How to Get Blocked (and Not Blocked) by a CFI Twitter Account
January 17, 2013
As there is a lot of heated back-and-forth going on within the skepto-atheosphere, Twitter has become perhaps the prime arena for arguments and debates. Not all of it is constructive, of course, and some of it is downright abusive, and it can be hard to know what crosses the line from criticism (well-meaning or otherwise) to raw hectoring or simply being hurtful.
As communications director for CFI, I am usually the person running the official CFI Twitter account (@center4inquiry), and other CFI related accounts are helmed by relevant staff. Lately, in the midst of the aforementioned heated back-and-forth, I've deemed a handful of Twitter users to have crossed the line from disagreement to abuse. And in a small number of cases, I've blocked them from interacting with the CFI account.
This has caused a little bit of consternation, as I have not been explicit as to what criteria I've been using to do so, and it's totally fair for folks to wonder what that is. Until recently, the criteria has been simply what I personally deem unacceptable. Discussing it with management, however, we've decided that we need to be more specific, and set out an official policy concerning conflict on Twitter. So that's what we did. And we even used Twitter-the-company's own rules as a starting point.
I want to be clear about something first. Blocking someone on Twitter is not a kind of censorship. No one is prevented from saying anything on Twitter if they're blocked. They are simply barred from direct interaction with the person who's blocked them, an opting-out of further contact. But it is a way of ending a discussion or argument, so it's a legitimate question as to what will get you blocked by CFI Twitter accounts.
Okay, so, we have the entire policy posted here, and it applies to all CFI Twitter accounts, be they of local branches, programs, campaigns, or what have you.
I'll give you TL;DR version of the policy here:
1) If you violate Twitter's own rules of conduct, by doing things like impersonating accounts, make threats, reveal someone's private information, or do other spammy things that Twitter itself would flag, you will be blocked.
2) Additionally, if you make derogatory slurs about someone's race or sexual orientation or something like that, or if you persistently badger us, you will be blocked.
Indeed, "block and ignore" is Twitter's own advice about handling this kind of thing.
But of course, we are the Center for Inquiry, and we want to use Twitter in a spirit that errs on the side of the free exchange of ideas, even if we, or I, don't like those ideas.
In this way, our policy is actually more lenient than what I had been doing on my own. For example, if a Twitter user had been bad-mouthing a CFI staff member just to get a rise out of us, I'd block them. Not to "censor" anyone, but to get the ugliness out of the Twitter feed that I see for so much of my day, to opt out of being a part of whatever exchange these tweets are attempting to generate. But that won't fly anymore under this new policy, and I'm just going to have to suck it up. I may still ignore those kinds of tweets, but they won't result in being blocked.
I don't think I was wrong to block those who I felt warranted it, but I'm also glad to have a firmer policy in place so I no longer have to wonder about it.
Of course, there will be choices to be made as to what constitutes a violation of the policy, and everyone will have a different perspective, but it's certainly a much clearer way of going about the use of Twitter in this tumultuous environment.
And it probably doesn't need to be said, but just in case, problematic Twitter exchanges are by far the exception. The vast, vast majority of the interactions I have on Twitter running the CFI account are positive and informative, and I'm very glad we're so heavily engaged in this platform.
That's all. Go back to your tweets.
#1 Pitchguest (Guest) on Thursday January 17, 2013 at 3:25pm
Then, Paul, using that criteria, you wouldn’t have any problem with blocking Ophelia Benson for her dox of Wally Smith, Surly Amy for her doxxing the ElevatorGATE guy, and Rebecca Watson for doxxing Sacha Ivanoff and also the ElevatorGATE guy?
Looking forward to your response/dodge.
#2 Pitchguest (Guest) on Thursday January 17, 2013 at 3:29pm
Oh, and let’s not forget Greg Laden who doxxed someone’s old address that actually turned out to be his ex-wife’s old place.
And then there’s someone I’m forgetting. Oh yes, Melody Hensley… for threatening to dox and/or contact someone’s employers if they didn’t comply with what she said. (Where she started the spat and not the other way around.) Will you block all these people since they have obviously, according to your critera, broken it?
#3 Dorion on Thursday January 17, 2013 at 5:21pm
This is troubling.
