certainly a risk that JREF is willing to take, based on their understanding of the situation.

Is the liability of JREF really your concern or is it your own personal safety? Or is it something else? You have already said that you can't be satisfied in this, so what exactly are you looking for here?

Ottle, I have: (1) Expressed concerns about the situation; (2) Stated my understanding of the law; and (3) Provided links to information available on the internet. What I have not done, and what I cannot do, is give JREF legal advice. If I answered your questions I would be coming close to crossing the line into doing that.

I will say one thing that I think that JREF should do (and maybe, just maybe, people who disagree with me about every other issue that has been discussed on this thread might agree with me on this one issue): GRANT AN AMNESTY TO REBECCA (assuming that she would accept it, of course). I know she did wrong. I know she broke some important forum rules to get suspended (although I have never understood this paranoia boardering on a fetish that internet forums in general have against sock puppets) and then broke even more rules to get banned, but it is not like she (allegedly) smacked someone in the face at a freethinking conference. I, for one, would like to see Rebecca back. I fully acknolwledge that this is off topic, in fact I am hoping that this post will result in a full scale derailing of the topic of this thread, which I think that all concerned will agree has far outlived its shelf life, so PLEASE, let's start talking about an amnesty for Rebecca, pros and cons, so that this thread ends up discussing something different, and if that is not possible, someone please drive a stake through the heart of this thread, although I realize that I am the one who brought the vampire to life. One more thing, does anybody know if there was a public or forum announcement about Hitchens cancelling? I sometimes go a couple of weeks without reading the forum, so I could have missed it, but at least one person commented to me privately that this thread was the first they heard of it. Not that I am all that upset about it. I would prefer 100% turnover in talent from TAM to TAM (Randi and Hal excepted, of course), so I don't feel put out about it. I am just wondering if it was ever announced.

Doubt

17th June 2008, 07:51 PM

I am not looking for anything. I am expressing my concerns.

Then why did you continue to push the issue so hard after Jeff's initial response?

Please see Dunstan's post #49 for reference.

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 07:57 PM

Then why did you continue to push the issue so hard after Jeff's initial response?

Please see Dunstan's post #49 for reference.

Because of the strength of my concerns. Anyway, what are your thoughts on my idea for an amnesty for Rebecca?

articulett

17th June 2008, 08:03 PM

I don't find Rebecca a threat to JREF, and I think her actions alerted us to a bigger problem in a goofy (maybe "wrong") way... but I know that JREF doesn't want to look like it plays favorites...

and I wouldn't want a total turn over of tam talent... Phil Plait, Richard Wiseman, I am attached to some of the staples. I'd like to see more women... more variety...

Doubt

17th June 2008, 08:10 PM

Because of the strength of my concerns. Anyway, what are your thoughts on my idea for an amnesty for Rebecca?

Not sure I understand your motivation.

But on with the derail.

Amnesty for Rebecca would be unfair to others who have been banned for less. I don't know what she was thinking when she decided to get herself banned. She knew better. And she has had a lot of support from members of this board.

I do intend to ask her what happened. But I will probably be the 150th person to do that at TAM and don't expect her to be happy to answer the same question that many times.

To understand the history of sock puppets here and unauthorized access to the mods only area you would need to spend a lot of time looking into the long and unhappy history of two banned users and three user names. I will only post one of them here: Latinijral. Not sure how much you can still find on him or his other user nickname.

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 08:22 PM

Not sure I understand your motivation.

But on with the derail.

Amnesty for Rebecca would be unfair to others who have been banned for less. I don't know what she was thinking when she decided to get herself banned. She knew better. And she has had a lot of support from members of this board.

I do intend to ask her what happened. But I will probably be the 150th person to do that at TAM and don't expect her to be happy to answer the same question that many times.

To understand the history of sock puppets here and unauthorized access to the mods only area you would need to spend a lot of time looking into the long and unhappy history of two banned users and three user names. I will only post one of them here: Latinijral. Not sure how much you can still find on him or his other user nickname.

