Had a good night’s rest and been thinking about the rather long exchange that went down on the last post. After ruminating on the subject all night, I have to concede he has a point on some things, such as the extent of evidence I can bring to my case against Myers. I can point to him running away during the cartoon pogrom, but irritatingly, the relevant TAM video is not online, so I cannot show him lying about it. I can say that his attitude towards a heroine like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is contemptible and unjust, but I suppose that you need to work that one out yourself. And I suppose I cannot conclusively show that this latest accusation is not bollocks on stilts, only that it is the worst sort of yellow journalism. (I can, however, show that he is willing to dump the scientific method when it’s politically convenient).
So, to those who have not yet had the joys of dealing with Myers, I suppose that you will have to learn for yourselves the reasons why I take this position against him. Rest assured, when you do, the fraternal paw will be extended.
One final thing while we watch this situation unfold: I have been occasionally admonished to be careful, we don’t know the facts etc. Well, from a position of philosophical skepticism, that makes sense. I know I’m sticking my neck out here. On the other hand, were I falsely accused of rape, I know what I would think of the people who decided lets just wait and see. I don’t have any friends or people I respect, who, if accused of rape, I would not immediately consider innocent. Nor do I have any friends who, if I were falsely accused, would not immediately come to my defence. So, I am nailing my colours to the mast on this one.
UPDATE: In a related note, Scientific American yanks Karen Stollznow’s post on harassment due to inaccuracies.