#4 Franc Hoggle on Thursday January 17, 2013 at 6:13pm
You forgot to mention you also block people for pointing out scape-goating of individuals by CFI -
#5 Oliver (Guest) on Thursday January 17, 2013 at 10:26pm
I am a man with learning difficulties who is in a long term relationship with a trans woman and grew up with African foster bothers. I believe in equality for all and deplore any kind of hatred based on race, sexuality or gender.
Yet the fact that I disagree with the radical feminist views that Western women are oppressed, that the West has an epidemic of rape and that our language needs policing I am regularly accused of being a sexist bigot and blocked or banned on forums like Atheism+ and “freethought” blogs.
The above policy seems to leave ample room for the blocking of people who disagree with the radical feminist ideology which CFI has embraced.
Can you assure us that no such policy of blocking legitimate critics of CFI’s hard line feminism will occur?
#6 Chris (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 6:29am
CFI has now fallen off my radar as a source for rational thought. Imagine what Hitchens would think - free speech. So sad.
#7 oolon on Friday January 18, 2013 at 7:23am
PitchGuest “Rebecca Watson for doxxing Sacha Ivanoff”. Sacha posted a picture of Rebecca that she has surreptitiously taken at a conference with the tagline “Pretty”... On the Slymepit, which is devoted to generally hating and obsessing over Rebecca in equal measure. Stalker! BTW if her “dox” included outing her name as “Ivanoff” then it was no dox as that is not her second name, surely you’ve worked that out by now?
Anyway, none of this happened on Twitter or in conversation with the CFI Twitter account… So where is the relevance?
#8 spencer (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 8:17am
So according to the earliest commenters in this thread, if you claim to be in favor of free speech and rational thought, you are obligated to put up with whatever harassment and abuse is directed your way?
Give me a break.
#9 EssBee (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 8:31am
Invoking dead Hitch over your conflation of free speech with the (non existent) right to an audience is delightfully ironic. I never cease to be surprised by how irrational and seemingly incapable of logical thinking some so-called skeptics are.
#10 A Hermit on Friday January 18, 2013 at 8:32am
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable policy to me. Everyone is entitled to their free speech, but no one is obligated to listen or to give someone a platform if they are just out to stir up shit.
#11 Stacy (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 8:44am
I love the smell of slimepitters’ heads exploding in the morning.
#12 Christopher (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 9:01am
In theory, this policy seems very reasonable to me. Just out of curiosity, could CFI provide readers with a few specific examples of what the recent ‘crossing the line’ consisted of, so that the rest of us know what types of things not to tweet/ask/comment om?
#13 Illuminata on Friday January 18, 2013 at 9:06am
Excellent how the first 5 comments provide proof as to why such a policy is ultimately necessary - lies, more lies and increasingly unhinged conspiracy theories. Good on CFI for drawing a line.
#14 John (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 9:10am
Sounds reasonable. Hope it helps.
#15 Vlad Chituc (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 9:31am
You’re not forced to read what I write?
STOP VIOLATING MY FREEZEPEACHES.
/the first half of this thread
#16 ChuckV (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 9:54am
The first 6 comments all expect CFI (or anybody else) must listen to whatever they say. How can we harass you if you block us? What baloney.
They are free to use Twitter as much as they like. CFI nor anyone else is required to listen to them.
If anyone doesn’t like what I say, they are free to block/defriend/delist/ignore me as they see fit. I understand that no one (not even my mother) is required to be my audience.
#17 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 10:46am
It’s amusing that Paul hasn’t responded yet on whether he would block the people I mentioned who have clearly violated the policy that Paul writes about in this column. I mean, wouldn’t it be an example of favouritism if Communications Director for CFI would refuse to block people simply because they hold the same views ideologically?
Again, I ask: According to your own policy, will you block Melody Hensley, Greg Laden, Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson and Surly Amy (Amy Davis Roth) for already violating the criterias you’ve set out?
Illuminata: Hahaha. Yes, lies. Melody Hensley threatening to contact someone’s employers as an implicit threat is clearly something I’ve made up, even though you can easily find them on her twitter account. And Greg Laden doxxing MykeruMedia’s ex-wife’s old place is also not something that can be found on his twitter account but idle fancies of a delusional mind.