Thank you. I actually agree with almost everything you said. I think that Rebecca needs the JREF Forum equivelent of a presidential pardon. When the president pardons convicted criminals, he (often) knows that they have committed crimes, and knows that many other people who did the same exact thing are still locked up or laboring under the reality of having a felony conviction on their record, but he can still pardon them nontheless. Not that what Rebecca did is of the same vein as a criminal that would be pardoned by the president, but I think that the concept is a useful point of dicsussion.

MattusMaximus

17th June 2008, 08:36 PM

Jeff has already said -- several times -- that the JREF has evaluated the situation, and considers it safe. After saying that, he still has people commenting on the potential danger.

Fear can make people behave irrationally. It's natural and I can understand how some folks would be nervous. Personally, I think the JREF has done a good job about being open and direct about the entire situation.

As for the specifics concerning Brian Sapient and Greydon Square, I will remain neutral on the issue, as I don't know either of them and I wasn't there to witness the event in question. That's why we have police investigators.

Just about the only thing LEFT for him to say is, basically, "We don't think there is any threat represented by Greydon Square, but if you disagree, and believe there is a threat, then don't come." It is a rational, logical response. Not only do I not see why any apology is required, but I'd consider your response to be the one that is over the top, not his.

There is, obviously, NOTHING that Jeff is going to be able to say that is going to satisfy you, personally. However, what he has said satisfies most of us here. He has no requirement or responsibility whatsoever to pander to the individual eccentricities or perceived insults of every person who happens to interact with him.

I'll repeat what he said. The JREF has made a decision. And they have informed everyone of that decision, and the reason for it. If you agree with it, great...no problem. If you disagree with it, you have the option not to attend TAM. They made their decision, you can make your decision. Its as simple as that.

I would offer a middle ground suggestion. If you are someone who is nervous about Greydon Square and his alleged behavior (I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, I'm neutral on the issue - thank you very much and don't bother me about it), then it is quite possible that you could both attend TAM6 and avoid coming into contact with him.

Seems like a simple enough solution to me. There's enough going on at TAM6 that one can find plenty of things to do without fretting overly much about this particular situation.

Btw, I'd also like to echo the point being made by others here. Statistically, when you get enough people together, there will be incidents such as criminal behavior. I'll wager money right now that at least one person who attends TAM6 will have some valuable possession stolen from them during their time in Las Vegas. And yes, there is a chance that someone attending could be involved in a violent incident. That goes for conferences like TAM as well as going to Las Vegas or any large city in general.

Weigh the risks and make your own (informed) decision. Then let the chips fall where they may.

articulett

17th June 2008, 08:36 PM

Rich, re: Rebecca

I said the same... I thought "amnesty" was in order...

but I'm not the one in charge... and I took a lot of flack for my opinion on the thread where it was discussed.

MattusMaximus

17th June 2008, 08:42 PM

Gee whiz guys, I have an assault conviction. Hope that doesn't make the conference too dangerous for you to go to.

Holy freakin' ape-crap!!! And I'm supposed to share a cab with you from the airport! How shall I survive?!!! :jaw-dropp

Big whoop. I've done things in my past that I'm not proud of either. Maybe we can swap some stories during the cab ride.

See you under the P&T sign at the airport, Jas. ;)

MattusMaximus

17th June 2008, 08:44 PM

I said the same... I thought "amnesty" was in order...

but I'm not the one in charge... and I took a lot of flack for my opinion on the thread where it was discussed.

Ahem... derail anyone? ;)

Incidentally, I will have to make certain to pay the $50 I owe to Rebecca for the Forum Party. Otherwise I'm afraid she might hunt me down and shank me :rolleyes:

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 08:45 PM

I would offer a middle ground suggestion. If you are someone who is nervous about Greydon Square and his alleged behavior (I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, I'm neutral on the issue - thank you very much and don't bother me about it), then it is quite possible that you could both attend TAM6 and avoid coming into contact with him.

