Is this standard widely disagreed with? I’ve seen no changes.

I know Greta. I’m sure it was fine.

(And if it wasn’t, she would have told you. :-))

“as Dave Silverman of American Atheists aptly put it, ‘I want people to have sex at our conferences.'”
Skepticon 2010 some of my friends had a Skorgy (Skepticon-orgy). I told them I’d attend if Greta Christina did too. And it turns out they did invite her!, and she gracefully declined. I felt the need to let her know the next day that we only thought she’d be interested since she had previously expressed on her blog a fantasy of having real-live “groupies” who would literally throw themselves at her for sexual servitude, and that at least now she could die happy knowing it had become a reality.
Though now that I look back (with hindsight gained from the Great Harassment Policy Debate of ’12), I don’t know if that confession made the situation less awkward or more creepy… 🙁

Okay.

“Notice how his ‘widely unrepresentative of the wider rationalist community’ becomes distorted in your apologetics into “how a large number of people view the blog.”

How a large number of people view the blog IS relevant, but not representative. I wasn’t aware that tfoot had made such a statement, which is why I asked rather seriously, “Did thunderf00t do so explicitly?” Apparently he did, which I fully agree is bad/fallacious reasoning, so I’m not apologizing for him. Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions like this:

“Then you aren’t a real skeptic. You are a dogmatist distorting reality to make your position sound more reasonable than it is.”

It assumes I had full knowledge of the situation and knew tf00t had said that, it also assumes my intent/position is to defend thunderf00t, which is not my intention at all. Also, stating a plain matter of fact (that a lot of people agreed with thunderf00t) as merely relevant could hardly be construed as dogmatism or a failure to be skeptical. If I agreed with thunderf00t that this is representative of the wider community of rationalists, then yes, I would have been behaving dogmatically.

“Him claiming that tf00t was a shitty blogger? Do you really contest that opinion?”

No, I don’t contest Crommunists’ opinion. As I pointed out before, I contest the way he voiced it, by repeating it 4x as if to make a personal attack out of it. THAT is the behavior I think reflects poorly on Crommunist, and if you aggregate PZ and Crommunist’s behavior, I think it’s perfectly reasonable as an outsider to see their behavior and think FtB might be a little out of touch. (I do not hold that view, though, because it seems like tf00t was just being an ass all along, judging by our correspondence here. My opinion isn’t very strong either way, though, becuase these situations have a tendency to be opaque from the outside, which is in large part what I was originally complaining about.)

“If you think PZ’s blogging about tf00t is lame, then go complain there. Don’t attribute to me things PZ has said or done. And likewise, as PZ and I are both part of FtB, don’t attribute “to FtB” things only PZ says or does, but that I (and others on this network) have not.”

I have never attributed to you things PZ has done or said, so I’m not sure why you’d think that. I came here to get your insight on the situation. I AM, however, justified in attributing to FtB the removal of tfoot, which seems to have been a democratic decision made by the whole team. But to be clear, I don’t attribute other FtB bloggers for individual comments made by other FtB individuals.

“While all this was going on, he was being unfriendly and uncooperative with everyone in our virtual office, to the point that it became impossible to work there. He was the one lighting matches to bridges. We just gave up on bailing water.”

I don’t blame you, you gotta draw a lines omewhere. It’s a shame, and I wonder what crawled up his ass and why he would be behaving in such a bizaare way. It’s hard to assess someone’s character from a few video blogs, but I’ve always thought tf00t must be a pretty cool guy based on his videos. There was one other case where he presented a weird video being all whiney about people badgering him about the audio in one of his interviews (i think the one with PZ, actually) and threatened to quit making videos, but other than that everything he’s posted has been pretty kick ass, so it’s really a shame in my eyes this rift has developed between the FtB and thunderf00t. Hopefully there are no hard feelings between anyone, but I worry that some individuals from FtB and tf00t himself will not let it go that easily.

Anyway, nice try on calling me out haha. Better luck next time ;p

Chance:

Both sides appear polarized, unreasonable, and both sides have resulted to mud slinging. Attacking each other’s professional credibility, etc. over a blog? Come on. PZ saying tf00t is basically an enemy of the enlightenment or that he somehow doesn’t understand it? This stuff is just childish. This is the last thing I want to see on a free thinking forum.

That is all public record stuff. So it doesn’t really pertain to what we were talking about. If you think PZ’s blogging about tf00t is lame, then go complain there. Don’t attribute to me things PZ has said or done. And likewise, as PZ and I are both part of FtB, don’t attribute “to FtB” things only PZ says or does, but that I (and others on this network) have not.