Or Rebecca Watson and Amy Davis Roth admitting themselves, in speeches and on blogs, that they have revealed personal information to conference organisers (and who knows who else) is not an example of doc-dropping. Ophelia Benson outing Walter “Wally” Smith is not an example of doc-dropping whose documentation can be found easily on the internet. Oh no. It’s all in my mind.
Yeah, Illuminata, you insufferable dullard.
When Rebecca Watson felt “threatened” by Sacha Ivanoff when Sacha said she would ignore Watson, she revealed her information to the organisers and told them not to let her in. That’s right, Watson intended use her power—and privilege—as a speaker to block someone entry simply because they said they would “ignore” her. It didn’t work because the conference organisers knew her and let her in anyway but it’s the principle. The company of misfits Rebecca Watson aligns herself with has done so much more to damage the community than the so-called “slymepitters” ever have.
Which is why I’m interested in what Paul has to say. Will he dodge the question, or will he have some integrity for once and actually do the right thing? Care to guess which, Illuminata, you disingenuous toad? (Retracted. Just disingenuous will do.)
#18 oolon on Friday January 18, 2013 at 11:19am
Is it just me or has PitchGuest totally lost it? The policy applies to the CFI Twitter account and all interactions with that account!
Got any examples where the ppl you obsess over have hurled abuse at the CFI Twitter account? No? Thought not…
#19 stakkalee on Friday January 18, 2013 at 11:29am
From Twitter’s Rules:
“Privacy: You may not publish or post other people’s private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express authorization and permission.”
It doesn’t look like revealing someone’s name is on that list.
#20 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 11:56am
Turd: It doesn’t say explicitly towards the CFI twitter account, you dolt.
Go back to arguing about the meaning of misogyny.
Stakkalee: Rebecca Watson used the information from Surly Amy’s DMCA request to reveal the ElevatorGATE guy’s personal information and that of Sacha Ivanoff to the conference organisers to prevent them entry. Greg Laden posted someone’s old address thinking it was his on his twitter (it was his ex-wife’s place), and Melody Hensley made implicit threats to contact someone’s employers if they didn’t sing to her tune (implying she knows where he lives and where he works). You can easily look this information up yourself if you should be so inclined. Do you need anymore or should I paint you a pretty picture?
#21 stakkalee on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:01pm
No, please, paint me a picture. What personal information did they reveal? Is any of that information a “credit card number, personal address, or Social Security/National Identity number?” Was any of that information revealed over Twitter? I notice you’re now leaving Ophelia’s name off your little list - I take it that means you agree she did nothing to violate any of these policies?
#22 DLC on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:31pm
For CFI : good idea. always better for a group to have a written policy rather than “seat of the pants” judgements. Although, you should try to remain flexible enough to account for the odd case not covered.
For @20: What part of http://centerforinquiry.net/pages/twitter_policy do you not understand ? and what part of it do you think magically applies to twitter accounts not owned and operated by CFI ?
Your complaints are irrelevant.
#23 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:48pm
I understand the policy perfectly. And even if Paul should refuse to block the people I’ve mentioned for some reason, then an Executive Director for CFI (Melody Hensley) shouldn’t be given such freedom. After all, she held a false-flagging campaign on a video on YouTube she didn’t like where she told her supporters to flag it, downvote it, etc - she joined in a petition to bully someone out of a volunteer position because, again, she didn’t like the person and he was forced to resign - and finally now she’s threatened to contact someone’s employers if they don’t do as she says. I don’t know about you, but Hensley is pretty damn vindictive and that’s not a quality I want from a representative of an organisation I’m supposed to support.
Maybe if she wasn’t such a vile person—where she starts altercation with people and then plays the victim when they respond—I wouldn’t have such aversion to her or the CFI.
#24 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:51pm
Huh. Seems Paul decided to delete the post where I elaborated on how Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson, Amy Davis Roth and Greg Laden had all violated the policy as written by Paul in this column.
Censorship for the win?
#25 stakkalee on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:53pm
Actually, Pitchguest, I did look it up. It looks like Ophelia revealed his name and school (in a comment on her blog, BTW, nowhere near Twitter.) It’s a stretch to say she outed “where he lived, where he worked.”