As much as i would like to respond by saying that I agree with you, and that I had already, in fact, said that I plan to keep my distance, at this point I am only going to respond to Rebeca related posts.

MattusMaximus

17th June 2008, 08:47 PM

As much as i would like to respond by saying that I agree with you, and that I had already, in fact, said that I plan to keep my distance, at this point I am only going to respond to Rebeca related posts.

I assume then that you'll be attending TAM6? Cool, maybe I'll run into you. If not, let me say that I hope you have a groovin' time :cool:

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 08:48 PM

Holy freakin' ape-crap!!! And I'm supposed to share a cab with you from the airport! How shall I survive?!!! :jaw-dropp

Big whoop. I've done things in my past that I'm not proud of either. Maybe we can swap some stories during the cab ride.

See you under the P&T sign at the airport, Jas. ;)

I refuse to be tempted. Only Rebeca related posts will I respond to (in my best imitation of Yoda).

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 08:52 PM

I assume then that you'll be attending TAM6? Cool, maybe I'll run into you. If not, let me say that I hope you have a groovin' time :cool:

Even though this post says nothing about Rebeca, I will break my own rule (only about 15 minutes old at this point) and respond. Yes, I will be at TAM. I am, in fact, already on the way, enjoying a minor detour in Moab, Utah and Arches National Park. If you want to strike up a conversation with me at TAM, just ask me about my abject humiliation on the Slickrock Trail this morning at 7:10 a.m. All I am willing to say at this point was that it was total abject humiliation. Abject. Humiliation.

P.S. Thanks for your contribution to the derail.

Wolfman

17th June 2008, 08:54 PM

I said the same... I thought "amnesty" was in order...

but I'm not the one in charge... and I took a lot of flack for my opinion on the thread where it was discussed.Wow...this is a rather major derail...

I can't say that I'm a big fan of this, but were it to be considered as an option, I'd think there should be several conditions on it:

* It would come only after an extended period, perhaps three months, to represent the seriousness of her actions
* She would be required to give an unequivocal acknowledgment that what she had done was wrong (not "it was a joke and you guys overreacted")
* She would be required to make a sincere and binding commitment not to engage in any such activities in future
* She would have to specifically state a desire to return to the forums, and have her membership reinstated

Now, granted that I don't really know much about the whole situation, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to me to be terribly likely that Rebecca would take all those steps; which in my mind, renders the question of a pardon moot.

TsarBomba

17th June 2008, 08:57 PM

Wow...this is a rather major derail...

I can't say that I'm a big fan of this, but were it to be considered as an option, I'd think there should be several conditions on it:

* It would come only after an extended period, perhaps three months, to represent the seriousness of her actions
* She would be required to give an unequivocal acknowledgment that what she had done was wrong (not "it was a joke and you guys overreacted")
* She would be required to make a sincere and binding commitment not to engage in any such activities in future
* She would have to specifically state a desire to return to the forums, and have her membership reinstated

Now, granted that I don't really know much about the whole situation, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to me to be terribly likely that Rebecca would take all those steps; which in my mind, renders the question of a pardon moot.

I am trying to think how Yoda would say this. How's this: "Wolfman, in complete agreement we are. Surprising, that is.

MattusMaximus

17th June 2008, 08:58 PM

P.S. Thanks for your contribution to the derail.

No problem. See you in the LV :cool:

Puppycow

17th June 2008, 10:20 PM

articulett

17th June 2008, 10:24 PM

I plan on tossing my panties on stage when Graydon plays. (kidding... too old for that... don't wear any anyway :) )

ravdin

17th June 2008, 10:42 PM

As much as i would like to respond by saying that I agree with you, and that I had already, in fact, said that I plan to keep my distance, at this point I am only going to respond to Rebeca related posts.

I don't think I will need to make sure that Square is on the opposite side of the conference room from me at all times. But to be on the safe side, I'll avoid making any business transactions with him.

