Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[Lolly]

Originally Posted by motieone

it would help communicate to the skeptical women out there that DJ and JREF are taking this seriously.

Taking WHAT seriously? The emotional inventions of a couple of people, or something adequately documented to have occurred and to demonstrate an actual problem which can be, and should be addressed? If the former then it should not only NOT be taken seriously, it should be ignored. To encourage such behaviour would alienate the rational.

[blobru]

Originally Posted by Lilith

Originally Posted by blobru

Thanks for your 2 cents, Lilith (such a deal)!

I've never been to TAM, but my impression, mostly from reading threads devoted to it, is it runs the gamut pretty much from academic conversation to animal house for eggheads (and which, I'll note, seems fine as far as guarding against 'inappropriate' behavior is concerned, as long as you make it clear which stages and areas of the convention are hosting which events: someone there for the intellectual atmosphere probably won't want to get caught in the middle of the latest incarnation of the bordello party, for example).

Was that your experience at all?

Pretty much. I felt that when I stuck to the scheduled meeting events, all was fine, sitting and listening to talks. But I didn't 'connect' as well with conversations outside of the meeting proper. And that's what I was looking forward to - meeting more like-minded people.

I wonder if reserving an area for after hours 'academic' (if that's the word) conversations wouldn't be a bad idea. I can imagine if (to the general horror and disgust of the skeptic community) I ever showed up at one of these things there would be some nights I'd want to just hang out, some nights I'd want to talk skepticism and critical thinking, and some nights a bit of both (or neither - maybe take one night to cruise the strip with Buzz0).

Quote:

Originally Posted by blobru

And when you say, "overall, as a woman there on my own, I didn't feel as comfortable as I'd hoped", what would be your suggestions for making TAM more comfortable for women in a similar situation (yourself even, should you ever attend again)? Where you say in some cases you "didn't enjoy the tone of the casual conversation", was this a matter of finding yourself at events where a more casual tone was encouraged, where you would have expected more serious discussions; perhaps not knowing your way around well enough to find the more serious discussions; perhaps not enough separation between partiers and non-partiers by organizers; or maybe there just not being enough serious conversation to go around to meet demand -- not enough people into it, many more there to party -- so not really what you were expecting overall.

I think it was mainly a matter of the conversations I came across (in the evenings) were about anything but science and skepticism, and more like regular 'bar talk' that I can find anywhere. And some of it was rather raunchy. Most everyone seemed to be having a grand time, though. On at least two evenings I stuck around for maybe 2 hours before heading to my room, so I admit I only got a small sampling of how it goes. And to be clear, my experience wasn't terrible, but didn't live up to my expectations. And I felt strange to be in a strange town, strange hotel, basically alone with lots of spicy talk. Many would have probably loved it (and maybe 15 years ago I might have also!).

I can appreciate that. I'm not much for bar talk either (generally hate bars because they're so loud it's impossible to have any sort of conversation beyond: "huh?" "wha' did you say?" "oh yeah?" "yeah... yeah, yeah..."). And while I don't mind spice and raunch, to my mind there's actually nothing funnier than skepticism: strange beliefs, the woo we debunk, the arguments we get into, how seriously we take ourselves sometimes. So that would be the sort of experience I would be looking forward to: the chance to talk about skepticism face-to-face; having a laugh at woo, ourselves and each other (plus cruising the strip with Buzz0, of course). If it was just run-of-the-mill round-the-corner bar talk, I think I'd be a bit let down, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blobru

Would more women in attendance have made you more comfortable? More access to speakers enjoy it more?

Hope I'm not prying; I certainly don't mean to. Just curious how your experience compares to my impression, and any suggestions you might have to improve the experience.

I'm not sure if more women would make a difference. I have nothing against a male-dominated atmosphere and that in itself doesn't make me uncomfortable. The women I saw there were as much a part of the conversations as the men. I felt like I was the only one that wasn't having a great time. As for more access to speakers? I don't know if that would have made a difference. Better conversations would have. I think it is simply the nature of the skeptic community - and again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but just wasn't what I was looking for.

At home I often feel I have few people to really converse with about my feelings on skepticism and such, and just really wanted to get into it there at TAM. And it didn't happen. But what I found instead was 'bar talk' which I didn't feel comfortable with largely because I was there alone.

Makes sense to me. As I said, maybe a designated quieter area for those who "just really wanted to get into it" - very very very careful to specify what 'it' refers to - would have been a good idea.

And now, back to your regularly-scheduled thread... (you didn't happen to bump into Dr Buzz0, Lilith?)

