What occurred over the last weekend at the AHA/SSA conference was that Greydon Square got into a verbal disagreement with Brain Sapient of the Rational Response Squad, and finally turned over a table and repeatedly punched Brian in the face causing severe bruising, lacerations and abrasions and hospitalization. The argument was because Brian was standing up for himself and was not backing down to Greydon's demands to stop selling his CD's, which Brain stated he had already paid for and felt it was ethical and fair for him to continue selling the CDs. Greydon then digressed into a threat of physical violence, and Brian did not wish to leave it at that. Brian requested they finish the issue there and then so as not to have to have it lingering. Greydon then flipped over the table throwing it into one of the "mediators" that Greydon requested and knocked Brian to the ground with a punch and continued to punch Brian in the face repeatedly.
In the past I have attended ,and will attend, various SSA/AHA events. I have met many people over the years and hope beyond hope that anyone I befriended at these events are not any of the individuals I see posting light hearted commentary about this event and ins many cases, justifying what Greydon Square did.
I am particularly interested in having dialog with Ishmael and anyone else who did not seem to take this event seriously and understand that Brian was in no way responsible for the atrocious behavior of Greydon any more than a girl is in no way responsible for her rape if she was wearing a short skirt. In other words, even *IF* all the allegations against Brian are true, it in no way justifies what Greydon did. Greydon is 100% responsible for his deplorable act, and should suffer the social interactions for what he did. It is a side-track to continue to refer to what an asshole Brian is because he was ripping people off, or what ever accusation one might have about his personality. I do not know Brian and agree that if he is involved in criminal behavior, he should be held accountable. But I withhold my "belief" (hint: as all good skeptic should pride themselves in doing) about those allegations against Brian until I have hard evidence for it.
My hard evidence for what Greydon did, and my recounting of some fo the facts about the conversations that were had with Greydon before the assault, and the assault itself, are from one of the two eye witnesses to the event with whom I am a close friend who relayed to me the particulars of the event. I am taking this on because I am shocked, absolutely dismayed at some of the posts on the Internet I have seen from supposed other rational mature atheists. I was naive in that area... I thought it was impossible for educated atheists to ever find such an act "deserved" or light-hearted and not taken very seriously.
49 comments:
I'm not going to condone any violent acts, but for many people who are familiar with Brian "Sapient" and the RRS, there is a great deal of schadenfreude in this.
There's a difference between funny and appropriate. It was utterly inappropriate of Greydon Square to beat the crap out of B.S. It was also quite funny.
It's true, I LOLLED
when it comes down to evidence of if Sapient is/was ripping people off in the name of Greydon Square I thin you should ask Greydon because according to the sources whom I have spoken with who were in the room at the time of this Greydon presented evidence that Brian and the RRS were not shipping Greydon Square CDs that had been ordered and paid for by the customers. Yes these were CDs that the squad had already purchased from Greydon and were selling at about a 4-5 dollar markup but not shipping them looks bad on Greydon. Do I condone the violence? No I do not. However I am not absolving Sapient of any wrong doing here the evidence I have seen and the testimony I have heard from people who were actually in the room this was a situation that Sapient was unapologetic about and was actually making snide remarks when Greydon was trying to get it all straitened out. So with all that being said I don't think that either side was 100% in the right on this one nor was either side 100% in the wrong.
I think the thing that has bothered me the most about this is that the supposed members of the RRS and the Atheist community on a whole are taking Brian's account of the "incident" as gospel and not even investigating the 3 other accounts (of the people who were in the room) of what happened.
If Brian purchased the CDs, then he has the right to resell them. This isn't just a legal right, it should be a moral right. It's called the "right of first sale" and has been around for a hundred years. It's what gives you the right to buy a book and sell it later, to buy a house and sell it, to buy a CD, a car, anything at all and resell it.
It sounds like Square is miffed that Brian is doing a better job of selling Square's CDs than he is himself. Well, that's his damn fault and if he can't deal with the trauma to his ego, he should have a little cry somewhere by himself. Beating up someone because of your deficiencies is the sign of a coward and a loser.
I've got to love for the RRS and think they're immature and unpleasant, but Brian is entirely in the right on this one. There's no excuse for this sort of violence.
Shane: "I think it was funny that Sapient got his ass kicked by Greydon Square."
I think Brian "Sapient" is sophomoric at the very least, and I don't find this funny at all. If he had hoisted himself on his own petard because of his own flaws, say in losing a debate, that might be cause for schadenfreude. But this, no. It's not a victory for anyone or anything. It certainly isn't a blow for rationality.
I'm not going to get into details that involve other people, but this is not the first time Brian has screwed someone over...and it won't be the last. I know for a fact he wasn't sending out the CD's because he didn't send out mine! Greydon had to mail me one himself. Brian is an unethical piece of garbage and an embarrassment to the Atheist community.
Do I think Greydon should have resorted to violence?...the modern thing to say is "no"...the honest thing to say is "I would have done the same damned thing".
I have spoken with Eddie(Greydon) and others about the fight and my opinion is that everything the RRS is spouting is absolute bullshit...as usual. What makes me the most upset about this situation is the way groupies are taking RRS's word as gospel and not even asking for evidence....I find that incredibly disturbing. They are sheeple.
hello,my name is charles dawkstein.unfortunately i have seen very real flaws in my own logic at using this name,so i would best be referred to as kubenzi from RnR and richarddawkins.net.Basically,i am mostly posting here to relate to you my very real disappointment that what went down between Brian and Greydon wasn't recorded by an historian,complete with peer reviewed youtube links.
"If Brian purchased the CDs, then he has the right to resell them. This isn't just a legal right, it should be a moral right. It's called the "right of first sale" and has been around for a hundred years."
Sapient however was acting as an agent for Greydon Square. He contracted to MAKE copies of the "Compton Effect". Sapient own the CD, but Greydon still owns the music on them, and unless they have a contract stating otherwise, Greydon never sold the rights to his music to Sapient, I presume he only granted him license to sell a a production run of CDs.
So you see... Sapient bought the CDs, "right of first sale" applies. But near as I'm ware he never bought Greydon's music. "right of first sale" doesn't apply. THERE WAS NO SALE
Since Greydon withdrew the license he gave to sapient to profit from his work, sapient now has a ton of coasters, and I presume jewel cases. He should have went to the post office once a week to get that 1500% profit deal.
If there is a way to organize the people who paid for CD's and never received them, perhaps a class action lawsuit could be filed against Sapient, or he could be charged with mail fraud..which is a Federal offense.
"f there is a way to organize the people who paid for CD's and never received them, perhaps a class action lawsuit could be filed against Sapient, or he could be charged with mail fraud..which is a Federal offense."
Someone has since changed the page, but at the time, and as of well, i'd wager 12 hours ago.... it was Greydon's Square's page. His name in the domain, his name on the page, his name on the CD. There was NOTHING about the Rational Response Squad except if you bothered to look at the paypal page, no contact the RRS. So guess who would be the first person someone would report to the post master general.
I don't know Greydon Square, but if I was him, I would want to get it on hard copy record that Brian Sapient was negligent. That's a world of bullshit cause a guy thought mailing CDs was too much work.
