(warning: long and ugly)
It started with Stollznow's post to a Scientific American blog about her harassment, back in August 2013. Other skeptic bloggers pointed to Benjamin Radford (T-H-L) (what a stupid article) as the guilty party. Stollznow didn't mention his name, but the "cat was out of the bag" and all. They had been an "item" before she got married to someone else in 2012, but apparently Radford couldn't stop bothering her. The fact that they both worked at the CFI didn't help. (As far as I can tell from numerous assorted skeptic-blog entries, anyway.)
The result was an unbelievable stink. Despite not having mentioned his name, Stollznow is sued by Radford, who gleefully posts a copy of the lawsuit on his Facebook. Then he posts a "retraction", claiming that Stollznow wrote and signed it. Despite the fact that she didn't, many skeptics support Radford's side of this nonsense.
So, she started an Indiegogo project to raise money for her legal defense:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/give- ... nt-victims
Note this part:
Indeed, if you examine the talkpage for Karen Stollznow (T-H-L), there was much squabbling over this in January.Although I didn’t sign the retraction, he posted the document on his very public Facebook page and announced victory over me. This also led to false public edits being made to my Wikipedia page.
Take a closer look at the "work" of one NaturaTek (T-C-L).
(Yes, Stollznow's article was created by Tim Farley, of the infamous "Guerrilla Skeptics". And edited by Susan Gerbic of that same august group. Of course. They also edited Radford's bio, of course. Which says absolutely nothing about this dispute.)
Aren't skeptics supposed to believe in "evidence-based science" and "reason"? Where's the "reason" in all this?