[gentlehorse]

Originally Posted by meg

Hi motieone!
Welcome to the JREF forums!

I don't believe that the 2012 anti harassment policy has been published anywhere yet. And I agree with you 100% Publishing the policy, or even just an announcement that JREF is working on putting one together probably would cool a lot of people down some.

Anyway, again, welcome!
Meg

On the gripping hand, it might serve to throw fuel on the fire. I don't actually think it would, though. I just wanted to use the phrase "on the gripping hand".

Welcome motieone!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I would like to see a panel on critical thinking and feminism because it would be interesting to see someone who ostensibly is a feminist critical thinker defend comments like this as such:

Originally Posted by in response to Claus Larsen

Ha! I see you just became friends with Travis Roy, Mr Larsen. That makes sense! He said untrue things about me in that Great Penis Debate. No doubt that's why you're bullying me now. The boiz get together and tell the bitchez to stfu.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Lolly

Taking WHAT seriously? The emotional inventions of a couple of people, or something adequately documented to have occurred and to demonstrate an actual problem which can be, and should be addressed? If the former then it should not only NOT be taken seriously, it should be ignored. To encourage such behaviour would alienate the rational.

Oy Vey. Right. Because we are a community that prides itself on critical thinking!

Adequately documented statistics regarding the prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace, military, educational institutions, and even the scientific community are meaningless here in this community made up of people who have jobs, are in the military, work and study at educational institutions, and/or are in the scientific community. Any gossip or rumors of sexual harassment here are probably just emotional inventions from a couple of people and should be ignored.

The idea that we might just recklessly adopt a policy that advocates treating our own members with respect regardless of gender before adequately studying the issue and amassing enough documentation to ascertain that there might be an "actual problem" that can be or needs to be addressed is just plain crazy talk.

The consequences of such a foolhardy policy action would be, naturally, difficult to calculate. One shudders to think, though, what could happen to such a feckless organization that just throws caution to the wind and irresponsibly starts advocating that its members not harass one another without amassing the proper documentation first. The mere idea of such a thing boggles the rational mind.

[truethat]

See meg that's not what Lolly wrote at all.

Part of the problem with discussing this with some of you is that you take a very specific statement and over generalize it or exaggerate it.

I've admitted to my flaws in posting style, perhaps you want to take a look at what you just did there? And others as well? You are by far NOT the worst offender. But it gets exhausting to slag through the mire of people responding to something you DIDN'T WRITE and others jumping into the attack.

Lolly did not write

Quote:

Any gossip or rumors of sexual harassment here are probably just emotional inventions from a couple of people and should be ignored.

This is exaggeration on your part.

She wrote this:

Quote:

Taking WHAT seriously? The emotional inventions of a couple of people, or something adequately documented to have occurred and to demonstrate an actual problem which can be, and should be addressed? If the former then it should not only NOT be taken seriously, it should be ignored. To encourage such behaviour would alienate the rational.

She asked a very specific question. I'll rewrite it to see it makes more sense?

Quote:

Taking WHAT seriously?

(What are we talking about here?)

Quote:

the emotional inventions of a couple of people,

(are we talking about bookitty's exaggeration of the exaggeration of the gossip?)

Quote:

or something adequately documented to have occurred and to demonstrate an actual problem which can be, and should be addressed?

(or what actually happened?) Notice she wrote or and pointed out that we should deal with reality.

Quote:

If the former then it should not only NOT be taken seriously, it should be ignored.

If we're talking about bookitty's gossip (that two trembling pale sobbing women were attacked by a man with a camera taking shots up their skirt, he also took pix of other women,) we should IGNORE IT. Because it is not what happened.

Quote:

To encourage such behaviour would alienate the rational.

People who want to deal with reality and the facts are going to get annoyed if we don't separate the gossip from the facts.


Now in all seriousness, how you read this very easy to understand statement, and responded the way you did, boggles the mind. Your post was sarcastic and rude. And it's happened many times in this thread. You seem to have already decided that Lolly is saying something she absolutely is not saying.

Can you please go back and carefully read what she wrote again and see if you misinterpreted what she said?

[motieone]

WillyWonka, You asked about how such a policy could be enforced in non conference areas. I think it could. The policy applies to the space and the attendees. If verified reports of violations exist for an attendee in a non conference area the policy could apply.

