Finally, as the "humanist person" mentioned in Angel's piece, I'll correct the falsehoods in it about me here.
"she has created a targeting blog post in which she selectively provides ‘evidence’ in the form of our vigorous response to the censorship and mobbings, without showing any context, to prove that we are simply personally “harrassing” and “stalking” skeptics, whilst hiding the actual issues. My husband initially tried to comment on her post but when he tried to provide the actual facts of how the situation came about (apart from us just being …”insert insult”…) his comment was “edited”, and his commenting privileges rescinded."
Nonsense. To date, I haven't written about her on my blog (http://www.skepticat.org/
) - just here on the forum of my website, which is an active forum with many participants, some of whom have more posts here than I do. Anyone is free to join this forum and participate in the conversations here provided they follow a few simple rules designed to help productive discussion. I started this thread criticising Angel and her husband for their bullying behaviour. Angel could have availed herself of the opportunity to engage with me here but chose not to. Her husband did, however, and he posted extensively before he was banned.
As for why he was banned: one thing I made clear to him was that he was not to use the forum as yet another platform to repeat the same attacks that Angel had made on her own website - this meant no using real names. This is hardly an unreasonable rule - as I've already said, Angel's piece on the campaign website contained no names and it wouldn't have been published if it had.
But he ignored the instruction, posted names and was banned as a result. (The option is still open for Angel to join and engage with me, with the same caveat.)
One of the things they keep doing on Twitter and elsewhere is go on and on about how we can't really be humanists or skeptics because we side with their victims rather than them. They keep stating the evidence is on their side but, when challenged, they produce none, whereas, as I keep pointing out, the evidence that they are harassing and defaming others is in the public domain for all to see.
Anyway, to repeat what I said earlier in this thread
>>You know that the people you have written and/or made videos about have not given their permission to be publicly attacked in that way. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you care about nobody's feelings except your own.
The question this raises for me as a humanist is what to do about behaviour which, although it does not involve me personally, I consider to be unjustified and hurtful against others. Should I ignore it and let it continue unabated or should I challenge it? If there is the remotest possibility that challenging it will make a difference for the better then, as a humanist, that is what I am going to do. The next question is how do I do this when you don't allow comments beneath the articles concerned and when you ban me from commenting on your youtube channel?
Do you have a better idea than posting on a forum, which allows you and anyone else who is interested to respond publicly?
No, I am satisfied that what I have said here is entirely justified and in keeping with a humanist world view. To repeat what I said in an earlier post, there is a moral obligation on humanists to stand up to and challenge the behaviour of nasty bullies. As long as your articles and videos attacking other individuals remain in the public domain, so will this thread.<<
Over and out.