Rebecca Watson revealed a name to the conference organizers, not publicly. And again, nowhere near Twitter. Ditto for Amy.
Melody hasn’t done anything, so it’s a good thing you’re backing off your accusation against her.
From your list, it seems the only one who’s actually violated the Twitter policy is Greg Laden, who victimized Mykeru’s ex-wife, who’d already been victimized enough, having been married to Mykeru and all. None of this, except for Laden, has anything to do with Twitter at all, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. As for the soon-to-be-deleted troll comment #22, I’m sure you have some evidence that it was posted by Ophelia, and you’re not simply making wild accusations?
#26 A Hermit on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:54pm
Pitchguest, how does Rebecca Watson revealing the name of someone who threatened to sexually assault her at TAM to TAM’s organizers have any bearing on CFI’s Twitter policy?
I think you’ve rather lost the plot here son…
#27 A Hermit on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:57pm
And Wally Smith was a serial cyberstalker, sock puppet artist and online harasser who was “outed” after he violated an agreement to leave Benson and others alone.
Nice friends you’ve got there Pitchy…
#28 A Hermit on Friday January 18, 2013 at 12:59pm
Bottom line here; CFI has a clear, public policy regarding Twitter now and re-hashing old feuds is completely irrelevant at best. Behave yourself when interacting with CFI on Twitter and you won’t have a problem.
#29 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:06pm
A Hermit: Oh, look, it’s “Dear Muslima” again. We do meet in the weirdest of places. (Are you stalking me?)
Because it’s a policy about revealing someone’s personal information. He doesn’t say anything about it being on Twitter, just that he reserves his right to block people who’ve done so. Which brings us to the people who’ve done so: Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson, Amy Davis Roth and Greg Laden. It’s very simple.
Also, again with the “son.” If you think you’re being mature by repeating the same thing over and over, you’ve got another thing coming, you condescending old fart. Quit fucking about.
Who was it that had threatened to sexually assault Watson again? As far as I’m concerned, the two people she refers to in the video are two people: Sacha Ivanoff and the ElevatorGATE guy. None of whom had said they would “sexually assault” her. The former said she would ignore her completely, a crime most heinous apparently according to Watson, and the other doesn’t even live in the United States. Check and mate. Methinks Watson doth protest too much - or at least needs a better fact checker.
#30 A Hermit on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:11pm
“Because it’s a policy about revealing someone’s personal information. He doesn’t say anything about it being on Twitter, “
Pitchy; the whole post is about CFI’s Twitter policy…did you even look at the title of the post?
Run along and play now; the grown ups are trying to have a serious conversation.
#31 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:12pm
*chuckles* It’s cute that because I object to the activity of outing someone’s personal information, I’m automatically “friends” with them. I suppose who take on defendants who are accused murderers, thieves, scam artists, etc, that they are friendly with these people?
Do yourself a favour: grab that thing out of your arse that is your head and try not to commit anymore verbal diarrhoea if you can. Cheers. Moreover, if you can avoid any logical fallacies as well, I would appreciate it. Especially guilt by association.
#32 oolon on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:12pm
@A Hermit, glad it was not just me. PitchGuest’s potty ravings are off the scale today, he appears to stopped drinking his own pee and moved onto crack.
Get over it PitchGuest, whatever *it* is…?
#33 A Hermit on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:19pm
Pitchy seems to have confused someone alerting conference organizers to potentially disruptive behaviour with publicly revealing personal information on Twitter.
Poor boy’s very confused.
#34 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:20pm
A Hermit: While I’d love to have the totally pointless back and forth we had on YouTube where you ignored evidence posited to you and I continued to give you the benefit of the doubt like an idiot, I don’t really have the energy for another bout just yet. I still haven’t recovered from your idiocy the last time. It took me hours to remove my right palm from my face.
You also have the strange obsession of referring to your opponents as “son”, “sonny”, “little boy”, etc. Not particularly healthy if you ask me, although maybe there’s something you’re not telling me, A Hermit. Come to think of it, why do you call yourself A Hermit?
Actually, on second thought, I don’t want to know. The less I know of your perversions, the better I’ll be.