Crommunist can and should say whatever he wants, it just looks bad in this case.

I’m not sure what you think looks bad in Crommunist’s analysis. Him claiming that tf00t was a shitty blogger? Do you really contest that opinion?

All that poll points out is that tf00t’s following agrees with him pretty overwhelmingly, which shouldn’t be any surprise, but is still nonetheless _relevant_ to (not representative of) how a large number of people view the blog, which is what I was pointing out in the first place.

Then you aren’t a real skeptic. You are a dogmatist distorting reality to make your position sound more reasonable than it is.

This is what tf00t said that poll proved:

…this is a prima facie case for what I have been trying to tell deaf ears on freethoughtblogs for the past week, that their views are poorly positioned to achieve their stated objectives and are widely unrepresentative of the wider rationalist community

That is simply embarrassing. Notice how his “widely unrepresentative of the wider rationalist community” becomes distorted in your apologetics into “how a large number of people view the blog.” You have altered reality because, I suppose, you don’t want to accept the reality: that tf00t said something phenomenally stupid and so embarrassingly unscientific, for a man who claims to champion sound scientific reasoning against those who abuse it, that he should be ashamed of it. That is what PZ said. And PZ is right about that.

Not only did tf00t use a massively fallacious pseudoscientific tactic to “prove himself right” (like any young earth creationist or FOX news analyst might), he even used this as a basis for recommending policy (claiming his poll proves FtB’s “views are poorly positioned to achieve their stated objectives”). Imagine a young earth creationist or FOX news analyst trying that: making a one-sided video about a debate, then taking a poll of their own fans who watched the video, and then asserting from what those fans said that atheists should shut up about whatever they are talking about, because their fans don’t like their distorted misrepresentation of it so therefore it must be “poorly positioned to achieve their stated objectives”

I just wish everyone could’ve been more understanding in this situation, because it’s important we all get along.

We agree. And for that very reason we tried, for almost two weeks. We made every effort to find a way to work together. tf00t just wasn’t interested.

FTB typically does so without ever personally attacking one another, and that’s what this whole ordeal has blown up into, and that’s why in my eyes it is a regrettable blemish on our community.

This was all tf00t’s doing. Because it didn’t start out that way. It started out as critiquing ideas (see my post in response to tf00t, which was the first one to air…which, curiously, tf00t never responded to, not even once that I am aware of). Even PZ’s first post was entirely a critique of what tf00t said, not tf00t himself, exactly as had been our practice before. Which tf00t then ridiculously misrepresented (missing every actual point PZ made), and it was tf00t’s escalating responses that then became personal (calling his opponents such epithets as “incompetent PC doofuses” and “simply batshit crazy” and openly questioning PZ’s “ability to act professionally and think coherently” and so on). While all this was going on, he was being unfriendly and uncooperative with everyone in our virtual office, to the point that it became impossible to work there. He was the one lighting matches to bridges. We just gave up on bailing water.

Oh my. I guess I should’ve been more clear in my posts. If anything you should be criticizing me for not really offering a substantial goal post. Let me clarify and resolve:

“Why? We didn’t like working with him. End of story. This isn’t a soap opera.”

Not liking working with him would be one thing, but as I’ve been trying to say, the whole thing looks bad for everyone from the outside. Both sides appear polarized, unreasonable, and both sides have resulted to mud slinging. Attacking each other’s professional credibility, etc. over a blog? Come on. PZ saying tf00t is basically an enemy of the enlightenment or that he somehow doesn’t understand it? This stuff is just childish. This is the last thing I want to see on a free thinking forum.

In particular, I don’t think any of your criticisms have been unfair, but I think PZ went overboard in trying to drag the character of thunderf00t in the dirt. Same with Crommunist when he goes out of his way to slam tf00t for being a shitty writer 4x, (again, i’m just taking a wide shot of this from the outside). If it were just tf00ts writing that Crommunist wanted to criticize, one mention of it would be enough. Doing it 4x is just an attempt at a personal attack. Again, if it were merely a valid or useful argument as you suggest, why just repeat it as a blanket statement (i.e. you’re shit at writing) multiple times when you can just say it once, or moreover why not just help the guy out and point out whats wrong with his writing? (I’m aware that apparently behind the scenes many of the FTBloggers tried to do this and were met with dickish behavior by tf00t, I’m just pointing out such behavior begs these questions which Crommunist then leaves unanswered). Again, Crommunist can and should say whatever he wants, it just looks bad in this case.