If for example an attendee was doing something creepy (but not illegal). For example what if he was like a friend of mine in college who simply walked up to women in bars and propositioned them without even an introduction. Say the attendee had done this to tens of women in the hotel bar the first night of TAM. It is not illegal but a policy could allow for a 'soft' intervention ('hey man what you are doing is creepy please stop') or a 'hard' one. While the soft intervention might happen without a policy, a policy allows for reporting and provides a clear mechanism whereby complaints can be dealt with.

I am not a conspiracy person but I cannot for the life of me figure out who is supporting the dead silence on the TAM 2012 policy.

• Greta a prominent skeptic asked for it
• Jref replied referencing lastyear's
• Greta asked about this year's
• -----silence---- for weeks now

The facts are

• People are upset about the current situation
• TAM must have a policy this year at some point. Not having one now after all this and having one last year would be a diaster
• It is less than 3 weeks untill TAM
• Waiting until the conference itself to publish a policy would reduce it's effectiveness
• Simply announcing that one was under construction would help the situation immensely
• A clear and effective next step would be for the JREF to invite a few of the prominent Feminist Skeptics (Greta, Jen, Stephanie) to assist them in creating said policy. Not only would they have a better policy but the positive PR would be amazing.

On the other side of the argument we have a vague idea that some people might get offended in some undefined manner which of course will happen when the policy eventually come out anyway.

To do something is a no brainer and unless someone can explain it to me the lack of any action to communicate anything at all is a clear message that the JREF for some reason is demonstrating an amazing lack of grey matter.

PS
I see that I am 'motieone' here. In case anyone cares I am in the real world Wendell the instigator (and Santa impersonator) of the 'Penisgate (or Great Penis or ...) debate' video on youtube discussed in detail on Almost Diamonds.

[truethat]

Motione are you aware that there is a policy? Because this has been discussed already.

I'm more concerned about the fact that the person who reported Buzzo's camera and other behavior states she wrote a written report at the end of TAM.

This seems to go against DJ Grothe's statement that no sexual harassment was reported at TAM. However, if Buzzo didn't take pictures up women's skirts, then the actual complaint would be that a man was carrying a camera down by the floor. That isn't sexual harassment.

However their statement that Buzzo didn't leave them alone despite repeated requests to do so, not only by them, but also by other attendees, clearly violates the Code of Conduct and IMO is justification for Buzzo not to be allowed to attend this years TAM.

Quote:

Here is the TAM Code of Conduct that has been printed in the front of this year's conference program:

We want TAM Las Vegas 2011 to be a welcoming experience for everyone who attends . . .

Please respect your fellow attendees by not disparaging them based on unfair grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability; and by not making uninvited sexual comments toward others.

If someone asks you to leave them alone or to otherwise stop a behavior that is directed toward them, please do so. Continued unwanted behavior directed toward another person is harassment. People who harass others or cause multiple complaints of disrespectful behavior may be required to leave without a refund.

Problems can be reported to TAM staff or volunteers who will bring it to the attention of JREF management. A warning will be given when appropriate, but there will be zero tolerance for violence, physical intimidation, and unwanted intentional physical contact.

Let’s make TAM fun for everyone!

Please note that it is printed on the front of the program.

[motieone]

Truehat yes I am aware that there WAS a policy not that there IS one. If you have seen any sort of communication saying that the 2011 policy will be in effect in 2012, I stand corrected. Perhaps in a normal space where this was not an issue I would agree "hey they had on last year I am sure it will be the same this year' but that is not sufficient in this environment. I truly think that they will have one and for some strange reason are badly mishandling the PR on it. This all just strikes me as evidence at the least of poor management.

****Correction****
The person directly tweeting to JREF asking about the policy which I referenced above was not Greta as I said (or Stephanie as I have said elsewhere...) it actually was Kimbo Jones. Sorry for my continued confusion.

[truethat]

You think that there will not be a harassment policy in effect this year because........?

[meg]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I would like to see a panel on critical thinking and feminism because it would be interesting to see someone who ostensibly is a feminist critical thinker defend comments like this as such:

Yeah, because every person that calls themselves something is automatically obligated to explain and justify comments made by every other person who has ever called themselves that.

That's why every republican is always having defend to Joe McCarthy's communist hunts, and every democrat always has to answer to anything racist that George Wallace ever said.

This kind of poor argument is called "Guilt By Association", or an Association Fallacy.

Jane is a feminist. Jane said [this]. Therefore all feminists say [this].

[meg]

Truethat, you seem to have missed something yourself, here. Lolly was responding to a post from motieone, which asked a general question. Two questions, actually. 1. How could publishing a harassment policy be bad? and 2. Please explain why publishing [a harassment policy] would have any downside?