This is where I have been naive. Over the years, I have bragged to my Christian family and other Christians that atheists are the most ethical people I know relative to the Christians with whom I grew up. I have been spoiled, I suppose, which has led to my naiveté, by the friends I have here at Ohio State in the freethought community. From being there at the founding of the Students for Freethought at OSU by August Brunsman, knowing him personally, knowing other atheists and prominent atheists very well, and never (knowingly) meeting an atheist who would ever justify what happened, that there actually are freethinkers out there who not only think physical assault is tolerable behavior for rational people but who also miss the very basic elementary point that Brain's alleged unethical behavior is not at all related to the justification or "finding funny" the violent physical assault that occurred on Brian.
If you continue to 'retort' the assault on Brian by Greydon as "understandable" or anything less than deplorable, REGARDLESS of Brain's supposed unethical and/or criminal behavior with the RRS, you are a shame to the freethought community. If we ever meet at another convention, please let me know who you are and that you find it funny or ‘no big deal’, so that I can make sure you receive no polite niceties from me and I assure we do not share the same area. We will both benefit. Retain your anonymity if you like.
I am no passivist. I am a police officer in a substantially violent area of Columbus and have to use force on individuals on a regular basis, sometimes direct strikes to the face. This is in response to assaults on myself or others and an attempt to subdue the attacker. So don't think I am some basement dwelling child who still lives with his parents and is frightened by my own shadow. I see and partake in my fair share of harrowing encounters. But be assured, I do not in the slightest condone the support of Greydon's actions any more than I condone the assaults that I see occur to people every day. If anything, I am a violent supporter of peace. I will use as much physical force that is necessary to stop someone else from using physical violence on someone else.
And know this if anything else: I will use strikingly cold distance from anyone who "holds the value judgment" that what happened to Brain was anything less than unacceptable.
PS: Hate Brian as much as you want, but be the mature rational freethinker you should be and learn to separate your emotions of hate from the pleasure you get from knowing someone you hate has been violently assaulted. Again, if you cannot do that, please let me know who you are so I can make it clear, as clear as you need it to be, that you and I will not be sharing a room, table, or if I can help it, the same breathable air in the corner of a room with you until you can understand your profound immaturity and the dangerous ideas it promotes.
Greydon's actions were wrong, Sapient's actions don't excuse Greydon.
Sapient's actions were wrong. Getting hit in the face doesn't change that either.
Greydon will get his day in court for what is presently a minor assault charge.
Sapient, it seems he would rather blog on the subject than ship out the CDs people payed for. That's speculation.
I'm going to agree with Joe somewhat, but make it clear Love or Hate these guys as much as you want... but the first step for both is to man up and take responsibility for their actions. But above all, keep in mind all the information is being presented by people who have clear bias and bused egos.
If Brian bought the CDs, then he is under absolutely no obligation to do anything the artist wants. If the artist says "stop selling", Brian can flip him the bird and do what he wants. If people think this reflects badly on the artist, then in the future, the artist shouldn't sell but rather contract out to a distributor.
Right now, it looks like Brian's distributor (the guy who was responsible for packaging & sending the CDs) let him down and now Brian looks bad. Brian is dealing with this through responsible, professional means.
This has always been a problem with artists and record companies. Once the artist signs that contract, a lot of their rights and ownership is gone. All this stuff Panda is blathering about owning CDs but not owning music is nonsense - Brian can resell the CDs in whatever way he wants. If he doesn't own the music, he can't license it to others and he can't make more CDs, but he can sell the CDs in whatever way he wants. If some customers don't understand that the artist doesn't control marketing and distribution, that's their problem.
All of this still touches upon a central issue: the two had a business dispute, and Greydon acted like a thug, not like a professional. If he had a genuine problem, get a lawyer. It isn't funny, it isn't boys being boys, and whether some people (like rayven) would react the same way doesn't defend Greydon, it just shows that they are also little more than thugs.
i think the RIAA would have difficulties with your ideas buddy boy.
i definitely loled when i heared about the incindent. i was trapped in an award ceremony when this all happened. the recounting later was a bit less one sided than this post. the other posters who mentioned the argument started with the failure of the RRS to ship out CDs of greydon's is totally true. Greydon didnt want the RSS to sell the CD at the conference and was actually selling them thru another group.
while i dont think greydon should have whupped brian's ass, brian was being a smug asshole. neither party wanted to back down and this is what happened.
i think the RIAA would have difficulties with your ideas buddy boy.
i definitely loled when i heared about the incindent. i was trapped in an award ceremony when this all happened. the recounting later was a bit less one sided than this post. the other posters who mentioned the argument started with the failure of the RRS to ship out CDs of greydon's is totally true. Greydon didnt want the RSS to sell the CD at the conference and was actually selling them thru another group.
while i dont think greydon should have whupped brian's ass, brian was being a smug asshole. neither party wanted to back down and this is what happened.
i think the RIAA would have difficulties with your ideas buddy boy.
Nope. The RIAA represents the recording industry, not the artists and when artists have problems with their music distribution, the label can and has told them to go to hell. Once the artist signs a record deal, it is the contract owner (generally the label) which has full and complete control over how to sell the CDs.
If we bought a crate of CDs like Brian has done, we could market and sell them and neither the artist nor anyone else. No matter how poor our customer service, no matter how badly we ran our business, the artist and label has no say. Customers can complain and press charges for fraud, but only a customer - the artist lacks standing.
That's what happens when you sell a product - you lose control over what happens to it. You can throw a tantrum like Greydon seems to have done, but it doesn't change anything.
There is the law...and then there is ethical behavior...sometimes the two are in conflict.
We all know the law states Greydon had no right to beat up Sapient..some believe what he did was unethical, some believe what he did was ethical under the circumstances. We will just have disagree on that one.
Brian was ripping customers off..whether he wants to blame a "volunteer" Rook and Kelly, or Santa Clause...it's not relevant...bottom line, it was he who was making Greydon look bad by not mailing out CD's...and when confronted he acted like a smug, arrogant, piece of shit. The letter of the law may be on his side, it may not be...but even IF it is...what he did was unethical and criminal. Each unmailed CD is a felony...it is federal mail fraud. Some think he deserved getting his ass whooped, some say his behavior doesn't justify what happened...again, we can choose to disagree on this one.
The point is, both men committed an act that many people feel is unethical and both acts are criminal offenses. Greydon has accepted the consequences of his actions and is stepping up to the plate to receive whatever punishment society deems necessary. What's Brian doing? Take a good look at him and ask yourself that question.
Here is one point I have not seen brought up yet, so I will...
For those of you who state that Brian's criminal and unethical behavior does not justify what Greydon did...why have you not slammed Brian for telling the public that Greydon is bi-polar and off his meds? What he has stated is slander and just another example of how unethical Brian is. Even IF the allegations are true, it is unethical as hell to reveal another persons medical history to the public without their consent....and it could be illegal. It's a rather gray area when it comes to individuals, but businesses and organizations can be sued for divulging such info...and since the RRS presents itself as an organization...guess what? They can be sued for releasing personal information like that.
The RRS cult seems to think they are allowed to behave in unethical and criminal ways but they don't think anyone else should be able to...that's a double standard.