“A poll of fans of Thunderf00t (who only saw Thunderf00t’s side of the argument in the video being polled) is ‘representative’ of how ‘people’ perceive his exchange with PZ? If you believe that, then you have a serious problem with logic.”

Well, then, it’s a good thing I don’t believe that. Which is why I didn’t use the phrase “representative” in the first place. Did thunderf00t do so explicitly? All that poll points out is that tf00t’s following agrees with him pretty overwhelmingly, which shouldn’t be any surprise, but is still nonetheless _relevant_ to (not representative of) how a large number of people view the blog, which is what I was pointing out in the first place.

“If he was interested in doing better or working with any of us on being better at his job. But he wasn’t. He was just a dick to everyone.”

Your elucidation of the situation has been helpful and reasonable. I’m grateful for it. I just wish everyone could’ve been more understanding in this situation, because it’s important we all get along.

“It may surprise you to learn that FTBloggers disagree with each other all the damn time.” -Crommunist

This is true. In fact, this is integral to what it means to be a critical thinker, but FTB typically does so without ever personally attacking one another, and that’s what this whole ordeal has blown up into, and that’s why in my eyes it is a regrettable blemish on our community. I’ll get over it.

I understand, but this whole thing is an unfortunate mess that casts an shadow over the whole website.

Why? We didn’t like working with him. End of story. This isn’t a soap opera.

I don’t like how everyone is jumping thunderf00t’s case especially in the way that they are.

No one is “jumping thunderf00t’s case” on anything but his public comments. Which you can read for yourself, so there is no mystery there, no secrets to reveal, as to why people are criticizing him now.

The data PZ is referring to here actually is relevant to how people perceive the blog, even if it’s not relevant to why he was fired.

Really? A poll of fans of Thunderf00t (who only saw Thunderf00t’s side of the argument in the video being polled) is “representative” of how “people” perceive his exchange with PZ? If you believe that, then you have a serious problem with logic.

Thunderf00t has long championed, with biting humor, the proper use of scientific instruments and methods, against bogus and fallacious uses by creationists. So when he turns to a trick used by creationists (and FOX news even), and gets slammed for it, he deserved the egg on his face over that. That was indeed an embarrassing thing for him to do.

Crommunist resulting to ad hominem attacks, citing “he is a shitty blogger”

Oh, I see. You do have a problem with logic. Please, please, please learn what “ad hominem” means before saying stupid things like this. Honestly. “You suck at your job” is not an attack on the man’s character; it’s an attack on his ability to do the job, the job from which he was fired. That is not an ad hominem. It’s a valid point.

He was indeed a crappy blogger, using the style formatting of a high school kid, and writing terribly and in a disorganized fashion, getting his opponent’s arguments wrong, and ignoring their valid points against his, and wasting all his time on one issue and producing nothing else of interest. But as I said, I could have helped him shuck those bad habits and write and format better. If he was interested in doing better or working with any of us on being better at his job. But he wasn’t. He was just a dick to everyone.

“If you have never seen this happen, or can’t even imagine it happening, that demonstrates the woeful limits of your experience and imagination.”

I didn’t say I couldn’t imagine it, I said it was hard for me to imagine, especially on a blog site where you don’t directly physically work with people and most of the work I imagine you do is done individually and not as a group.

“You are not entitled to read my personal email or anyone else’s. And it would be unconscionable of me to post all of Thunderf00t’s private emails, or anyone else’s. I am also prohibited by company bylaws from doing so, for good reason (business conversations can only be honest and frank when all parties know they will not be published).

So you need to just get over it. If you like Thunderf00t’s work, go enjoy it where it now resides. Why should anyone care that it isn’t here?”

I understand, but this whole thing is an unfortunate mess that casts an shadow over the whole website. I don’t like how everyone is jumping thunderf00t’s case especially in the way that they are.

“Hey, maybe we should have an online poll in the comments about who was right! Nah, that would be stupid.”

The data PZ is referring to here actually is relevant to how people perceive the blog, even if it’s not relevant to why he was fired.

In addition, Crommunist resulting to ad hominem attacks, citing “he is a shitty blogger” as 4 of his 7 “reasons for firing thunderf00t” doesn’t bode well either.

I’m just scratching the surface of the problem and it looks pretty shitty, but like you say, I can’t know what goes on behind the scenes.. so I can’t really draw any useful conclusions about the character of this transgression other than it seems simply unfortunate for all involved.