EllenBeth Wachs

My Cats are My Gods

Walking away from THAT Stereotype

with 75 comments

There have been numerous blanket dismissals of the idea that some feminists have really demanded that Ron Lindsay be fired. I know that people have addressed Amanda Marcotte’s tweet wherein she states, “I will be blunt, If the secularist movement continues to support Ron Lindsay, I will publicly write them off as irrelevant.” I have not seen people point to the later tweet in which she directed people to actually write to the board and tell them, “if he is not removed, you will withdraw your support”


and Chris Clark’s tweet in which he reminds followers that CFI has the right to fire Ron Lindsay even though he gets his job position incorrect. Ron is not the Executive Director. He is the President and Chief Executive Officer. Tom Flynn is the Executive Director.


What I think has been wholly overlooked is the inflammatory letter that was sent to the CFI board by a Secular Woman member. It was then prominently featured on their website.  He demands Ron’s removal not once but twice.

It is thus that I urge you to remove Ron Lindsay from his position of CEO.
This would have to begin with the replacement of Ron Lindsay

This letter was posted to the Secular Woman group and it was in the thread generated under this post that it was suggested that either Melody Hensley or Rebecca Watson could replace Ron.  When I asked the simple question who would replace Ron in response to the Charles Loelius letter, I got chastised to SHUT UP and LISTEN to the MAN.  I have whited or blacked out names to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.   Loelius’ name remains as he was the author of the letter.  When this thread was happening, the content was so outrageous, I knew these feminists could no longer be counted on to represent a moderate viewpoint.

ron fired

replace w- hensley

replace w- hensley2

I think it is fairly safe to say that, yes, the most outraged feminists have been demanding Ron be fired.  Not only do they want him fired, but the choice of his replacement isn’t based upon qualifications, only whether or not  she would irritate him and Vacula.

I am aware that Ron has now issued an apology.  The fact is, they were not simply seeking an apology. They were demanding his removal. The statement that the board issued was viewed as an insult, so much so that Greta Christina withdrew from her speaking engagement and Rebecca Watson announced a boycott.

Today, it seems that a lot of back-peddling is happening. Dana Hunter, of FTB, went from being furious with Ron and stating the following,

 We no longer trust Ron Lindsay and the CFI Board of Directors to act in our best interests.


I hereby rescind my request for your head on a pike your resignation.

Stephanie Zvan, of the same blog network,  thanks Ron for his apology, and then promptly demands more action,

A prompt announcement of Women in Secularism 3

Melody’s reception speech from Women in Secularism 2 posted at the CFI blog.

Willingness to reach out on controversial topics. I don’t think feminism should be particularly controversial topic, but controversy is obviously built around it. With this and other hot-button issues, I would like to see secular and skeptical leadership (I am not just talking about CFI here) talk more to the people involved in the controversies.

This third item is particularly ironic because isn’t that precisely what Ron was attempting to do with his speech? Isn’t that what a lot of have tried to do and then got shut down?  The demand for more action  seems to be because they have become emboldened by the fact that he offered an apology in response to their letters.  I was actually not surprised by his apology. What surprised me was the fact that is was so long forthcoming.

People are now complaining that his apology is stiff and not genuine. What do you expect from someone when you put a figurative gun to his head.

gun to his head

I spent the last month in the Secular Woman members only group watching in dismay as the women I once admired started perpetuating all of the most horrid stereotypes feminists fight against -being angry man-hating shrill sexists.

attacks on men

Right before I hit publish, this gem of a thread happened on Facebook.  A feminist was wielding the word privilege like a baseball bat at a man’s head and swinging like it was her third out and bases were loaded.She didn’t want to hear a thing he had to say simply because he was a man and shut him down with one word, “privilege”  Seems to me this validates what Ron Lindsay said in his speech.

privilege talking


You know, if merely thinking that men can be my allies in this movement makes me a chill girl, well then…

are you a chill

Anyway, I just joined JREF and am headed to TAM2013.