Originally Posted by motieone

How could publishing a harassment policy be bad?
While having a publicly posted and advertised policy may make a small difference in behavior I am certain it would help communicate to the skeptical women out there that DJ and JREF are taking this seriously. I do not see who could possibly get upset about it.Please explain why publishing it would have any downside.

And Lolly responded by making general statements in the form of general questions.

Originally Posted by Lolly

Taking WHAT seriously? The emotional inventions of a couple of people, or something adequately documented to have occurred and to demonstrate an actual problem which can be, and should be addressed? If the former then it should not only NOT be taken seriously, it should be ignored. To encourage such behaviour would alienate the rational.

I take this to mean:
What is there to take seriously? Some [unquanitifed amount of] stuff is just the emotional inventions of a couple of people, and these should be ignored. The only things to take seriously are things that have been adequately documented to have occured which demonstrate an actual problem which can be or should be addressed. The potential downside to taking a policy seriously when we have not already adequately documented things that have occured and that show there is an actual problem that can and should be addressed is that doing so would alienate the rational.


Arguing that Lolly's "The emotional inventions of a couple of people" is a specific reference to your assertions that bookitty exaggerates, or that gossip gets exaggerated, is pretty specious. She did not mention bookitty, exaggerations, or gossip. She spoke generally. And she spoke generally in response to a general question.

Hence, my admittedly sarcastic general response.

[truethat]

I totally didn't interpret that at all. I think you loaded a lot of crap in there that she didn't say. It certainly didn't come across as "what is to be taken seriously" the following sentence CLEARLY indicates she is distinguishing between two separate things. Notice her use of the word "OR." When she wrote "WHAT" she clearly meant it is important to make sure we are not responding to gossip. Thus it is important to get the facts.

I interpreted Lolly as posting frustration that the dicussions about sexual harassment at TAM has been loaded with deliberate distortion of what occurred.

As I posted earlier, bookitty had the option of posting the "witness statement" of what happened at TAM with Buzzo. OR posting the "exaggerated claims" and further embellishing on the truth.

This is happening here as we speak in this thread. We are all adults here. Bookitty is certainly capable of distinguishing between gossip and fact. When she posts gossip and exaggerates it further, it creates a problem for someone who may recently have joined the thread and not realized that what bookitty was posting was tantamount to posting a flat out lie.

And this is very frustrating to those of us who want the facts. Since the very beginning of my involvement in this thread I have been asking "What happened?"

And I do think that posting gossip and lies is unfair and disturbing. So it needs to be identified as such. That is all Lolly seemed to be doing.

Your contrived understanding of what she intended is all your own invention, and no offence but way more complicated than what she actually said.

So basically you exaggerated what she posted and started debating against it as if you were debating Lolly, but seriously you're only debating yourself. She didn't say what you posted.

It seems very straightforward to me and as it came as part of a dicussion about what bookitty posted, why would you generalize it in such a way? She seemed (as I stated earlier) to be very very obviously talking about something specific, so why did you turn that into a generalized statement in the first place. And additionally why did you then trash what you perceived to be a generalized statement.

Please NOTE that DJ Grothe stated that he was concerned that exaggerated GOSSIP was being spread around about sexual harassment at TAM that did not occur. Bookitty has done that in this very thread, we are all witness to her doing it. And so she has verified what DJ Grothe is talking about.

Who is causing the problem here?

The people asking for details and information?

Or the people gossiping and exaggerating and spreading lies?

Seems to me that you seem to think blaming the gossipers is akin to blaming the victims.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by meg

Yeah, because every person that calls themselves something is automatically obligated to explain and justify comments made by every other person who has ever called themselves that.

That's why every republican is always having defend to Joe McCarthy's communist hunts, and every democrat always has to answer to anything racist that George Wallace ever said.

This kind of poor argument is called "Guilt By Association", or an Association Fallacy.

Jane is a feminist. Jane said [this]. Therefore all feminists say [this].

Just to clarify.

That quote was from the Buzzo "upskirt cam note on Facebook that was linked to earlier. The quote was by Ophelia Benson, a currently scheduled speaker at TAM X.

[meg]

Originally Posted by truethat

I totally didn't interpret that at all. I think you loaded a lot of crap in there that she didn't say. It certainly didn't come across as "what is to be taken seriously" the following sentence CLEARLY indicates she is distinguishing between two separate things. Notice her use of the word "OR." When she wrote "WHAT" she clearly meant it is important to make sure we are not responding to gossip. Thus it is important to get the facts.