Puppycow

17th June 2008, 11:18 PM

As to the incident in question, it is very regrettable. I first learned of the existance of Greydon Square through the SGU podcast. I immediately bought his album through iTunes.
I was planning to buy his second album too if/when he comes out with it, but this does give me some pause. I would get it through iTunes anyway, so there would be no danger of not getting what I paid for or unforseen headaches and consequences that might arise therefrom. Beating people up and "doing time" is usually bad for business in polite society, although I don't know if the same holds true for rappers.

ETA: Is the image he wants to cultivate that of a "Gangsta" or a rational atheist and skeptic? Or a little bit of both. Personally I think the glorification of criminal behavior is the bad side of an otherwise interesting musical form.

Troylus

17th June 2008, 11:27 PM

I guess I missed a big bunch of hubbub in the many months that I was away from the forum. Can someone sum up for me why Rebecca was banned?

Puppycow

18th June 2008, 12:03 AM

I guess I missed a big bunch of hubbub in the many months that I was away from the forum. Can someone sum up for me why Rebecca was banned?

I didn't know this either, as she is usually active in subforums other than those I am most active in, but here is the official public notice:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115181

Here is the thread on it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115065

Phlebas

18th June 2008, 07:13 AM

Maybe if we can get Graydon to beat Rebecca to death and get thrown in jail, both issues will be resolved :rolleyes:

Doubt

18th June 2008, 08:06 AM

Maybe if we can get Graydon to beat Rebecca to death and get thrown in jail, both issues will be resolved :rolleyes:

What a sexist attitude! Why not have Rebecca beat Graydon to death!

:D

This thread needs something more absurd, but I cannot think of anything else right now.

Phlebas

18th June 2008, 08:14 AM

What a sexist attitude! Why not have Rebecca beat Graydon to death!

:D

This thread needs something more absurd, but I cannot think of anything else right now.

Think "big picture," Doubt! If Rebecca kills Graydon (and a girl with that much badonkadonk is entirely capable of it), then he won't be assaulting anyone any more, but we'll still have the "Amnesty for Rebecca" discussion.

If the badonkadonk is scattered to the four winds, the point becomes moot! Then we'll have a mad (and extremely sexy) battle for Top Chick among the SkepChicks (get 'em, honey!), plus an opening for a new Chick. Maybe Rebecca can nominate a new person with her dying breath.

"Give it... to... Wowbagger... *cough*"

Everyone wins!

See you guys either late tonight or tomorrow :)

grayman

18th June 2008, 10:36 AM

I plan on tossing my panties on stage when Graydon plays. (kidding... too old for that... don't wear any anyway :) )

He's Greydon.

I'm Graydon.

One of us is in for a wild time. :boxedin:

articulett

18th June 2008, 10:46 AM

I knew that-- the title of the OP through me off.

'Must have been a Freudian slip... 'you know if I was wearing panties, you'd be the first person I'd throw them at... but then I would have to worry about your wife beating me up, not Greydon... (so it's a good thing I'm going commando, eh?)

One must always be on guard at TAM.

Wowbagger

18th June 2008, 01:31 PM

For the record, I think what Rebecca did was wrong, and she deserves to be punished for it. I would say ban her for at least 6 months or so. And, she can appeal if she meets certain criteria, some of which Wolfman already offered. Plus, it would be nice if she made a sincere personal apology to everyone involved.

Not that my opinion really matters.

What Greydon Square did was wrong (and even worse, in my opinion), as well. I hope he goes out of his way to make amends, and that this will not become a habit. Though, I agree that he should perform. Assuming the assault was a one time mistake, I do not think JREF will look bad having him on.

Maybe Rebecca can nominate a new person with her dying breath.

"Give it... to... Wowbagger... *cough*"

Everyone wins!

Well, since I am not a "chick", I guess I would be able to grant the title upon the SkepChick of my choice, eh? In that case, only two people would win: Me, and whichever lady is best at treating me phenomenally well.