Written by EllenBeth Wachs

June 23, 2013 at 12:52 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

75 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Wow. Thanks for posting this. I’ll read it again & digest it more.

    And – see you at TAM2013!

    Skep tickle (@Ellesun)

    June 23, 2013 at 5:19 pm

  2. Don’t forget the stereotype of women being angry and giving the silent treatment for mystical reasons that men never understand.

    Edward Gemmer

    June 23, 2013 at 5:37 pm

  3. Unfortunately there’s a growing amount of sexism in a lot of online feminist communities…it’s not just the A/S community, unfortunately. I’m an old school feminist, in that I think that gender roles, tropes and stereotypes can reinforce patterned thinking and result in real harm to people, and I think that breaking these patterns is a very important thing in our society, but at the end of the day this sort of “neofeminism” is simply reinforcing these gender roles. They’re using “privilege” as a gender role. Speaking for myself, as someone who grew up the victim of harassment and bullying, I think even though I’m male, I’m well educated in what that entails.

    That’s the thing, while using privilege as a group stereotype is wrong, if you take the group stereotypes out of it, there’s a valid thing there. Someone who has a certain type of experience might have different viewpoint or something…someone who has skin the game for sure may very well have a different viewpoint. But this isn’t men vs. women. It’s about experiences. (And of course, there’s always the danger that experiences might lead to confirmation bias…sometimes we should look to a neutral, relatively unaffected source).

    One final thing, Benson had a blog post where she suggested that they invite Christina Hoff Sommers to WiS3 for a discussion. This went over like a ton of bricks. There was very negative reaction on twitter during WiS2 to any sort of equity feminism PoV…or anything that even resembled it. I actually consider myself in-between in terms of gender and equity feminism, and I think that the best course of action is somewhere in the middle.

    The problem isn’t anti-feminism. The problem in the A/S community is anti-egalitarianism. The “trolling” (or Fish problem, as I like to call it), is largely a response to this aggressive, anti-egalitarian position.


    June 23, 2013 at 5:44 pm

  4. While I’m probably not going to be calling myself a feminist or feminist ally anytime soon, I am an egalitarian and believe all people should be treated as fairly and equally as possible. I reject the postmodern standpoint of neo-feminism as utterly repugnant and sexist in its own right. Imagine saying to women that they cannot have a voice in the affairs of men.
    Actually, we don’t have to imagine that. We’ve seen that trope played out historically. How then is it suddenly acceptable for women to use faulty logic to grant themselves permission to do that which they are fighting against with the genders reversed? If it’s wrong when done to you, no amount of twisted thinking makes it right to do to others.

    SubMan USN

    June 23, 2013 at 6:05 pm

  5. Even if Paul had said this:

    “I am sorry that I caused offense with my privilege. I am also sorry I made some people feel unwelcome as a result of my privileged comments. I now have a better understanding of the objections to my privileged comments.

    Please accept my apologies.”

    The groveling would have earned him less than nothing. Ask Ron. Or any other witch of the week. I’m glad to see so many people waking up to this – naked emperor and all that.

    Paul is an excellent activist and has done more for this movement than most ever will. I’m reminded of Dave Silverman’s quip from last year:

    “It seems to me that people have come up with the idea that they have the right to not be offended. And that right that they have, to not be offended, supersedes your freedom of speech…”

    Justin Griffith

    June 23, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    • It’s too bad that he changed his mind recently and decided that certain groups have the right to be offended, and have the right to shut down any conversation that they take offense to.


      June 23, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    • Hi Justin!! 🙂
      I are correct, she is one of the biggest instigators I know, I have had several run ins with her and she is always posting what horrible groups NAP,RDFSR and American Atheists are she would go into groups with a screencap of something Troy Boyle said on his wall and post rude comments flaming him, this sort of attack is very common with her. To top it off it makes me laugh (sarcastically) she is criticizing everything and everyone that is an activist and never has once done anything herself. She is a troll

      Cat Burns

      June 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm

  6. This is why I argue that apologies should bit be given to any of the FTBullies. They are never satisfied. They also snark away thinking they have a “victory” – look at Ophelia Benson’s joke of a site and the commentators piling up over there.