I interpreted Lolly as posting frustration that the dicussions about sexual harassment at TAM has been loaded with deliberate distortion of what occurred.

It is ridiculous to argue about what someone's words did or did not mean when that person is a forumite who will likely be back sometime soon and can just say what she means.

Quote:

As I posted earlier, bookitty had the option of posting the "witness statement" of what happened at TAM with Buzzo. OR posting the "exaggerated claims" and further embellishing on the truth.

This is happening here as we speak in this thread. We are all adults here. Bookitty is certainly capable of distinguishing between gossip and fact. When she posts gossip and exaggerates it further, it creates a problem for someone who may recently have joined the thread and not realized that what bookitty was posting was tantamount to posting a flat out lie.

I'm really tired of your griping about bookitty, so I'm not going to acknowledge it any further after this. You gripe that bookitty posted exaggerated claims, while in your previous post, - the one where I called you on the strawman - you took what you thought were her words and then exaggerated it into saying that someone was saying that women were cowering in the corner. Pot, meet Kettle. Don't you realize that when you do stuff like that it is tantamount to posting a flat out lie?

Quote:

And this is very frustrating to those of us who want the facts. Since the very beginning of my involvement in this thread I have been asking "What happened?"

And I do think that posting gossip and lies is unfair and disturbing. So it needs to be identified as such. That is all Lolly seemed to be doing.

Your contrived understanding of what she intended is all your own invention, and no offence but way more complicated than what she actually said.

I guess we'll just see when she comes back. It seems to me that you are the one claiming she was saying something way more complicated than I saw it as.

Quote:

So basically you exaggerated what she posted and started debating against it as if you were debating Lolly, but seriously you're only debating yourself. She didn't say what you posted.

Obviously, neither of us KNOW what she meant. I posted a reply to what I thought she was saying.

Quote:

It seems very straightforward to me and as it came as part of a dicussion about what bookitty posted, why would you generalize it in such a way? She seemed (as I stated earlier) to be very very obviously talking about something specific, so why did you turn that into a generalized statement in the first place. And additionally why did you then trash what you perceived to be a generalized statement.

It seemed very straightforward to me, also. I thought she was actually responding to the previous post, which she quoted, and actually responding to the question posed in that post. I really don't see why you think that is so impossible? Again, though, how bout we just let Lolly explain what Lolly meant?

Quote:

Please NOTE that DJ Grothe stated that he was concerned that exaggerated GOSSIP was being spread around about sexual harassment at TAM that did not occur. Bookitty has done that in this very thread, we are all witness to her doing it. And so she has verified what DJ Grothe is talking about.

Those are not DJ Grothe's words at all. That is not what DJ Grothe "stated". Go reread his statements. If you want to argue about what someone is concerned about, post their words. For someone that keeps griping about how we need to stick to "facts", you don't seem to stick with the facts yourself. YOU are the one that keeps bringing the word gossip up over and over and OVER again. YOU are the one that has a problem with GOSSIP.

Perhaps this hasn't occured to you, but maybe you should think about it. This whole thread, other than the small percentage of posts by women who were telling their own first hand experiences, this whole thread, all 54 pages of it is mostly posts from people who do not have all the facts talking about what other people did and what other people said and conjecturing about what other people are thinking or doing or planning or feeling. Do you know what that is called?

Quote:

gos·sip/ˈgäsip/
Noun:
Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.

If you really really really don't think anyone should be gossiping, then how about we quit gossiping about past events, and move this conversation forward? How about we start talking about harassment policies that work well? How about talking about what kind of things JREF could do in the future to counter the negative perceptions that are floating around? How about we talk about positive experiences we have had in our many varied work/school environments that helped to encourage more diversity? Maybe we could even talk about what actions or standards might be adopted that might lead TAM attendees to be as diverse as the population, in general?

Quote:

Who is causing the problem here?
The people asking for details and information?
Or the people gossiping and exaggerating and spreading lies?
Seems to me that you seem to think blaming the gossipers is akin to blaming the victims.

Seems to me this whole little kerfuffle of yours is more like "shooting the messenger". And you're expecting a level of factiness and detail from other people that you do not hold for yourself.

I'm getting pretty bored with the whole "he said/she said" thing, and with people pretending that if they just google enough, and read enough blog posts that somehow we can piece together some kind of accurate picture of what happened in the past. We can't. It is impossible.