#35 Ophelia Benson on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:22pm
Wally Smith was kicked out of his lab by his supervisor when she learned - with the help of a lot of detective work by Jerry Coyne - what he’d been doing with his sock-puppet-filled “blog.” Wally Smith had an academic hearing, at which he promised never to do it again. That was the condition under which Jerry Coyne and I promised not to reveal his name. He was also told to apologize to me, which he did, again promising me he would never do it again. He did do it again, at great length in several places. I consulted with his former supervisor, and she fully approved my making his name public.
So go tell Jerry Coyne about your problems with my revealing the name of the lying smearing creep who also smeared the very decent atheist fellow-graduate student who was with him at the mythic event where atheists laughed in the faces of nice Christians. Go on, tell Jerry Coyne. Tell Smith’s former supervisor, if you can get Coyne to tell you her name, which I’m very sure you can’t.
#36 oolon on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:25pm
@A Hermit, haha so you had the pleasure of a long exchange with Pitchy on YouTube as well.
Looks like he has burnt himself out here and is resorting to just insults… Maybe some self awareness that he is shouting incoherently at the wrong blog post?
#37 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:36pm
In other words, you would resort to outing someone’s name and address if they’re not being nice to you? I mean, regardless of what he did (sockpuppetry), you dropped his docs, revealed his name, address and where he worked and you got him fired. You did this, but you flip your shit when you presume others would do the same? That’s the thing about you, Ophelia. Deliberately dishonest, deliberately obfuscating, deliberately demeaning and cruel.
You can make all the excuses you want. You dropped someone’s docs because they were unkind to you. Well done.
Oh, and while you’re still here: How the hell do you square making a story about someone getting acid thrown in their face about yourself? What is *wrong* with you?
#38 Ophelia Benson on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:42pm
Talk to his lab supervisor. Talk to his former colleague. Talk to Jerry Coyne. They all wanted him outed. They all approved the outing. His activities went way beyond just not being “nice.”
#39 Ophelia Benson on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:43pm
And I didn’t reveal his address, nor did I get him fired. He wasn’t fired. He moved to a different lab. Again, talk to Jerry Coyne.
#40 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:45pm
Turd: You can talk. Your podcast with Reap didn’t go as well as you thought it would. You had trouble even defending yourself. Speaking of which, you were saying something about using “cunt” and “bitch” in certain situations, but you spoke over eachother and never quite finished; when is it fine to use the word “cunt” and “bitch”?
Besides, I tried having a conversation with you and all you did was try to goad me into insulting you back. It didn’t work, of course, but that doesn’t stop you from trying. The textbook definition of a troll. Back to your bridge. You and A Hermit could share.
I tried to picture you in the podcast, but all I could see was Jamie Oliver. I wonder why.
#41 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:54pm
So because Jerry Coyne had done the dirty work, and he, Wally’s colleague, his supervisor and you all approved of outing him, that makes it okay?
His activities went beyond just not being “nice”? What is your definition of “not nice”, I wonder? Is it like when someone gets acid thrown in their face and then you dismiss their concerns by making it about yourself? That “not nice”? Or something else? Because I would be inclined to agree with you if so. Or maybe it’s something like when you tutted yourself you were threatened due to an email from a paranoid sycophant and then blamed JREF because of it. That wasn’t very nice.
In any case, it’s okay to out someone when people give the okay to out them? Huh. Good to know, I suppose.
#42 stakkalee on Friday January 18, 2013 at 1:58pm
@Pitchguest, you’re being disingenuous. It looks like Ophelia followed through on an agreement she’d previously made with Wally Smith, which means that she was revealing the information “with his consent.” We’ve covered that neither Rebecca nor Amy doc-dropped, and you’ve already backed off your accusations against Melody. And again, none of this has anything to do with Twitter. It’s obvious you have some sort of grudge, and are spreading your bile wherever you get the chance, regardless of whether it’s on point. What do you hope to accomplish here? Or are you just here to be snotty for the sake of being snotty?
#43 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:10pm
Stakkalack: Disingenuous? I said nothing about the “deal” Ophelia supposedly had with Wally, I asked if it was okay to out someone if people approved of it. Ophelia apparently thinks it is. However, as she has shown she is not beyond that kind of activity, it’s pretty hypocritical of her to flip a switch over someone else supposedly doc-dropping (like in the case of Justin Vacula). I couldn’t give a shit about the circumstances, she held Wally’s personal information hostage and outed him when he spoke out of turn.