    Meanwhile, various people such as PZ, Watson, Zvan, etc. who should be offering profuse apologies on a number of different matters to a number of different people, arrogantly sit back and do nothing.

    That is why it is important for our community to stand up to these bullies. Instead of offering apologies for nothing-at-all (as in the case of Ron), we should start simply saying “fuck off” to these nasties. That is the level they operate at. When they are cut off from the conferences, etc., they will disappear into their own cesspits.

  7. […] has now published excerpted “evidence” of her claim. It’s not particularly compelling on its face, but even so, it is missing information that […]

  8. @Richard Sanderson

    They certainly have too much influence. They exploit everyone else’s good will and sense of decency so people feel obliged to respond. But if people just laughed at their antics instead of taking them seriously they would disappear overnight. Unfortunately when they routinely threaten people’s livelihoods for the slightest upset it is hard to do that. They are bullies and the best way to deal with them is to face them down until they learn to treat others with the respect they only seem to demand for themselves.


    June 23, 2013 at 7:53 pm

  9. FFS

    *bashes head against table*

    M. A. Melby

    June 23, 2013 at 8:02 pm

  10. Okay – I took a few breaths.

    I corrected someone the other day who was saying that nobody ever called for Ron Lindsay to be fired. There were a few who did – absolutely – and made that public. Every official effort and open letter with several signatures, including the official statement from SW – asked for an apology and a dialog. However, many individuals with a diversity of opinion were weighing in.

    That is all public.

    There was no need to publish, now or in the past, conversations that were candid with the assumption that they not be made public.

    The names given in extreme hypothetical were only given after you pulled teeth to get them; and the thing about cheesing off Vacula was obviously a damn joke.

    Sometimes it’s nice to not be under extreme scrutiny for everything you say and be able to vent about things without the need to bend over being diplomatic; and to have others there to work through your thoughts or even to talk you down from being upset.

    Closed groups have a place.

    Making public private conversations, and publishing bits and pieces to make others look as bad as possible is wrong.

    I mean, you conveniently didn’t publish the comments where a couple people were talking about qualifications in a CEO and then made this conclusion:

    “Not only do they want him fired, but the choice of his replacement isn’t based upon qualifications, only whether or not she would irritate him and Vacula.”

    Up until now I was convinced that because of your stressful experiences, and a few instances where individuals absolutely did not treat you as well as you should have been treated, colored your perceptions and you absolutely believed everything you said from your own perspective.

    But you are NOT being honest.

    Do you want to know about what we’ve been talking about lately? How we can defend ourselves against the things you say without adding to your stress because, despite your absolute insistence to the contrary, we actually do give a shit about your emotional and mental health.

    So, please tell us what we are suppose to do?

    I’m absolutely fucking serious.

    None of this shit is worth your life and health.

    What the hell are we supposed to do?

    M. A. Melby

    June 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    • “it’s nice to not be under extreme scrutiny for everything you say and be able to vent about things without the need to bend over being diplomatic”

      I completely agree, which is why you should not put everything EllenBeth said here under extreme scrutiny. She doesn’t have to feel the need to be overly diplomatic on her own personal blog… right?

      Oh wait, no, you then go on to demand that she bend over backwards to be diplomatic so you can scrutinize her every word. Also the jab about “mental health” was beyond the backhanded words I’ve seen out of the sleaziest fundamentalist christians, so bravo on that. Not that it’s anything to be proud of.

      I’m sure someone along the line of your life would be disappointed to see that.


      June 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm

      • It’s not a jab.

        M. A. Melby

        June 23, 2013 at 9:35 pm

        • Oooooo, I’ve always wanted to get to do this. *ahem*

          That’s just your neuronormative PRIVILEGE talking.

          So, just making sure I got this right, that instantly means I win and you don’t get to respond anymore, right? Or do I have to call you a MRA too?