"This has always been a problem with artists and record companies. Once the artist signs that contract, a lot of their rights and ownership is gone. All this stuff Panda is blathering about owning CDs but not owning music is nonsense"
Show me the contract between Greydon and Brian. What there isn't one? Then your argument falls apart.
In bigboy land (well big baby), artists sign contracts with labels. They might sell their souls (all the rights to their music) or they might retain ownership but grant license to promote and sell material for a limited time period.
Tyro, you bought up "right of first sale". This only applies if there was a sale. We can safely presume that Greydon didn't sell all the rights to his music to Brian, as according to
http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=33326
he was approached by one major label, and many minor ones. This isn't a big deal, as there are always scouts looking to buy your soul (well, total ownership).
RULE OF FIRST SALE ONLY APPLIES IF THERE WAS A SALE.
I can, for example, sell that copy of Microsoft Word I bought to someone else. But if I was under license to produce copies of MS word from Microsoft, and they withdrew their license... and I have a few left over from production.... guess what.. I can't sell those, not without license.
Brian Sapient was acting as an agent of Greydon Square. Unless you can show me a contract or a sales receipt that says otherwise, all rights are held by the creator, Greydon Square. But don't take my word for it, talk to a copyright attorney.
This is the problem with people. Automatic sense of entitlement. This is why we have courts and systems to settle disputes.
If Sapient BOUGHT a license to produce x number of CDs... then the RULE OF FIRST SALE applies. But in lue of a written contract or bill of sale, we are left with AT WILL EMPLOYMENT. Sapient was Greydon's bitch and got fired. Too bad, so sad.
But the jewel cases are Brians. and if he pops the CDs in the microwave and removes the data, those are Brians.
"Each unmailed CD is a felony...it is federal mail fraud."
That's not the problem. The problem is on the website until recently, it wasn't clear that Brian was selling the CDs. By all appearances, it was Greydon. It was Greydon being accused of mail fraud, and wire fraud. This is rather why businesses prefer using private carriers... cause it's not federal mail fraud if you are not using the mail (us postal service).
"Once the artist signs a record deal, it is the contract owner (generally the label) which has full and complete control over how to sell the CDs."
This depends on the nature of the contract. A 5 year contract for example where the artist retains ownership, an artist can change labels or become their own label a la Beatles' Apple Records.
The typical contract is, selling your soul for pennies on cd. That's true. Nirvana had a rotten deal where they had to sell millions of CDs to pay for studio time.
But in this case, Brian Sapient was acting as an agent of Greydon Square.
"Unless you can show me a contract or a sales receipt that says otherwise, all rights are held by the creator, Greydon Square. But don't take my word for it, talk to a copyright attorney."
It's the other way around, I'm sorry. A purchase gives complete control over the CDs and no one has contested the fact that Brian bought the CDs. If Greydon wished to retain some rights, then he would need to get Brian to sign a contract to do so.
"If Sapient BOUGHT a license to produce x number of CDs... then the RULE OF FIRST SALE applies. But in lue of a written contract or bill of sale, we are left with AT WILL EMPLOYMENT. Sapient was Greydon's bitch and got fired. Too bad, so sad."
I don't think you mean "produce", but I get your meaning otherwise. If he bought the right to x number of CDs, then he can do with them what he wants. Sell them at whatever price he wants, wherever he wants to, to whomever he wants, and with whatever cover art he wants unless the contract specifically states otherwise.
So far, no one has contested the fact that Brian owned those CDs with Greydon's music on them. If you can point to anything, I'd like to see it.
"The typical contract is, selling your soul for pennies on cd. That's true. Nirvana had a rotten deal where they had to sell millions of CDs to pay for studio time."
Yes, it's just an illustration. I don't think that Brian was a record label nor signed any sort of contract, it's just illustrating the point that the artist does not always have the right to control what happens to their work. A better example was one I gave earlier: used book stores, used CD stores, eBay, etc. No doubt the initial producers would love a piece of any follow-up sales and the artist would like to control where their stuff gets sold, but its not up to them.
"But in this case, Brian Sapient was acting as an agent of Greydon Square."
Was he really? Agents do not buy CDs, they get delivered CDs which they move on behalf of their client. Nothing anyone has said is consistent with Brian being an agent for Greydon. Perhaps some customers thought that was the case, but it appears they were wrong.
Like I said, sometimes the law and ethical behavior are in conflict.
It may be legal for a con-artist to steal some idiot's house and savings because they were stupid enough to sign away their rights...but that does not make it ethical or decent to do so.
If it smells like shit, looks like shit, and has flies buzzing around it...it's shit....it matters not whether it's legal shit or illegal shit...it's still a pile of shit.
I could care less what Brian's legal rights to the CD's were...he screwed over customers and he screwed over Greydon...period. It is my opionion that anyone who is not in the RRS cult agrees with me on that matter, regardless of what they think about Greydon getting angry and beating the crap out of Brian.
All this copyright, right of sale etc...bullshit is just another smokescreen to try and divert attention away from the truth.
"It's the other way around, I'm sorry. A purchase gives complete control over the CDs and no one has contested the fact that Brian bought the CDs. If Greydon wished to retain some rights, then he would need to get Brian to sign a contract to do so"
Brian Sapient took Greydon's music, and contracted out to have CDs produced.
Brian bought the CDs. Brian didn't buy the copyright. Greydon retains exclusive rights.
Rule of first sale does not apply
THERE WAS NO SALE.
We are left with at will employment.
"Was he really? Agents do not buy CDs, they get delivered CDs which they move on behalf of their client. Nothing anyone has said is consistent with Brian being an agent for Greydon. Perhaps some customers thought that was the case, but it appears they were wrong."
Brian Sapient was acting as an agent of Greydon Square. The customers, the ones who only saw greydonsquare.com only saw the website, which was hosted on RRS dns and webservers. There was no way for the customer to know they were dealing with Brian Sapient... he was acting as an agent of Greydon Square.
Other agents might be middle men between the artist and media/venue/advertising companies, but the RRS did everything in house, except for mass production which I'm sure was contracted out.
Unless Greydon Square signed away his music rights, Greydon Square still owns them, and as a result
THE RULE OF FIRST SALE DOES NOT APPLY AS THERE WAS NO FIRST SALE.
The bill of sale from a 3rd party doesn't count. Show me a bill of sale from Greydon Square. Don't have one? NO SALE, NO RULE OF FIRST SALE.
"All this copyright, right of sale etc...bullshit is just another smokescreen to try and divert attention away from the truth."
Copyright is at the core of the issue. Sapient no longer has rights to copy. He was fired... punched in the face fired. Any question of that... see the police report.
Well, what you say makes sense to me Panda...if we are to debate the right of sale issue I would say I agree with your position, not Tyro's.
I still think the only reason Tyro keeps arguing the point is because the RRS doesn't want to discuss how customer's were ripped off...they want to divert attention.
I hope Greydon takes the issue to a lawyer.
"I hope Greydon takes the issue to a lawyer."
He has to... I think Kelly said they have a retraining order... she didn't use those words... so it's hard to say if they are being cryptically dishonest or just using awkward syntax.
"I still think the only reason Tyro keeps arguing the point is because the RRS doesn't want to discuss how customer's were ripped off...they want to divert attention."
I have no idea who Tyro is... but yes.
