A few months ago I wrote a piece on bullying, relying, in part, on materials I had kept from my college days. Sadly, the material consisted largely of classroom handouts and hastily scribbled notes, and I used it, never thinking I'd be accused of anything but perhaps bad handwriting. Of course, here we are. The material in question did not have identifying information, so I used it as it was, thinking that making it available to others would be a good, rather than a bad thing (especially in light of the fact that I was using the material to bring a group of bullies over at FTB to task). I did not, and do not like that they are bullies (among other, less savory things they could be called).
For my part, I probably should have done a better job trying to run down the authorship information, however, at the time, I saw it as providing a public service, rather than anything else, and as such, didn't bother. Moreover, I'm just one of millions of bloggers, and until recently, did not consider myself, or my blog, to be 'professional' in any way. Though rest assured, I'm rapidly learning all that that entails!
The radfem contingents over at FTB, Skepchick, and the anonymous feminist troll who accused me of plagiarism (score one for the bad guys) would have you believe that I claimed expertise on the subject of bullying (which I never did), so they can pretend that my omission was a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the work of someone else--which couldn't be further from the truth--as evidenced by the fact that I'm writing this post (oh, and the fact that I make a whopping zero dollars from this blog). Still, here we are, and I suspect it's because I've become (almost completely without meaning to) a thorn in the side of the FTBullies and the Skepchicks.
As an aside: I suspect that, although doing me a service, anonymous feminist troll is one of those minions, since people with good intentions usually don't post anonymously.
As I've said before, we are none of us immune from mistakes, nor are we immune from behaving badly. I am guilty certainly of the former, however, I would dispute the latter. Still, the difference between 'us' and 'them', is that as adults, we can own up to our mistakes, whereas 'they' for the most part, don't. I also suspect that if I quietly went away, nothing more would be known about this, however, I've no intention of going away--my blog will continue, as will my commenting over at the slymepit.com. I've the intention of learning from my mistakes, and not repeating them. I also have the intention of not cowering in a corner while the irrational people of the world continue to undermine the efforts of those of us trying stop them from being the asshats they are.
As far as anonymous feminist troll, thank you for finding the information for me, I've incorporated the appropriate citations, and I welcome you as my newest follower! See, if you were seeking to discredit me, there you've failed. Ironically, every argument you and your ilk produced as to my supposed expertise, falls flat on its face, since the material in question was in fact written by experts, so anonymous feminist troll and Ophelia Benson, McCreight and the rest would have to take issue with the authors, not me, and all my initial critiques stand--since based on the expertise of the original authors.
Now, I have called you 'anonymous feminist troll' for lack of a better term (since you operate anonymously), but please understand that I know you have good intentions (though my suspicions might get the better of me from time to time). Therefore, knowing your allegiance to the truth, and the rooting out of plagiarism wherever you find it, I will rest securely in the knowledge that you're reading every single one of my posts, my tweets, and my comments, to safeguard me from again using material without proper attribution. I've learned my lesson, but still, I'm glad you're on guard! I mean, this wasn't just an attempt to discredit me, was it? You really do care about the truth, don't you? I look forward to your commentary. I would request, if you prefer to remain anonymous, that you preface each of your comments with 'anonymous feminist troll says', or some such. furthermore, I promise to always post your comments.
As for being discredited: here are some reasons why I know I'm not discredited by feminist troll. I made a mistake, he/she/it called me on it, and I've admitted as much, I've corrected it, and have learned a valuable lesson. Secondly, many people over at FTB have lied, misrepresented themselves and others, and are even now considering actual embezzlement of funds in the case of Thunderf00t. Over at Skepchick, Rebecca Watson lied about being asked for coffee in an elevator (no, it never happened. period.), and pursuant to that lie, has made a gross amount of money from web traffic, speaking engagements and the like, and has also used the falsified incident to malign all men as rapists, while indubitably poisoned the minds of the young women at Teen Skepchick with more radfem propaganda. In the grand scheme of things, dear anonymous feminist troll, I wouldn't claim the moral high ground. Nor would I do so unless you're out there keeping all bloggers honest, because anything less than assiduous policing of all blogs, by you, is to admit that you targeted me specifically.