          Achron Timeless

          June 23, 2013 at 9:38 pm

        • It sure seemed to be textbook passive aggression. Feigning concern in order to get in a cheap shot?


          June 23, 2013 at 9:44 pm

        • No. To reiterate.

          It is not – I win.

          It is – how do you want us to interact with the things you are saying?

          If the answer is – not at all, just take it and say nothing.


          If the answer is – discuss these issues, just in your own space and not mine.


          If the answer is – I’ll tell you to back off when I want you to.


          Any of these are fine.

          When I say I’m serious, I mean that I want the rules.

          I want to know.

          I am not going to discuss the content of her post here further because she has asked me not to.

          M. A. Melby

          June 23, 2013 at 10:01 pm

        • I like how when you being a passive aggressive hypocrite is plainly laid on the table, you don’t even attempt to deny it, but instead try to save the ability to use the word “privilege” as a cudgel… but only if you and your cohorts wield it.

          Thanks for proving my point.

          Achron Timeless

          June 24, 2013 at 7:42 am

    • You do NOT get to come to MY place and tell me I’m not being honest. You do NOT get to gaslight me. How fucking stupid and naive do you think I am? Do you really think I don’t see your comments in other places?

      EllenBeth Wachs

      June 23, 2013 at 9:21 pm

      • I’m done.

        M. A. Melby

        June 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm

        • Thank you for trying to set the record straight on Stephanie’s blog. I do appreciate that and I appreciate that you took the time to verify my statement. Whether it will do any good remains to be seen.

          EllenBeth Wachs

          June 23, 2013 at 10:17 pm

        • If you want me to stop replying on your blog, please just say so. I was pretty upset when I wrote my first comment on this and I should have balanced my tone much better.

          I know I defended your right to talk about things that happened in the members only group, in the context of allowing you to vent and to express your experience.

          However, the danger of using conversations within closed groups is that 1) people are being candid and sometimes pretty much thinking out loud, and usually aren’t as measured in their words as they are when speaking in public and 2) the people reading the posts you made are unable to seek out the entire context of the conversations so their perception will be skewed by what you choose to share.

          You’re obviously upset by Zvan not making clear the distinction between you saying something to the effect of: There was a letter writing campaign to get Ron fired. Two names were mentioned as replacements. And you saying something to the effect of: There was a letter writing campaign to get Ron fired and two names were mentioned as replacements.

          There is a very real distinction there, and to be fair to her she said, “One of her statements about the Secular Woman members group, however, has started making the rounds and growing in the telling.”

          She is not saying that YOU are claiming that; but that it is being interpreted that way by others. This is precisely what I was worried about when I, very clumsily, tried to discuss this on your previous post.

          When I said that this was not honest, I was not trying to accusing you of out-and-out fabricating things. I’m just very frustrated that the impression of the events that someone is going to take away from your post here (as well as the previous post), is very different than the impression I have as someone reading and interacting with those conversations.

          I am, as I mentioned, absolutely willing to follow any rules that you set out as far as talking about these things. If you want to leave you alone forever and never mention this again. That’s what is going to happen.

          I would simple ask you to please consider not making public, private conversations in the future. It just turns into a mess.

          M. A. Melby

          June 23, 2013 at 11:09 pm

        • Where do you get the idea that those conversations are private? There are over 200 people in that group. Kim instituted her no leak rule after the boondoggle with Bridget Gaudette and Mary Ellen Sikes occurred. Frankly, I think you run afoul of nonprofit law when you ban a member from the only member meeting available with no due process but I’m not about to give you legal advice.

          Sent from my iPad

          EllenBeth Wachs

          June 23, 2013 at 11:45 pm

        • I assumed that a Members Only group was a Members Only group immediately upon joining.

          The fact that 200 people are in the group might put my first point into question – that perhaps with so many people within the group that those having those conversations should not be so candid. That would be unfortunate since several people have felt safe to do so until recently.