The bottom line is Sapient was seriously damaging Greydon's reputation but making it appear that Greydon was commiting postal and wire fraud. There is also false advertising... the guarantee of shipping out in 7 days, and Greydon said $11.99 for the CD, sapient bumped it up to $15.00.
No reason to hit the guy, but this isn't a trivial act. We're talking a world of hurt... and the defamation of his character through no fault of Greydon.
The bottom line is, Sapient was wrong on all fronts, Sapient refused to back down. Sapient provided the provocation, and got hit. I'll give a man license to be an ass if he's right, but Sapient was in the wrong from the start. At least with Greydon, it could be called a momentary lapse of reason... with Sapient... total negligence at the least.
Can we once see a comment about the assault on Brain without mentioning Brian's alleged unethical behavior?
Can those who think this was at all justified (which seems the case every time one factors in Brains behavior as if it "gives a better understanding" why the assault happened) recognize that physical violence is the antithesis to freethought? How can one feel free to speak freely what they think if they fear possible physical assault from the person they are disagreeing with?
If Brain's assault is mentioned in mixed company and I see someone smirk, tell me why I shouldn't distrust that person? Tell me why I shouldn't worry that if I ever get into a disagreement with that person that they won't feel justified to physically assault me if if my words "get bad enough"?
August told me himself that it was horrible to witness, and he has seen some people smirk when he mentions it. He told me he tells them directly "It is not funny". Thankfully, he reports people seem to "get it" then. But face to face with August is one thing...over this Internet forum is another thing. Some of you continue to take this lightly and not recognize the horror that August experienced, that Ashley Experienced, and of course, that Brain experienced.
It is a profound lack of emotional development when you hate someone and by result, take pleasure, even a little, in their pain, even a little pain. You are a shame on the freethought community and rational thought. Brain's behavior need not even be mentioned, as it plays no part in the reason the assault should be abhorred. I am shocked I have to explain this to other freethinkers.
"Can we once see a comment about the assault on Brain without mentioning Brian's alleged unethical behavior?"
No you can't. Sorry but it's 100% relevant to this matter. More over... Sapient and Kelly would have us believe it was an unprovoked attack. It was unjustified, but discussing the provocation is 100% relevant to this matter.
Further, Sapient would have us believe Greydon is a lunatic that needs to be locked up, ignoring the provocation and failing to address the issue in the first place, mailing the damn CDs. Even worse, he's trying to paint the dude as a chronic wife beater like Kelly's first husband.
These facts are 100% relevant to anyone who has any reasoning skills.
I'm offended you think I'm taking this lightly. I'm not. Greydon will face the consequences of his actions. No more, no less. Brian needs to man up, admit he made a mistake, and move on.
The charge is a minor assault. Unless Sapient will present medical records that show otherwise, it will be treated as a misdemeanor.
Joe, I respect your right to feel the way you do but that does not mean I have to agree with you.
You don't want to breathe the same air people with a vigilante streak do...so be it. They might just feel the same way about you. I can tell why you became a cop....Power and control.
Some humans would like to take the law into their own hands and smack someone around who they feel does evil...that's why heroes like The Punisher, Blade, Underworld's Selene etc...are enjoyed. It's human nature...deal with it. The vigilante mindset breeds both monsters and heroes, whether you want to admit that fact to yourself or not. Without vigilantes and lawbreakers, we would not be the country we are today. We'd be an English colony. (or better yet, we wouldn't even be here and it would be an Indian nation...see it goes both ways...good and bad)
Hell, if I had superpowers I'd strap on a 45 and a sexy thong and go kill all the world's pedophiles. If I knew I could get away with it and if I had the magical ability to read minds and knew I was always right, I cure our economic woes in one night by killing half the inmates in the country. Feel free to hate me.
Luckily, I have responsibilities that I take very seriously and I would not risk my children's welfare by getting myself arrested...so in truth, although I empathize with Greydon and say I would have beaten Brian up too...I would not have...(but I would have been hoping like hell he took the first swing and then WOULD have kicked his ass in self defense.)
We made laws and we hire people like you to enforce those laws because we have overpopulated the planet and we need strict laws or anarchy will break out. It is the logical thing to do...but that does not mean that people who think a crook deserves and ass beating are evil people....perhaps in your eyes they are, but not in everyone's eyes.
Perhaps you should try to deal with that....but anyhoo..I promise I won't breath your air if we attend the same functions.
"Joe, I respect your right to feel the way you do but that does not mean I have to agree with you."
Character assassination
"For living individuals, this can cause the target to be rejected by his or her community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long and more, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death." ---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination
emphasis mine
Now Greydon Square isn't a superstar or anything... but just as I can't really excuse his assault... I can't excuse Brian's behavior either. Greydon showed some remorse. Sapient... tried to excuse his behavior rather than accept what he was doing was wrong.
Thanks Shane...I wanted make a comment along those lines, but I knew I'd be called a heartless bitch so resisted the urge.
True horror is a child being raped with a foreign object and near death...true horror is someone who spends 12 hours in surgery and two weeks in the ICU..true horror is the twin towers...horror is not a man who gets his ass whooped but is able to stand up seconds after the attack.
Yes, what Greydon did was wrong, and he will suffer the consequences of his actions...but he did not beat Brian almost to death as the RRS cult claims he did...it is just hype and bullshit designed to get sympathy, detract from the fact that Brian is a con-artist,...and mostly...to get more donations. The first thing Brian mentioned was how he has no insurance...Oh Boo Hoo! If so, ya coulda went to a charity hospital...or you could go get a fucking job and stop trying to make a living at what most of us consider a hobby...*chatting* on the Internet. Some people do deserve to make a living *chatting* on the Internet...because they contribute something worthwhile and educational(like the Infidel Guy)...but the RRS does nothing but offer morbid amusement.
Shane said...
>No one is going to recognize it >because it is garbage. Physical >violence is the antithesis to >freethought? Sure, it would sound >good on a bumper sticker (in a >dumb hippie vegan sort of way) but >it doesn't make any sense.
If you think about it a second, you would know why it is the antithesis to freethought. But, I have recently learned that you are not of the freethought community as I had originally assumed, so I can expect that of you, I suppose. I'll help you along though: Freethought is also about ‘no sacred cows’. You should be able to say what you want that flows from your freethought, and while you can expect possible ostracization, you should never have to fear physical assault. The reason is because, such as in dictatorship countries where certain speech is punishable by death, you will not then be able to speak freely. As well, if in a community of freethinkers, you should never fear that your views will be met with a flurry of fists to the face because then you will not speak them. Physical violence is not tolerated in the freethought community as an answer to disagreements, as it necessarily snuffs out speaking freely. If you are okay with such a threat being present in your community, so be it. Just don’t expect any purposeful membership requests in the mail from the Freethought community.
>Sorry, but I had to comment on >this nonsense, too. Horror?
You have to understand that “horror’ to one person is not ‘horror’ to another. Perhaps I might agree it was not “horrific”, but given the eye witness accounts and their own words, it was at least “horrible”. Mildy traumatic at best, for them. If not for you if you had witnessed such a thing, or been the victim of such an assault, then good for you. I, too, would not be ‘horrified’ at the sight of it nor being the victim of it. I am not sure if Brian even calls it “horrific”. So, that being said, suffice it to say it was not pleasant.