I would much rather talk about what positive things the JREF can do to simultaneously improve its somwhat tarnished reputation, ensure that any future reports of harassment are dealt with swiftly, efficiently and satisfactorily, and make steps toward future TAM audiences being about 50% women. As these goals are inter-related, I am thinking that making improvements on any one will make improvements on the others.

[meg]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I hope that rant made you feel better, especially whacking at the straw men. No where did I say all feminist critical thinkers think/write stuff like that. I was referring to the author of the quote.

That quote was from the Buzzo "upskirt cam note on Facebook that was linked to earlier. The quote was by Ophelia Benson, a currently scheduled speaker at TAM X.

I apologize, UnrepentantSinner. I did not understand you were talking about a specific speaker and her own quote.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by meg

I apologize, UnrepentantSinner. I did not understand you were talking about a specific speaker and her own quote.

And I apologize for being a little jerky above (see edit) and not being more clear about the source in the original post.

[meg]

Thank you! I don't know how to do the fancy moving smiley things, so I just have to smile at you. Here, and in real life

[truethat]

Meg, you've made a lot of ad hominem attacks about me in your reply instead of just pausing to consider you may have over reacted and gotten it wrong.

It may seem to you that I'm blowing it out of proportion, however you did make a mean reply to Lolly instead of a respectful one and she didn't say what you thought you said.

As far as moving it forward, there's a bit you refuse to acknowlege. We're discussing as well the idea that women don't want to register at TAM because they worry they will be harrassed a lot by men there.

And part of the problem in addition to the actual claims are the exaggerated claims that are done deliberately. It's not "shooting the messenger" when the messenger is lying, it's not the same at all.

I do think it is important for women to know that many of the claims have been exaggerated and twisted and dramatized and that there is NOT a big problem with sexual harassment at TAM.

You say DJ Grothe didn't say what I wrote? That's how I interpreted his statements. How did you? Because I think you've gotten it wrong again.


Also touche! You are correct I did exaggerate when I said cowering in the corner. But I did always try to correctly write what she did say in quotes. I even went back and changed "crying" to "sobbing".

Instead of taking it as a personal grudge against bookitty, please try to see it for what I really intend. I'm using her as an example because she has been doing it in this thread. That's the only reason.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by lionking

Evidence that there were cameras everywhere at the TAM in question.

You keep on posting assertions without any evidence, and attack those who call you out.

That's why a lot of us have quit responding to her.

[truethat]

Yet still feel the need to try to draw attention to themselves, even though they are wrong. The place that the event happened in was in a location that had cameras everywhere. I didn't post that, two other people did. LOL It's funny to me how you guys seem to think other people can't read what is printed in front of them just because you don't want to.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

The incident happened in the casino area (the Del Mar bar, specifically), from the description, and from the photos that the alleged perpetrator linked to himself.

Originally Posted by krelnik

If anyone is curious about the calibre of the security staff at South Point, I have created a separate thread on that topic. It includes video evidence.

Carry on.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't think so. DRBUZZO, in the OP, is arguing that it's legal to video tape cheerleaders in public. Bikewear is the one who mentions "upskirt" photos. I don't see where he responds to Bikewear or to the issue of "upskirt" photos (a practice that is truly reprehensible and makes my skin crawl BTW). Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Along with Rolfe, kittynh, Beerina and Checkmite. Your point?

Originally Posted by RandFan

Perhaps this could be in effect "upskirt".

I honestly don't know enough to make a judgment but it should be noted that DRBUZZO acknowledges that the behavior is creepy.

Originally Posted by AdMan

And that's making a straw man argument. "Everyone believes him immediately and circles the wagons to protect him"? Who is doing that?

There.

and there

and there

[truethat]

Wow what in the heck does that have to do with what was being discussed. LOL

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by tsig

There.

and there

and there

The posts you quoted don't involve either believing him or "circling the wagons to protect him".

Instead, they merely assert that there's no evidence from the linked thread that he agrees with or endorses upskirt photos.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by tsig

There.

and there

and there

WTH? Seriously. Are you really so blinded by your emotions that you cannot see the truth? Please to show how I am wrong in the above two posts?

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by RandFan

WTH? Seriously. Are you really so blinded by your emotions that you cannot see the truth? Please to show how I am wrong in the above two posts?

Whereas my searing indictment of Rolfe and co. seems to have been completely misinterpreted. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by RandFan

WTH? Seriously. Are you really so blinded by your emotions that you cannot see the truth? Please to show how I am wrong in the above two posts?

it should be noted that DRBUZZO acknowledges that the behavior is creepy




Many creeps think that acknowledging their behavior gives them an excuse to continue that behavior you seem to be agreeing with that.