          Someone reading your posts still has to pay $20 to get the entire context of the issues that you have brought up in order to independently assess whether or not the members within that group are “angry man-hating shrill sexists.” or have access to the comments you made that prompted the warning from the moderator or look around in bewilderment when they find that nobody has actually said anything bad about Bridget or that people discussed what types of qualifications might make a good CEO generally or that the bulk of the posts are news stories about feminist and secularist topics or sharing blog posts.

          I’m sorry but you are doing what you are claiming Zvan is doing “re-framing into utter falsehoods” but without the benefit of those reading your posts being able to see for themselves the whole truth of the matter.

          M. A. Melby

          June 24, 2013 at 12:35 am

        • And Kim did not “institute” the policy, it was already in place. She was reminding everyone of what was already in place.

          But I need to step away from this. This is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

          M. A. Melby

          June 24, 2013 at 1:04 am

        • No, there was no policy in place. I have a copy of all of the rules that were in place when I joined and when Elsa threatened me with a potential illegal banning.

          EllenBeth Wachs

          June 24, 2013 at 6:58 am

        • And I guess you can thank Stacy Kennedy for starting the trend and giving me the cues as to what is appropriate. She took something I said in that secret support group I mentioned previously and immediately posted it to Pharyngula whereupon it was misrepresented and distorted and used against me.

          EllenBeth Wachs

          June 24, 2013 at 8:17 am

      • Yeah, that’s one thing I hate.. the whole “this is a closed group, therefore everything that happens here is totally private!” Umm NO. It’s pretty damn public. All one needs to do is join. It’s not private at all. I would never share actual private information in a group that has a hundred+ members just because people not yet in the group can’t read it. Whatever you’re embarrassed or scared of happening outside can happen inside. That’s a joke.

        I don’t take any conversations that happen in groups with tons of members as “private.” they’d be saying the same shit if a group had 10k members. The only reason I’d not share a conversation with someone else and make the number of possible readers “237” instead of “236” for instance is to avoid a ban.

        But really, people need to quit joking. It’s just something to use to their advantage. I can see in some groups where there are, say, atheists, and they can’t write about things on, say, their own profile on facebook because they aren’t “out” yet, or maybe a gay group, then when it comes to outing them there should be a rule against sharing those things, but other than that..

    • “it’s nice to not be under extreme scrutiny for everything you say and be able to vent about things without the need to bend over being diplomatic”

      I’m sure Vacula would appreciate that kind of consideration on his Facebook page, blog and other places he hangs out. Sadly, fucking Vacula over is quite the game. At least for a group of Gender Feminists who have spent years libeling and slandering him while constantly trying to provoke him with outrageous and boorish behavior.

      And, unlike them, he actually does something to advance secularism and atheism rather than 3-day drinking binges and sucking off the teat of CFI, JREF, etc..


      June 24, 2013 at 6:45 am

    • Why is it that those who really have nothing to say say it with so many words.



      June 24, 2013 at 1:13 pm

  11. EllenBeth, in addition to what M. A. Melby said, is there any good reason you’re using the autistic person who published an address for Justin Vacula and was roundly condemned for it (Soressi) as an example of typical behavior of any group?

    Stephanie Zvan

    June 23, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    • I don’t understand why you’d discount Ms. Soressi’s words simply because (as you say) she’s autistic.

      Do you know any people with autism spectrum disorders? Do you think they are unqualified to comment?

      Justin Griffith

      June 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm

      • Justin,

        I wouldn’t wait for a comment back from Stephanie. I doubt she even recognizes her own ablesim and privilege so she will just ignore you.


        June 24, 2013 at 1:15 pm

      • I do, in fact, know several. I don’t know of any of them who need to have their interpersonal behavior subjected to the level of scrutiny that comes from being held up as an example in this kind of situation. That has nothing to do with qualification. It has to do with hostility and judgment of a person’s disability.