>Are you attempting to be as over >dramatic as possible? Get a >fucking grip.
Take it easy on the language. You don’t need it to make your point.
>Watching someone get their ass >kicked is hardly dramatic. It is a >national passtime. Watch a hockey >game, or MMA match, or boxing >match.
I would hope I don’t have to explain the difference between what you describe above and an assault. If I do, I am sure there are a thousand other prerequisites that I have to educate you about before I can even get to the differences between a hockey fight and an assault.
>If you are that fucking sensitive, >do the world a favor and stay in >doors with your eyes closed and >your television and radio turned >off. Lest you should accidentally >see and hear some real fucking >horror.
Let’s see. I’ve walked in on a 4 year old being raped by a man, held a guy who was gasping his last breaths after being shot in the chest and then died, saw another, still gasping, who’s brains were spilling into the sidewalk after being shot in the head who then died, I’ve come upon countless murder victims, and gunshot victims, rape victims, assault victims, car wreck victims, pretty much the whole gamut. I’m pretty sure I am not naive about the horrors in the world. It’s telling that you take one possibly misapplied word I use, in this case “horror”, and surmise a thoroughly inaccurate portrayal of my worldly experiences.
It is pretty obvious that you are justifying in whatever way possible to feel happy that Brian was assaulted. You have a lot of emotional development ahead of you if you cannot realize you can be disgusted with Brian and still find his assault nothing less than unacceptable. Dispute that if you wish, but I’d rather believe that you are rationalizing rather than that you really think the culpability of the assault is mitigated in any way by how you feel about Brian.
June 14, 2008 5:09 PM
Rayven_Alandria said...
>True horror is a child being raped >with a foreign object and near >death...true horror is someone >who spends 12 hours in surgery and >two weeks in the ICU..true horror >is the twin towers...horror is >not a man who gets his ass whooped >but is able to stand up seconds >after the attack.
Yes, I think it is obvious that no matter what “horrific” event you come up with, another one can be summoned to surpass it in horror. This does not prove your point. However, I will concede that “horror” may have been too strong a word. Nonetheless, see my response to Shane to glean my experience with horrific events.
>Yes, what Greydon did was wrong, >and he will suffer the >consequences of his actions...
This is where your statement should stop. Your issues with Brian, as you seem to be admitting, have nothing to do with Greydon’s culpability. You are compelled, however, to always follow that up with how much you dislike Brian. Perhaps my education is providing me the ease of separating the two issues, or my propensity to think rationally. Maybe I shouldn’t assume you have an equally suitable education or propensity.
>but he did not beat Brian almost >to death as the RRS cult claims he >did
And you “know” this how? What I heard, it was pretty violent, but I wasn’t there. I don’t think you were either. I think the only people who were there can say that, but you say it as if you know it, complete with the motivations behind the claims of RSS that it was violent. You’re rather astute!
>...it is just hype and bullshit >designed to get sympathy, detract >from the fact that Brian is a >con-artist,...and mostly...to get >more donations.
Again, if you think he is a con artist, prove it and go to town if you can. But again, it has nothing to do with justifying an assault, as much as you want to make it so.
>The first thing Brian mentioned >was how he has no insurance...Oh >Boo Hoo! If so, ya coulda went to >a charity hospital...or you could >go get a fucking job and stop >trying to make a living at what >most of us consider a >hobby...*chatting* on the >Internet. Some people do deserve >to make a living *chatting* on >the Internet...
The above diatribe is dripping with contempt for Brain and it is very revealing.
>because they contribute something >worthwhile and educational(like >the Infidel Guy)...but the RRS >does nothing but offer morbid >amusement.
They offer it to WILLING listeners/viewers, I ASSURE you of that. Unless you want to claim they are holding people hostage with their eyelids held open forcing them to watch/listen to their show. You might as well claim that, since it’s as easy to claim that as it is to claim everything else you are.
You also said:
>Joe, I respect your right to feel >the way you do but that does not >mean I have to agree with you.
>You don't want to breathe the same >air people with a vigilante streak >do...so be it. They might just >feel the same way about you. I can >tell why you became a cop....Power >and control.
I showed this to my girlfriend and mentioned it to my roommates who laughed and wondered who you were. They knew you were off your rocker if you knew me, but since you didn’t, they just found it immature of you. “Power and Control” is what I talk about seeing and despising in other officers. I even have and anarchist friend who is like a brother to me, and an anarchist sympathizer friend who can’t’ stand cops, but she loves me. Again, I suppose I shouldn’t worry too much that YOU think this, since you have no idea what you are talking about. But I figured I might tell you anyway just how off base you are. But your line of reasoning, if we can call it that, speaks volumes to me about how much I should trust your assessments of Brian.
>Some humans would like to take the >law into their own hands and smack >someone around who they feel does >evil...that's why heroes like The >Punisher, Blade, Underworld's >Selene etc...are enjoyed. It's >human nature...deal with it. The >vigilante mindset breeds both >monsters and heroes, whether you >want to admit that fact to >yourself or not. Without >vigilantes and lawbreakers, we >would not be the country we are >today. We'd be an English colony. >(or better yet, we wouldn't even >be here and it would be an Indian >nation...see it goes both >ways...good and bad)
Again, if you were a member of the freethought community, I’d be shocked. I’ve since learned you are not, so as much as I find your position harmful and underdeveloped, I’m not too concerned.
>Hell, if I had superpowers I'd >strap on a 45 and a sexy thong and >go kill all the world's >pedophiles. If I knew I could get >away with it and if I had the >magical ability to read >minds and >knew I was always right, I cure >our economic woes in one night by >killing >half the inmates in the >country. Feel free to hate me.
I wouldn’t hate you, I’d find you somewhat misguided if you were using that logic to somehow justify Brian’s assault. But as for having magical abilities ot read minds, well, anything is possible then.
>Luckily, I have responsibilities >that I take very seriously and I >would not risk my >children's >welfare by getting myself >arrested...so in truth, although I >empathize with >Greydon and say I >would have beaten Brian up too...I >would not have...(but I would >have been hoping like hell he took >the first swing and then WOULD >have kicked his ass >in self >defense.)
Sure, so you are saying only your fear of being caught and arrested would stop you, not the ethics of the matter? That’s quite candid of you.
>We made laws and we hire people >like you to enforce those laws >because we have >overpopulated the >planet and we need strict laws or >anarchy will break out. It is the >logical thing to do...but that >does not mean that people who >think a crook deserves and >ass >beating are evil people....perhaps >in your eyes they are, but not in >everyone's eyes.
I don’t believe in “evil”. I believe in human nature, and reasonable approaches to every situation. I hold people to that standard, and if they slip up, I am there for them to learn how to correct the slip up. But if they think the slip up was justified and there is danger if committing it again, I will have a different take on it.
>Perhaps you should try to deal >with that....but anyhoo..I promise >I won't breath your air >if we >attend the same functions.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh with the “breathe the same air”, but I do mean that I will not wish to be around anyone who thinks this assault was okay. So far, I am hearing you say you don’t find it okay. Regardless that you seem to be rationalizing it somehow with your hatred of Brian, I still am aware that you are at least saying you don’t think the assault was okay.
