2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Pingback: ()

  • http://www.ryanpeterwrites.com Ryan Peter

    Thanks Jacques, was good hearing your take on this.

  • Billy

    Here is a few details I see missing from the article:

    1) The guy also said “Don’t get me wrong” to begin with. What does he wish Rebecca not to get wrong? Besides, the guy apparently takes no for an answer and go no further.

    2) The “interesting” is not highlighted in Rebecca’s vblog. One may as well highlight the “conversation” or “coffee”. We did not have the story from the guy’s side so we did not know his true intention.

    3) Rebecca said the behavior “objectifies” her. She was also addressing her opinion to the “wise guy” in general and “to girls” in general, but not to any specific person.

    4) Rebecca later uses her public key notes (about religious rights) to address an student with opposite view and associate her with the hate mail she recieves. In fact, this is what Richard Dawkins’s comment in PZ Myer’s blog is referring to.

    5) On a personally side, Rebecca also named Paula Kirby (rumored to be Dawkin’s friend) in the Dublin conference earlier (about communicating atheism) for critistism, in a simliar way with the later key notes speech event.

  • http://integralmath.blogspot.com/ Justicar

    One is hard-pressed to imagine why the facts are so difficult to square for people. Assuming that everything is exactly as Rebecca says they are, you seem to have slanted some of the facts to present a picture in a particular way for a desired result.
    Contrast your claim here:
    “A particular man had been attending a conference with Watson, and then drinking with her and others at the bar.”
    With your claim here:
    These were apparently the first words he had exchanged with her, rather than being the continuation of a conversation.

    As it happens, he wasn’t drinking with her at the bar. What is accurate to say is that both he and she occupied the same bar, but had no interaction with one another at all – after all, the elevator is the first either had spoken to one another.

    Which kind of does away with the whole line about his having known she was heading to bed or whatever.

    So, which story would you like go with? They hadn’t before spoken and thus there’s no reason to think he heard her announcement? Or that that they had and Rebecca wasn’t being honest about their having never before spoken to one another?

    Your side simply cannot have it be both ways, though that hasn’t stopped you at all from telling both stories. In the same paragraph. Without a single critic thought.

    Also, you seem to have changed the dialogue slightly.

    Even further, I noticed that you haven’t asked Rebecca Watson to identify which man it was notwithstanding the fact that we have a picture of her in the bar as well as everyone else in the bar before she left. Why will she not point him out so that we might ask him his side of the story?

    Oh, I forgot. You already have a conclusion – facts don’t matter here.

    • http://synapses.co.za Jacques Rousseau

      Justicar, that’s quite an unsympathetic reading of a post that was aiming for balance, and explicitly trying to not get involved in the kind of battle you’ve been engaged with at PZ’s site and elsewhere. I agree that there’s ambiguity in the lines you quote. Thanks for pointing that out, but they aren’t evidence of sinister intent – just sloppy editing. You say “your side” – but I haven’t taken one, and haven’t offered a conclusion, despite your snarky last line. I’ve mostly tried to argue that many people, on both sides, are not applying anything remotely resembling the principle of charity when engaging with this issue, and that this is to secularism’s discredit. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with EG asking her for coffee, though I would think it impolitic if we knew that he had heard her announcement. You also have no idea what I’ve asked Rebecca or not – but regardless of that, Rebecca used him as an example of a general point (whether a good point or not), and I doubt she has any interest in identifying him, now that there’s a mob waiting.

  • Pingback: ()

  • ou812

    “A simple, non-accusatory and exceedingly polite request from Watson for some sensitivity”? She accused Elevator Guy of sexualizing her based on a polite invitation to coffee that didn’t even mention sex. I found her remarks condescending, at best.