You don’t need to do damage control for Ophelia, Stakk. Unless you think she can’t fend for herself. She’s a big girl. But as for being “snotty”, I think denying what Watson and Roth did is in very poor taste.
But more importantly (and something that Ophelia keeps dodging), I like to know what Ophelia was thinking when she made a post about someone getting acid thrown at their face all about herself.
#44 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:15pm
More than that, in the comments of that blog post infer that the “rivalry” between her and “the other side” is becoming more and more “violent.” Really? In a post about someone getting acid thrown at their face, she’s not just making it all about herself, but also implying the “rivalry” is getting “violent”?
What about the guy getting acid thrown in his face? Is he fucking invisible?
And why would she even say that? Well, because someone said they would tap PZ on the shoulder. Wow. It’s like we’re in Syria or something.
#45 stakkalee on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:22pm
Then why don’t you go ask HER, on HER BLOG, rather than be a snotty shithead all over the CFI board? Besides, the charge of being disingenuous is about the entirety of your behavior here. You’ve accused Ophelia, Rebecca, Amy and Jen of doc-dropping and somehow violating the Twitter rules of conduct, when A) Ophelia’s reveal of Wally’s info was with his agreement, B)Rebecca’s and Amy’s reveal was not public, C) Melody didn’t reveal anything, and D) none of this has anything to do with Twitter. I repeat: What do you hope to accomplish, HERE, on THIS CFI post, about their new Twitter policy? It’s a simple question of motive - have you given any thoughts to your motive? Or are you simply here because here is where you’re getting the attention?
#46 oolon on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:30pm
Oh dear seemed I underestimated PitchGuest’s propensity for verbal diarrhea.
Has this thread turned into an extension of the Slymepits thread of never ending butthurt? Pitchy isn’t even pretending to stay on topic.
#47 A Hermit on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:35pm
“someone said they would tap PZ on the shoulder.”
Actually the threat was to “slip something into PZ’s pocket” as I recall. Given that individual’s purported fascination with scat porn one has to wonder what that “something” might have been.
These are not good people you are defending, Pitchy; they are nasty, obsessive stalkers and cyberbullies who have threatened to disrupt conferences and physically harass specific individuals.
How should we respond to such threats, in your opinion? Ignore them and hope they go away?
And again, what does any of this old muckraking have to do with CFI’s clearly stated new twitter policy?
#48 Pitchguest (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:36pm
Ask her. On her blog.
That’s a good one, Stakk. Yeah. I’ll go ahead and ask her on her blog. Oh wait. I can’t, because I’m banned. Usually what happens when you call her on her shit on her blog; she calls you a liar and then she bans you. You don’t get the opportunity to respond to her accusations of her calling you a liar because again, you’re already banned. I guess that’s why I don’t ask her on her blog. In short, Stakk: don’t be a simpleton.
The one who wants attention is Ms. Benson for tying a story about a man getting acid thrown in his face about poor little old her, making it analogous with the atheist community and how “maybe [she] should start wearing protection.”
But don’t mind the one behind the curtain. You never do anyway.
Why I’m here? Why, I thought I made it clear. But fine, I’ll concede Rebecca Watson, Amy Roth and Ophelia Benson, and only remain firm about Greg Laden and Melody Hensley. Why Melody Hensley? Because she has made implicit threats to contact someone’s employer to shut them up. Greg Laden is implied. I’m looking forward to Paul’s response.
#49 stakkalee on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:51pm
I’m glad to see you’re backing off your earlier claims of some sort of policy violation, but I’m surprised you’re digging your heels in on Melody. After all, the Twitter rules of conduct state that a threat must be direct and specific. Can you tell me what direct, specific threat Melody made? You’ve said she made an implicit threat to contact someone’s employer, but that doesn’t seem to meet the threshold of a policy violation. And did she make this implicit threat from an official CFI twitter account?
#50 Matti Sironen (Guest) on Friday January 18, 2013 at 2:54pm
To any impartial/new observer:
See which side is comparing the other side to acid-flinging muslism extremists. See which side is ridiculing the principle of free expression with the moniker “FREEZE PEACH”.