Honestly, and humbly, it comes down to the fact that I cannot trust anyone who thinks physical violence is an appropriate or tolerable response to non-physical violence. If I meet those individuals, I am sure we will mutually stay away from one another.
Joe,
If you are indeed a cop...(which I can't verify..it could be complete BS)...it disturbs me greatly.
Hey Joe
"Freethought is also about ‘no sacred cows’."
That tends to be the case, but freethought is freedom to make up your own mind without pressure from emotions, authority, tradition, or dogma. The moment people start thinking alike, they simply are not thinking.
As I said before provocation is 100% relevant to the assault.
1) Negligence, not OK
2) Assault, not OK
3) Character assassination
As a human I'm going to have some bias.... and I find Sapient at the very least to be a big foofoo head. But I hope I ignored my bias with this summery I posted on rantsnraves
1) Brian and Greydon has a business relationship
2) Brian wasn't holding his end of the bargain
3) They had a fight, Sapient got a punch in the face
4) Greydon was released money, issued an apology some days later
5) Sapient conducted him self poorly afterwards (understandable) and resorted to what can only be described as character assassination (not justified), and used this as a chance for some e-begging... without sharing the diagnosis, prognosis, medical bills and doctors report.
I'd welcome some corrections to my bullet point evaluation... but anything else Sapient said... whether be about Kelly's ex husband, mediation or medication condition, are either irrelevant, unproven, or just inflammatory crap designed to cloud the issue.
I don't claim to be a freethinker... But I think I've been accurate and avoided clouding the issues with emotion. If I'm wrong on any of these points, let me know.
Greydon isn't around to defend him self, nor would it be wise to do so. It's a pending legal matter. Smart dude. I don't represent him, but I hope not to misrepresent him either. I'm not a fan, nor can I say I like his music. But he is human. I do find his actions deplorable, but I also find Brian's actions deplorable. They both acted like foofoo heads.
Joe, you can disagree with me if you like... but I'm going to withhold judgment on Greydon until after the trial. The ultimate measure of a man is his ability to face up to his mistakes.
[Sapient's statements on this subject]
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14187?page=1#comment-171782
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14187?page=2#comment-172149
rayven-alandria said:
>Joe,
>
>If you are indeed a cop...(which I >can't verify..it could be complete >BS)...it disturbs me greatly.
Again, if my words make you feel disturbed that I am a cop, I assure you much is lost in translation through this text medium. I am confident you would not find it disturbing that I am a police officer and would likely find it a good thing relative to the kinds of officers that are out there. Nonetheless, I realize there is not much that can be said through this medium to change your mind, so we'll leave it at that.
By the 2way, I am not sure what part of my text makes it so disturbing to you that I am a police officer. My high standard of intolerance for unjustified physical violence? Or my flippant response to some of your points? If the latter, I can understand that my flippancy is not the most productive way to engage in discussion, and I apologize for that. However, if the former, I can't and good conscience lower my standards for the zero tolerance I have for physical violence in response to anything not a physical threat. If anything, I have learned through this discussion that you So be it. And while I would wish not to associate with someone who finds assault funny or justified, perhaps you don't find it funny or justified, and we just disagree on how we should feel about this specific case of Greydon and Brain.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda said...
>1) Brian and Greydon has a >business relationship
>2) Brian wasn't holding his end of >the bargain
This is questionable, as it can also be said that Greydon was not holding up his end of the bargain. Also, "not holding up one's end of a bargain" could be a mistake in process development, or outright distrustful actions. In the case with the CD's that Greydon was talking about before and during his meeting with Brian, it was simply a mistake in process development at worst. To extrapolate that Brian was simply "keeping CD's" from random customers on purpose and for financial gain is ludicrous. Occam's Razor would lead us to find it simpler to believe that RSS simply was not prepared for the shipping process that was needed take on this project. It is so easy that it is somewhat shameful to put forth conspiracy theories and assert them as truth. It would not matter what evidence RSS could show as to their lack of criminal or unethical actions, there will be those who will find fault with each word they say, apparently.
>3) They had a fight, Sapient got a >punch in the face
Perhaps this is why you find it light hearted. A punch in the face? Either you are not aware of what transpired, or you are deliberately downplaying what occurred to make your point.
>4) Greydon was released money, >issued an apology some days later
If you find the assault light hearted, this would be sufficient, I suppose.
>5) Sapient conducted him self >poorly afterwards (understandable) >and resorted to what can only be >described as character >assassination (not justified), and >used this as a chance for some >e-begging... without sharing the >diagnosis, prognosis, medical >bills and doctors report.
Honestly, I think there's not much left to assassinate of someone's character when they resort to such a violent assault during contractual conversations.
Shane said...
>I don't want to be a member of any >organizations that have you as a >member. Please, tell me that you >are not a member of American's >United for Separation of Church >and State.
I am, and have been for quite some time.
>"Take it easy on the language. >You don’t need it to make your >point."
>
>I don't give a fuck if I needed. >That is how I chose to emphasize. >This is pretty funny coming right >after your grand speech on freedom >of speech.
Dude, I didn't say you are not allowed to use it. I was offering advice, that your point was made without the language. But, it's not the language so much, as the context that was a bit much. But again, there is no free speech squelched here, it was advice, and letting you know I got your point without the language.
"I would hope I don’t have to explain the difference between what you describe above and an assault. If I do, I am sure there are a thousand other prerequisites that I have to educate you about before I can even get to the differences between a hockey fight and an assault."
>Do you watch hockey regularly? >Because if you don't you should >stop right there, before you go >any further and embarrass >yourself.
So if I say I do, will you then ask if I have been to any professional games, and if I say I have, will you ask then if I have played in any hockey games myself, and when I say I haven't, will you then say "A HA! So you have no idea what you are talking about!!"?
"I’m pretty sure I am not naive about the horrors in the world."
Then stop fucking acting like you are in order to further exaggerate things. It is nice to know that you aren't really that sensitive and you were only using that for rhetorical reasons. It says a lot about you.
Hold on.. I said "perhaps" it was a bit much.. I still can empathize how horrible it may have been, also hearing the first hand accounts of it. So, I am not being rhetorical, just accepting that perhaps it may not have been 'horror' as I said before.
Joe joe joe.
I am neither trivializing it, nor aggrandizing it. All we KNOW is Sapient got punched in the face, many times, and Greydon got charged with a minor assault. Unless I see an x-ray report, doctors report that says otherwise (concussion, broken nose, broken teeth). Doesn't excuse Greydon's behavior... but Greydon should be responsible for what he did, and ONLY what he did. We don't get his side until the trial.
To extrapolate that Brian was simply "keeping CD's" from random customers is exactly what was happening. At best, it was gross incompetence.
The ability to use the USPS is a fundamental function of ANY business. This is a factor in choosing whether to donate money to the RRS if they can't do a fundamental task, accept money and mail media. One person could easily label and package 20 CDs an hour, and they have 4 people in the house, and they only had to do it once a week to meet their obligation.
You might say there's not much left to assassinate of someone's character when they resort to such a violent assault during contractual conversations. But that's just plain fooling your self.
1) Brian's name was never on the page to buy the CDs. The buyer had every reason to believe they were buying from Greydon Square.