        June 24, 2013 at 7:26 pm

        • The disability nobody would have been aware of had YOU not disclosed it. Nobody but you is judging her based upon that disability, btw. You are being quite ableist. Do you recall someone saying that just because one has Aspergers doesn’t give them a pass for their behavior?

          EllenBeth Wachs

          June 24, 2013 at 10:31 pm

        • She’s quite straightforward about being autistic. Additionally, she’s still going to know that you’re judging her behavior and putting that judgment out there for others to join in on. Don’t turn around and point fingers at me because you made an example of the social behavior of someone with a disability that affects social behavior. If you didn’t know then, now you do. You’re claiming that a bunch of us are acting the same way she is. You know plenty of us who don’t have any relevant disabilities. Surely you can find an example that isn’t holding her up for special criticism, right? Aim your criticism at us instead, if you can.


          June 25, 2013 at 1:22 am

        • Surely you can find an example that isn’t holding her up for special criticism, right?

          Try again. That’s precisely the point. NO. She isn’t being held up for special criticism. And NO, I didn’t make this claim. Ron Lindsay did. Yes, I will point finger at you because you are trying to deflect attention from the main issue by screaming “Autism, Autism, she gets special treatment” even if she doesn’t want or need it. If you want to do that, consider it the next time you hold THAT person up (YOU KNOW WHO) for criticism. Always with the do as I say and not as I do, huh??

          EllenBeth Wachs

          June 25, 2013 at 6:05 am

    • Could you elaborate, Stephanie? Should we add “autism” to the list of traits that disqualify a person’s views?

      I look forward to witnessing the gymnastics you will engage in to back off of that remark.

      Jim MacDonald

      June 23, 2013 at 9:40 pm

    • Should we add “autism” to the list of traits that disqualify a person’s views, Stephanie?


      June 23, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    • Might I suggest that you check your non-autistic privilege, Ms Zvan?


      June 23, 2013 at 9:57 pm

      • That’s truly irrelevant, allison. Saying, “Hey, you can do things autistics can’t!/have trouble doing!” isn’t what makes her comment wrong… in fact you’re just making it worse.

        Even if they had the same chances at this or that her comment would still be wrong. How is the fact that someone is autistic relevant to jackshit? That’s the point.

    • example of typical behavior of any group?

      lol. One person at ‘the pit’ does something and you’ll tar-and-feather everyone. In fact, you, PZ, et.al, libel and slander them on close to a weekly basis. Much of it just made up out of whole cloth in order to support your victim narrative.


      June 24, 2013 at 6:57 am

    • This, along with Melody Hensley’s comment to the blind man at WiS (“I know how it’s like to be disabled because I once broke my ankle and couldn’t go upstairs.”), is the most ableist you people have ever been. And you want to speak about *Lindsay’s* incompetence?


      June 24, 2013 at 8:09 am

  12. […] By now you’ve probably read EllenBeth Wach’s post about why she left Secular Woman, including a claim she made that there was a campaign to get Ron Lindsay fired from his position as CEO of CFI and replaced with either Rebecca Watson or Melody Hensley. You’ve perhaps also read her second post showing “evidence” of this. […]

    • Go back and re-read the post on why I left Secular Woman. I never stated there was a CAMPAIGN to replace Ron with Melody.

      EllenBeth Wachs

      June 23, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    • I’m trying to reply to the utter falsehoods within Stephanie’s blog post about this, but she seems to be blocking everyone who is calling her facts into question. Another one just bit the dust.

      She has framed this issue as: “EllenBeth is claiming there was a conspiracy within SW to get Ron fired.”

      It’s an embarrassing piece of propaganda.


      June 23, 2013 at 10:01 pm

      • Blocking and re-framing into utter falsehoods- that’s her known M.O. Read what I wrote and it doesn’t match up to what she is promoting it as.