I have learned quite a few valuable lessons, and my followers and fans can rest assured that I'm not going anywhere. I don't want to cash in on a bullshit book, so I'm not flouncing. Don't confuse me with Jen McCreight.
5 Stars!
ReplyDeleteOn what possible evidence do you make the bold claim that nothing happened in the elevator in Dublin?
ReplyDeleteOn what evidence do you make the claim that something did?
Deletegee, i don't know, asshat. perhaps on the very same evidence that watson uses to substantiate her claim. i would go further, i'd say there was no man in the elevator in Dublin. go ahead, produce the evidence. hearsay and story time aren't evidence. she made the claim, the burden of proof is on her.
DeleteThe multiple mutually exclusive inconsistencies each time the story is told, coupled with the physical impossibility of such and extended conversation occurring in a fast 1 floor lift-ride, invention of a hitherto unknown medical condition (transient prosopagnosia) and RW's state of intoxication render the story as likely to be true as Alien Abduction stories.
DeleteThe delayed reporting of the incident, the inabality to remember what accent EG used, and so on, etc.
The wild confabulation by RW each time a thread of her tale is pulled, only adds to the pile of evidence.
I have been convinced that the story is a confabulation from beginning to end.
I'm interested in why you say, concerning "elevator-gate" that, " Over at Skepchick, Rebecca Watson lied about being asked for coffee in an elevator (no, it never happened. period.).
ReplyDeleteTo date, I've seen a few bloggers allude to what you write, but no one I have read has ever come out and been point blank.
Can you give me a link, or something else where that information is located?
And with that said, why doesn't everyone throw that in her face and put to rest all of this stuff?
"That which can be claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof"
DeleteFunny how that works with theists, but for anyone else we just ignore it.
Sorry, I'm a bit slow today. Sleep deprived.
DeleteThanks. Yes, I agree, I was always looking for someone to substaniate that story. It never appeared.
Good enough for me. The accusations on the slymepit need to be read to be appreciated. The desperation to lynch before trial or right of reply is textbook FTB. Dozens of rambling, semi-coherent accusatory posts expecting a response that was, unfortunately, not given. What the baboons don't understand is that the "opposition" does not get into auto da fe, summary execution or show trials in absentia. These things are in fact why there is opposition to FTB and it's deformed baby Atheism+. Those reading the accusations, whilst agreeing the evidence was looking pretty bad, refused to pass judgment until the accused had her opportunity to speak.
ReplyDeleteOk, WB didn't practice due diligence - but the accusation of "plagiarism" is a heavy one. It carries with it the implication of fraud for profit, or that of "cheating" to massage one's own ego. This was neither - it was an informational resource pertinent to that behaviour of the morons being discussed. If anything is to be learned here, it is the desperate lengths to which FTB et al. will go in order to provide a twitching corpse on a gibbet for the entertainment of their slavering Colosseum mobs.
Good enough for me. The accusations on the slymepit need to be read to be appreciated. The desperation to lynch before trial or right of reply is textbook FTB. Dozens of rambling, semi-coherent accusatory posts expecting a response that was, unfortunately, not given. What the baboons don't understand is that the "opposition" does not get into auto da fe, summary execution or show trials in absentia. These things are in fact why there is opposition to FTB and it's deformed baby Atheism+. Those reading the accusations, whilst agreeing the evidence was looking pretty bad, refused to pass judgment until the accused had her opportunity to speak.
ReplyDeleteOk, WB didn't practice due diligence - but the accusation of "plagiarism" is a heavy one. It carries with it the implication of fraud for profit, or that of "cheating" to massage one's own ego. This was neither - it was an informational resource pertinent to that behaviour of the morons being discussed. If anything is to be learned here, it is the desperate lengths to which FTB et al. will go in order to provide a twitching corpse on a gibbet for the entertainment of their slavering Colosseum mobs.
Good on ya, WB. In the future, if you're doing the 'public service' thing, and have material that is difficult to source properly, but want to include it anyway, it's perfectly fair to just say, "Can't remember where I got this from, but: blah blah blah." Even just putting quotes around something is enough to prevent a charge of outright plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteOn another angle, Google is surprisingly good at locating original sources. All you really need to do is that a random sentence or two, put quotes around it, and do a google search. For example, this text, including the quote marks, finds this blog post as the top result: "A few months ago I wrote a piece on bullying, relying, in part,"