2) We have Brian's unfounded assertion that mental illness was to blame, when we have no evidence that it was a contributing factor.
3) We have the attempt to present Greydon as being chronically violent, without any facts to back that up.
Greydon can be accused of trying to ruin Brian's face. Brian can be accused of trying to ruin Greydon's life.
You see... this is why we have trials. The court of public opinion is not a very good one. Someone like Brian can make assertions like the dude was mentally ill, and without any evidence, this emotional tag will cloud the issue.
So Joe, you are welcome to your opinion. But I'm going to give a person points for admitting they did something wrong, and at present I can speculate that Greydon's actions can be attributed to a momentary lapse of reason. Brian's actions after the fact were a tactical crusade, in my opinion, to ruin someone's life... and even with his explanation he still brings up mental illness... can't bring it up enough.
Follow my links, make up your own mind.
"Blogger IntergalacticExpandingPanda said...
Joe joe joe.
I am neither trivializing it, nor aggrandizing it. All we KNOW is Sapient got punched in the face, many times, and Greydon got charged with a minor assault. Unless I see an x-ray report, doctors report that says otherwise (concussion, broken nose, broken teeth). Doesn't excuse Greydon's behavior... but Greydon should be responsible for what he did, and ONLY what he did. We don't get his side until the trial."
And...
" To extrapolate that Brian was simply "keeping CD's" from random customers is exactly what was happening. At best, it was gross incompetence."
This is the best rebuttal post I have seen yet that is not in favor of Brian. In that I mean you are not making logical fallacies of association as I see in the other posts (even though I may disagree on what you are finding more likely about the shipping woes of RSS). There is no way to know the truth about this unless law enforcement makes a decision, after an investigation, that it rose above incompetence (which I can forgive if RSS also asks for forgiveness and attempts to make things right) and forwards the information to a prosecutor who will then file charges against them. The way this will happen if just ONE of the victims contacts RSS's local prosecutors office.
We agree that it could be "incompetence" (although you said at best), in that I agree that if CD's were not shipped to customers by result of lack of a comprehensive shipping process in place, then we can call it 'incompetence', but I'd rather call it, while that term may fit, shoddiness that *can* be expected from a small group of people who suddenly take on a large scale shipping process for which they have little or no experience. Perhaps naive of them, but I could imagine making the same naive mistake. In fact, I once I sold over 30 PC titles in CD format on eBay. Just 30 CD's to 30 different people, where their payment was clearly posted, and their addresses clearly associated with said payments, was very troublesome to keep track of and I ended up missing one CD. As simple as it seemed to me before I made all those sales at once, it was quite a bit more confusing than I had anticipated to track all the buyers and ship to 30 different address. I can only imagine that the same calamity of naiveté may have befallen RSS in shipping out Greydon's CDs. If it was more than such a calamity (criminal), as a skeptic, I have to say that seems more extraordinary than simple amateur mistakes, and will have to see a criminal investigator agree that it was criminal, and not a mistake in under-estimating the work such a project requires.
>The ability to use the USPS is a >fundamental function of ANY >business.
I agree, but like many fundamental functions of business, as I have run myself, new and amateur business often don't prepare well for them.
>This is a factor in choosing >whether to donate money to the RRS
I agree, and I think RSS would agree that if they are to accept people's hard earned money, they should put a priority in making sure the product gets to their homes. They may have failed to make it a priority, or let the confusing nature of it or perhaps had other heavy, severe issues facing them unrelated to RSS. Nonetheless, I am sure they would agree that, regardless of the why, that they need to make sure the product gets to their customers. By letting it slip, it creates many upset customers that don't give a hill of beans about the why.
>if they can't do a fundamental >task, accept money and mail media. >One person could easily label and >package 20 CDs an hour, and they >have 4 people in the house, and >they only had to do it once a week >to meet their obligation.
Like I said, I would likely agree with you if I hadn't tried this myself with a mere 30 or so CDs. From what I knew of RSS's 'check out' process for accepting orders, they were being done in at least two different places by two different methods.
To me, having seen first hand how confusing it gets with just ONE check out process in ONE location, that they simply made a mistake that understandably upset a lot of customers. I am not aware of any apologies from RSS about the missed CDs. That doesn't mean they didn't, I am just not aware of it, and I agree they should have or should now make those apologies.
>1) Brian's name was never on the >page to buy the CDs. The buyer had >every reason to believe they were >buying from Greydon Square.
Agreed. If the CDs appeared to be coming from Greydon, it would necessarily upset him if he was being blamed for not getting customers the CDs they paid money for.
>2) We have Brian's unfounded >assertion that mental illness was >to blame, when we have no evidence >that it was a contributing factor.
Well. ethics aside from mentioning it, it actually gave Greydon a bit of an excuse. Mental illness is something that cannot be controlled by him. His propensity toward violence is a product of his environment. His decision to use violence, even if made easy by his mental illness, is not excusable just because of the mental illness, but it does make it somewhat understandable how it happened. With other people I have spoken to about this, they all think the mental illness gives Greydon a "little" bit of an excuse. As well, without hating Greydon, and understanding his mental illness, one would still be in their rights to feel uncomfortable ever getting into a relationship of any kind with Greydon on a personal level, give that his mental illness may cause him to violently assault you if you piss him off.
>3) We have the attempt to present >Greydon as being chronically >violent, without any facts to back >that up.
I am not one who cares to assign "chronic' to someone who has resorted to a violent outburst. I am fully aware that it may be an isolated incident, but I play it safe and keep my distance from anyone that has shown such a propensity until they have proven otherwise. That's just me, though, and I don't expect others to follow that philosophy.
>Greydon can be accused of trying >to ruin Brian's face. Brian can be >accused of trying to ruin >Greydon's life.
I think saying the shipping issue is trying to ruin Greydon's life might be a bit extreme, but I agree it had the potential to ruin his reputation at least in the short run, and likely was unintentional. However, I don't agree that physical violence is an acceptable means of responding to such a dilemma.
>You see... this is why we have >trials. The court of public >opinion is not a very good one. >Someone like Brian can make >assertions like the dude was >mentally ill, and without any >evidence, this emotional tag will >cloud the issue.
Actually, criminally speaking, it would likely prevent punitive response of the courts toward Greydon. It would be a mitigating factor in FAVOR of Greydon. In my line of work, we cannot jail violent individuals, simple assault or less, if they are mentally ill, such as with bi-polar disorder. We have to take them to get help, at a mental health facility (then it is up to the mental health facility to release them) Also, as with trials, of which I have much experience with, the claim of assault is often treated more minor than described, unless there is video evidence, that often gets jury's and judges to respond much more heavy handed toward the defendant. Just an aside that I wanted to point out as the way the assault was described to me will likely be described by Greydon's attorney as much more mild. I won't trust the outcome of the trial as an accurate portrayal of what actually occurred on that mezzanine as I will the words of August Brunsman who is one of the most upstanding ethical people I know. Nonetheless, the judiciary system we have is a darn good one and I'll take what I can get.
>So Joe, you are welcome to your >opinion. But I'm going to give a >person points for admitting they >did something wrong, and at >present I can speculate that >Greydon's actions can be >attributed to a momentary lapse of >reason.