        EllenBeth Wachs

        June 23, 2013 at 10:06 pm

      • That’s standard operating procedure for Zvan, as well as Myers, Benson, Watson, et al. If you express disagreement with them, your comment will be deleted. Unfortunately for Zvan she can’t control discussion outside of her little echo chamber…


        June 23, 2013 at 10:16 pm

  13. Ugh, Jebus, I’m with MA Melby on this one… So just one comment and the pitters can have fun howling.

    IF there was a campaign/aim/whatever you want to call it to get Ron fired how would you go about it? The board is the ONLY group with the ability to get him fired. So the letters to the board need to be unequivocal about the aim or you fail. I’m no Machiavelli but this seems 101 in the how to influence handbook. However you focus on one that asked for firing, MA Melby intimated there are two but I’ve not seen the other one. ALL the letters from prominent members of the community to my knowledge either only asked for an apology or gave apology as an option. Of course I’ve been hearing over the Twits that there was a soooper secret campaign to write letters demanding his head and of course those were not published. So I assume this is the topic of conversation at the pit. Conspiracy theories based on pretty much nothing… Sad day for scepticism, wait that’s every day at the pit!

    Of course how the pittizens twist the narrative to include the fact that pretty much everyone supposedly demanding Rons head on a spike are now happy about the apology… Well its happening here, “back pedalling” .. because the #braveheros have uncovered their evilz plans to feminazi up CFI, ROFL. Especially funny that Dana’s “head on spike” quote is included since that was part of the piss-take of this firing conspiracy theorising. Its story time with the pitters, so children will it be the square, round or arched window today?


    June 24, 2013 at 2:37 am

    • Oolon said:

      IF there was a campaign/aim/whatever you want to call it to get Ron fired how would you go about it?

      Maybe one could always threaten to remove some funding or significant levels of support unless he was fired? Or maybe someone could have a temper tantrum and squeeze out a few tears.

      However, that seems less the issue than the fact that more than a few threatened that, and that many more went ballistic over both his speech and his subsequent posts. And while Crommunist made a great to-do (1) over denying that that constituted a “witch hunt”, to do so he had to elevate the “reasons” for those ballistic responses to the level of fact. Not a particularly skeptical position in my opinion. A rather dogmatic one in fact.

      As for “twisting the narrative”, have you perchance apologized for doing that in 3 or 4 places yourself there Oolon? As I documented here (2).

      1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2013/06/20/abused-meme-roundup-witch-hunts/”;
      2) “_http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/fixed-that-for-you-skeptic-women/#comment-784”;


      June 24, 2013 at 5:05 am

    • Oh look, someone criticizes FTB/Skepchicks and oolon shows up.

      How surprising.

      John C. Welch

      June 24, 2013 at 6:41 am

      • Kind of like how crap draws flies… 🙂


        June 24, 2013 at 6:47 am

      • I know! If I was petty demagogue, I would ban him but I find him amusing and people seem to have fun responding to him.

        EllenBeth Wachs

        June 24, 2013 at 7:08 am

      • I just have this mental image of this reinforced door with a slot at the bottom to shove raw meat through. Occasionally grunts and howling come from behind it’s frame. PZ Meyers storms out of another room where he keeps the sweatshop children he bought on craigslist that he uses to find people making fun of those in his organization in random comment sections across the internet. His face red and his brow beaded with sweat, he pounds his fist on the wall and screams “RELEASE THE OOLON!”

        It’s not a realistic mental image, but it’s an amusing one.

        Achron Timeless

        June 24, 2013 at 7:35 am

    • You really need to see a psychiatrist about your obsession with ‘the pit.’ The universe doesn’t revolve around ‘the pit.’ Skepticism doesn’t revolve around ‘the pit.’ In fact, ‘the pit’ is fairly small with about 100 active members with another 200 casuals and 400 inactives. In truth, ‘the pit’ probably doesn’t overly-involve most of the active ‘pitters’ compared to time that is invested in other fields within skepticism and atheism.