Accusing others of being "blinded by emotion" is hardly an argument.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The posts you quoted don't involve either believing him or "circling the wagons to protect him".

I would certainly describe the below as "circling the wagons to protect him".

Originally Posted by truethat

It might be that the guy was truly innocent and tried to explain to the women all week that he was innocent. Perhaps he kept coming up to them to show what a swell decent guy he really was thinking "Well if they knew me they wouldn't think I was doing that!" We've all had some sort of situation in our lives where apologizing seems to only make it worse. I'll refrain from gossiping about that until I know the facts.

Because really, truethat? Really?!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by tsig

it should be noted that DRBUZZO acknowledges that the behavior is creepy

Many creeps think that acknowledging their behavior gives them an excuse to continue that behavior you seem to be agreeing with that.

Hang on, A.) one more time, what did I say that wasn't true? B.) Your argument is "heads I win tails you lose." C.) I'm NOT DEFENDING DRBUZZO just trying to find the truth.

It's certainly possible that DRBUZZO is being selfserving. However, saying that something is creepy ISN'T proof that he finds that it is not creepy. That is begging the question.

I'm simply trying to find the truth of what was said in that thread. Nothing more.

Quote:

Accusing others of being "blinded by emotion" is hardly an argument.

I can find no other reason to explain what you are doing. I'm strictly trying to find the truth. I have been painfully honest here. I've asked questions that others refuse to answer. I've tried to answer them myself by finding reasons why the claim by bookitty might be correct. You have no basis to accuse me of circling wagons to defend DRBUZZO.

Please, seriously, engage with me in good faith. If I've done something inappropriate I will gladly own it and apologize. Tell me what I've said that was untrue?

[shuttlt]

I really don't understand the level of anger directed at other posters on this thread. Is it just someone-on-the-internet-is-wrong, or is something being achieved here? If any of us are genuinely interested in what happened, surely there are things we could productively do to find out/progress this?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I would certainly describe the below as "circling the wagons to protect him".

ANTPogo, I've known you a long time. I'm appealing to your better instincts. The post you are responding to is about me. Not Truethat. Have I lied or misled? Please, do you think my actions here represent an attempt to obfuscate, dissemble or excuse inappropriate behavior? If so can you make an argument as to how?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by tsig

Many creeps think that acknowledging their behavior gives them an excuse to continue that behavior you seem to be agreeing with that.

HOW? How is pointing out the fact agreeing with your premise? This is blatantly dishonest? It is an ad hominem and fallacious argument. You are being presumptuous. I only want to establish the truth. Claims are being made about specific things that I think are not true. That doesn't make me a co conspirator. Please don't do that.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by RandFan

ANTPogo, I've known you a long time. I'm appealing to your better instincts. The post you are responding to is about me. Not Truethat. Have I lied or misled? Please, do you think my actions here represent an attempt to obfuscate, dissemble or excuse inappropriate behavior? If so can you make an argument as to how?

I like you and your posts, RandFan, so I really hope this doesn't come off as any kind of attack on you, because it is emphatically not intended as one.

But I feel rather strongly, and I've said so a couple of times in this very thread, that this kind of "we need documented names, places, times, full details, and whether or not it was officially and properly reported up the proper chain of command for every incident before we decide what to do" attitude is unhelpful at best and counterproductive at worst when it comes to addressing the actual issue at hand.

Because, again, if women are rethinking their attendance TAM because concerns about harassment there and how said harassment will be dealt with (however unreasonable and unfounded you personally think those concerns are), that attitude is not likely to make them change their minds and suddenly say "you know what, I guess I'll go to TAM after all".

It's certainly not making me change my mind about what I said in my very first post in this thread.

[zooterkin]

Meanwhile, there's a conversation going on between Mr Monopod and one of the people who reported him.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I like you and your posts, RandFan, so I really hope this doesn't come off as any kind of attack on you, because it is emphatically not intended as one.

But I feel rather strongly, and I've said so a couple of times in this very thread, that this kind of "we need documented names, places, times, full details, and whether or not it was officially and properly reported up the proper chain of command for every incident before we decide what to do" attitude is unhelpful at best and counterproductive at worst when it comes to addressing the actual issue at hand.

Because, again, if women are rethinking their attendance TAM because concerns about harassment there and how said harassment will be dealt with (however unreasonable and unfounded you personally think those concerns are), that attitude is not likely to make them change their minds and suddenly say "you know what, I guess I'll go to TAM after all".

It's certainly not making me change my mind about what I said in my very first post in this thread.

Let me thank you for responding. I appreciate it. Let me also state that I'm a bit upset and so I need to try and calm down and not read into peoples words thing they do not intend. I only ask that others do the same.

That said, let me ask two questions.

• Regarding the highlighted text. Is that what you feel I'm doing?
• Given the real concerns raised about harassment and the decline of attendance by women, do you think any and all attempts to correct the record in favor of someone like DRBUZZO are inappropriate? IOW: If someone says something that is materially untrue about what DRBUZZO did or say in any context do you feel it is untoward to try and correct that?
• Is a commitment to finding the truth, in the context of this discussion, wrong?

Let me state a couple of points about my real feelings on this subject..

• DR. A was a friend of mine, someone I liked and therefore I had reason to be in denial of RemieV's claim. However, I found her and her story credible and I fully accept her claims and I have come to her defense.
• I accept that DRBUZZO has acted very inappropriately and I do not excuse or condone that behavior.
• I have not at any time tried to downplay rude behavior.
• I have many times expressed concerns about the comfort and safety of women.
• I have many times expressed concerns about the declining attendance of women at TAM.

I ask a fair hearing of my arguments. That's all. I resent being accused of excusing bad behavior simply for trying to get at the truth.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Meanwhile, there's a conversation going on between Mr Monopod and one of the people who reported him.

Wow, just based on my own observations over two TAMs (and not over any of the reported incidents, which I did not witness), can Mr. Monopod really be so blind to his own behavior or how others react to it?

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Meanwhile, there's a conversation going on between Mr Monopod and one of the people who reported him.

Why must you? I get hooked into these links and lose hours. I found this peculiar, though:

Quote:

According to him [Mr. X], he was contacted by hotel security, and the following took place:

Quote:

They did not remove the camera, actually. They came up to me and asked what I was doing. I said I was using a camera and they told me they had a policy of not allowing cameras on the casino floor. I protested that I had seen others with cameras. They basically said something akin to (and I’m prarphrasing) “Yes, we turn a blind eye to it all the time, but it’s kind of obvious when you have that thing, so please put it away

.”

But then he claims he went right to the source [Mr. X] for the real story:

Quote:

3. [Question not about TAM or the camera and disclosing personal information--deleted]

4. Were you contacted at any TAM about having a camera on a stick/pole?

Nope.

5. If so, who contacted you?

Nobody

So, when you go right to the source, you still get conflicting details... imagine that.

Edit: Incase it came off that the snark was directed at you, it wasn't.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Regarding the highlighted text. Is that what you feel I'm doing?

While I really don't think that you personally are being that deliberately cold (in the sense of completely dispassionate) about it, I do honestly feel like your posts are contributing to that general argument.

Quote:

Given the real concerns raised about harassment and the decline of attendance by women, do you think any and all attempts to correct the record in favor of someone like DRBUZZO are inappropriate? IOW: If someone says something that is materially untrue about what DRBUZZO did or say in any context do you feel it is untoward to try and correct that?

Is a commitment to finding the truth, in the context of this discussion, wrong?

This is an issue of what's really under discussion here, and the motivation (real or especially apparent) behind that commitment. Within the context of this discussion, as you describe it (the context of a potentially dramatic drop in women attending TAM because or how questions of harassment at TAM are or will be dealt with), how helpful is it to do this sort of thing? And, more importantly, how is that commitment coming off to other people? Does what other people think about this line of discussion line up with what you want them to take away from the discussion after reading this thread?

What, also, is the goal of pressing for details and specifics on harassment reports, and then dissecting and discussing those details to see if you think they really count as harassment? Obviously incidents like that were reported as harassment, and the other incidents were at least considered to be harassment (whether or not they were "reported") for a reason (unless you think it's part of an orchestrated campaign of deliberately false reports as part of the radfem agenda or something).

What, in short, is the actual problem being discussed here, the thing that actually needs to be solved in all this mess, and how does this little side jaunt into discussing DRBUZZO actually contribute to reaching that solution?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by AdMan

Wow, just based on my own observations over two TAMs (and not over any of the reported incidents, which I did not witness), can Mr. Monopod really be so blind to his own behavior or how others react to it?

Yes.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Meanwhile, there's a conversation going on between Mr Monopod and one of the people who reported him.

Not a defense of Buzzo, but it's obvious the accuser has issues of her own.