We differ int at I don't give as many points for an apology as I do with the follow up action (anyone can "say" I'm sorry.. not everyone can show it). Second, I give more points for the mental illness possibility than a momentary lapse of reason. Again, that's just me though.
>Brian's actions after the fact >were a tactical crusade, in my >opinion, to ruin someone's life... >and even with his explanation he >still brings up mental illness... >can't bring it up enough.
Well, if Brain keeps bringing it up, it is helping Greydon, seriously.
Joe
Hey joe... the first thing I'll address is this
"Perhaps naive of them, but I could imagine making the same naive mistake. In fact, I once I sold over 30 PC titles in CD format on eBay. Just 30 CD's to 30 different people, where their payment was clearly posted, and their addresses clearly associated with said payments, was very troublesome to keep track of and I ended up missing one CD. As simple as it seemed to me before I made all those sales at once, it was quite a bit more confusing than I had anticipated to track all the buyers and ship to 30 different address. I can only imagine that the same calamity of naiveté may have befallen RSS in shipping out Greydon's CDs. If it was more than such a calamity (criminal), as a skeptic, I have to say that seems more extraordinary than simple amateur mistakes, and will have to see a criminal investigator agree that it was criminal, and not a mistake in under-estimating the work such a project requires."
Keep in mind until recently, only greydon's name appeared on greydonsquare.com I.e. people thought it was Greydon committing fraud.
Presuming Sapient got the CDs from a commercial source, and presuming he paid between $1 and $2 each for a production of 1000. If what sapient said is true and he didn't make a dime on this adventure, and he faithfully took orders for 4 months before he stopped, he would need to ship on average less than 4 or 8 per week to not make a dime. I will admit the volume is speculation, but I think realistic.
Keeping track of payments? Not a problem with paypal, according to sapient he was managing the sales and using paypal's USPS shipping option.
Now, as a private person with a daygig, I am somewhat empathetic to extra work being overwhelming, but this is Sapient's full time 16-20hour a day (so he claims) gig. Still, I can understand getting behind on one's duties a little. A week, two weeks...
Two months? I don't know about you, but me, the first thing I'd do is explain we're backordered... no out in 7 days crap. Change the website. I'd print off a list of the orders that need be shipped out, and get the suckers out. If I assigned someone else to do it... well... I'd at the very least check on their progress... once a week at least.
And we know Greydon was getting complaints about this... as that was really the central issue of the dispute. If Greydon knew... what was Brian's excuse for not knowing for 2 months? He's got e-mail, website, stick'am, phone, physical address. Often it seems like I can say his name and he pops up. I'd wager... again pure speculation... Brian didn't do the work and he was doing his best to dodge Greydon. I don't know it, but it does stand to reason.
You and I seem to agree that it's could be "incompetence" (I said at best as could use stronger words) Young business, growing pains. And you are correct, if it was me, I could make an error of one CD out of 30. But we are not talking about that, we are talking about no CDs shipped for two months.
And these guys want $11,500 to expand their business. Now call me silly, but if they can't master shipping out CDs once a week... I wouldn't reward them for it. I think that's fair. Foolish mistake as if they sold the batch, they would have their doe for hosting for two years, and taxes on this income, and all for 20 cds a week for a year.
So... if it was me, I could understand getting behind, but if I was, I'd man up to that fact, and get the job done. If others were depending on me, such as the users and person who's media I was selling, I'd be even more serious.
The standards for someone who claims to represent the atheist and freethought communities should be higher than the organizations that are criticized by them.
So my take on the CDs
1) Delay too long
2) Lack of follow though
3) failure to alert buyers of delay, well, until the critics stamped their feet.
4) sat on his ass but kept the paypal link up on Greyodn's site, owned by Sapient.
And this is the bottom line, without some feedback from Sapient as to what the fuck was going on, it looked like a scam... it looked like Greydon was scamming people. Pretty solid evidence of a scam too... money gone no product... scam.
Also at you Joe
"Well. ethics aside from mentioning it, it actually gave Greydon a bit of an excuse. Mental illness is something that cannot be controlled by him. His propensity toward violence is a product of his environment. His decision to use violence, even if made easy by his mental illness, is not excusable just because of the mental illness, but it does make it somewhat understandable how it happened. With other people I have spoken to about this, they all think the mental illness gives Greydon a "little" bit of an excuse. As well, without hating Greydon, and understanding his mental illness, one would still be in their rights to feel uncomfortable ever getting into a relationship of any kind with Greydon on a personal level, give that his mental illness may cause him to violently assault you if you piss him off."
1) I don't know if Greydon is diagnosed as being bi-polar (that's a pretty broad diagnosis and could mean anything)
2) I don't know if he is prescribed medication
3) I don't know if he refuses to take it
4) I don't know if his mental health was even a factor
5) We don't know the dude has a history of violence
This is what I find very repugnant about sapient reaction. He can't say the word bi-polar enough, and like good little idiots (my self included) we go in our brains and pull out a file with that emotional tag (bi-polar bear).
Wanting to hit Brian in the face is really not a sign of mental illness. I'm not going to take joy in it, but really the dude is an arse.
[WoTM censored version]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVd-VdSewWo
That's Sapient... I can't claim to have been exposed to him 24/7, but anytime I have been, he's been like that. Confrontational and raving about some Christian conspiracy, and some odd ball accusation, and a demand to concede. And the mind looks at the quick moving hands, the confrontational done, and sees the dude is obviously off his rocker, and the mind says THREAT.
Mental illness may not enter into the picture at all. I've talked with the dude, and my mind said THREAT, and this was over the phone.
Greydon was likely angry, and if I was in his shoes, I would have ANGER and see THREAT.
There is no evidence that this guy has anger management issues. There is no evidence this guy is a chronic abuser. The only evidence we have is people you saw him hit Sapient.
I don't approve of violence, but even I would "want" to hit Sapient. Fortunately I know better and can shake my head and walk away if he goes into full loon mode. Rationally I know the dude is no threat. But after millions of years of evolution I'm sure it's healthy to go into defensive mode and perceive such nuts as threats.
But that wasn't really my claim... I described his actions with Greydon as being a form of Character assassination. Reed discussed how Sapient tried to get a volunteer fired who wouldn't let them stalk Dawkin's anymore, and Stopper who, I don't really know from Adam, they threatened to bring out their dirty laundry.
Links are on http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Brian_Sapient
(Someone really needs to site some of these claims).
I'm not a fan of physical violence... it's more than physical damage after all... but a tactical attempt to ruin someone's life? I'd rank them at the same level of repugnant, and the more the worse.
>> "Stopper who, I don't really know from Adam, they threatened to bring out their dirty laundry."
Yeah, I'm overweight. Oooooooooohhhhhhhh.
"Yeah, I'm overweight. Oooooooooohhhhhhhh."
Well, I sort of figured that was for starters... I would imagine once someone made such a threat... like he did with Dawkins, Sapient would do his thing, invade small social groups, and sew some rumor seeds.
Perhaps you kill bunnies and stuff them into pressure pots. Or stuff Salmon up your nose.
Nice post
Thank You for sharing it.
Get update us with latest one
Nice day!
brians club
briansclub
Post a Comment