      Right now (at the pit) it’s mostly MRA/MGTOW bashing (yes, despite your brave leaders telling you it’s an MRA hotbed, thus drive them to ‘the pit,’ MRAs get their asses handed to them on a daily basis) and arguments completely unreleated to anything in skepticism or atheism. There’s also a strong number of ‘humorous’ (usually stupid) gifs and a few people laughing at the FtB/Skepchick lies and manipulations (which includes how they’re lying about this post) and watching them drive down their footprint in the atheist community with their incredible, tone-deaf trolling.

      There is also a lot of laughter about the constant mischaracterizations — about how the pit ‘quivers in rage’ over Lindsay’s apology. When, in fact, almost nobody cared and only a couple thought it was pointless because the FtB.Skepchick bullies will only truly accept a full groveling followed by Lindsay falling on his sword even if they pretend to make up so they can back-peddle to get back onto the ‘airfare + tickets + speaker fees’ teat.


      June 24, 2013 at 7:33 am

    • Oolon, would you mind not twisting EBW’s words? She never said there was a campaign to get Ron fired, replace with one of them.

      They did want him fired. The fact that they didn’t get that doesn’t mean it was alright – you seem to be saying it would be okay even if there was some kind of active campaign because they wouldn’t be able to do it or something.

      Wanting him fired – That’s not a conspiracy claim ffs. Some of you are also claiming they never boycotted – if you’re one of them, they in fact -did- boycott, they even said so on skepchicks. Or is that also an unbelievable “conspiracy to boycott CFI + shut them down!” rofl.

    • “Of course how the pittizens twist the narrative to include the fact that pretty much everyone supposedly demanding Rons head on a spike are now happy about the apology… ”

      Tell me more. Where can I see this? Is this on the Schrodinger’s Secret Backchannel where they plan the rape partys? You really are a shameless. It’s one thing to hold strong opinions and defend them, it’s quite another to worm your way around the net oozing this level of pustulence.


      June 24, 2013 at 11:27 am

    • Hey, thanks for admitting that you don’t actually read the slymepit before confidently informing people on what exactly what is occurring there at any given time.

      Classic oolon. 😀


      June 24, 2013 at 11:46 am

  14. Yeah… read the post… I didn’t take it as EBW actually saying that they plan to see RW or some other quack up there as CEO. Clearly just jokes and I don’t think EBW took it seriously.

  15. Stephanie has “doubled down” and essentially lying about the attempt to remove Ron. We know their game – they have done it time and time again. They know that their hit pieces on their sites drum all up the hate from their commentators, and you can count dozens of posters saying he should quit…OR ELSE.

    The Baboons think they own the atheist and secular movements, and seem to think they can order anybody who mildly disagrees with them and hurts their very sensitive fee-fees, to apologise.

    In the meantime, not a single apology if offered by that rabble for the hurt, bullying, intimidation and offense they and their commentators have subjected various people too.

    PS – You will notice that Zvan’s blog is currently an echo chamber parroting her lies and garbage. Strange how no-one can post an alternative POV.

    • Can you please refrain from the “baboon” hyperbole? Thanks.

      EllenBeth Wachs

      June 24, 2013 at 5:32 pm

      • No problem, EllenBeth.


        • An alternative which isn’t dehumanizing would be H. Korban’s preferred “Buffoon collective” or something similar. Though, honestly, I’m of the opinion that such jabs and snipes tend to carry with them a significant risk of back-firing when used in the general blogosphere (i.e. outside of places like the pit), and I wouldn’t recommend using them. But, if you really really need to, ‘buffoon’ is a pretty decent pejorative.

          Thaumas Themelios

          June 28, 2013 at 6:12 pm

  16. I notice somebody called jenBPhillips has resorted to “gaslighting” EllenBeth over at Zvan’s dosshouse.

  17. Hope to see you at TAM EllenBeth, and while we’re there let’s relax, pretend this drama doesn’t exist and have as much fun as we can! 😀


    June 24, 2013 at 7:27 pm

  18. […] just leave this here as an […]

  19. […] of CFI mentioned at Women in Secularism that this kind of argument is not helpful. As EllenBethWachspointed out, there were people calling for him to be fired for it. After he apologized and CFI released a […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: