In reply to Robby Bensinger.

> That’s not what “conspiracy” means. I wouldn’t bother to point this out, except this general pattern

oh god, now he's questioning if I understand what a conspiracy means. wow. Another lie. You said:
"That's not what "conspiracy" means"
It's just ridiculous. I mean, your intellectual dishonesty is off the scale. Please define how I misapplied the word conspiracy, or else apologise. Oops, another lie from Robby.
You really are warping reality Robby. This here is the main reason that it's pointless to debate with dishonest people, so I just keep it light-hearted; no matter what I say, you will make things up. Earlier, you falsely accused me of a witch-hunt which was a completely unsupportable lie, but you don't acknownledge or apologise, you just change tack and continue to lie. It's always the same, you are not intellectually honest. You COULD reply to things honestly, but you don't. Are you preperared to apologise for saying that I was involved in a witch hunt if you want to show your honesty?

The bloggers, PZ, RW, OB, SZ, etc are not celebrities, so what they say doesn't matter much. I read some, but as you say, it's all "garbage in, garbage out" with people talking about "such and such didn't understand the concept of 'privilege' as I wanted them to so fuck them". They spit things out, then people rant in the comments about firing Ron Lindsay etc. It's all pretty boring, and CFI are right to distance themselves from that muck.

> You’re not even particularly creative about it, projecting whatever pejorative is on the tip of your tongue without thinking about applicability.

some vaguely insulting stuff, flagellating as if you are superior. Good for you Robby, you go on banging your head trying to show the world that you are Uber-Mensch! boring.

> I don’t think you’ve done enough in this conversation to demonstrate your good faith.

oh, ok, so I REPLIED to your questions, and you have refused to reply to mine, AND you have lied about me on 3 points, BUT *I've* not demonstrated good faith. Right. Got it, Robby ;) That's an insane statement but ok, sure ;). Maybe I'd take you seriously if you apologised for saying that I was involved in a witch hunt, a completely baseless and disgusting accusation considering that I never called for anyone to be fired?

> You’ve been very willing to criticize Watson and co. for heated rhetoric in this discussion, but not at all interested in criticizing Lindsay for much more heated

Actually, that's another lie, I said above that he's said bad things. All people do. I completely reject the nonsensical idea that he said anything bad in his speech, and thousands of people (including a large number of attendees at WiS2) also agree with that.

Note: I say things, you lie about them. That's dishonesty pure and simple. You say that I have not shown good faith, and yet, I've NOT LIED ON ANYTHING.

> Since most of your critique is based on subjective impressions (‘they just feeel angry and ranty to me, dammit!’)

Except I never said that. Another lie. Well done Robby, the lie count is quite pitiful.

Well Robby, I think you've pinned your colours to the wall. Lie. Lie. Lie some more ... but I guess "followers" never really care about honesty much ?

Excellent post on how skepchick/FTB are simply not serious.
http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/leaving-the-skepchick-network/

Very good point that this is drama invented by melodramatic people that are not worth our time (again, good for CFI for rejecting Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers pathetic antics)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/06/in-support-of-ron-lindsay-and-against-richard-carriers-disingenuous-attack/

http://atheiststoday.com/blogs/reapercussions/?p=198
http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/05/my-letter-to-cfi-in-support-of-ron.html
http://www.skepticink.com/notung/2013/06/08/i-support-ron-lindsay/
http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2013/06/09/reasons-to-support-ron-lindsay/
A good example of the good character of Ron Lindsay (even though Melody Hensley acted disgustingly, he put up with that)
http://athmorality.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/email-from-ronald-lindsay.html
http://schrodingerstherapist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-letter-to-cfi-in-support-of-ron.html
http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/06/center-for-inquiry-board-to-meet-about.html

It's a tough life being a neophyte in a cult. I guess you gain points by lying, maybe Rebecca Watson will even buy you a drink at Skepticon? Anyway, you've lied about me repeatedly as shown above hence you are not a person to be taken seriously, and so it's acceptable for me to mock you. I've spelled out 3 direct lies that you've made above. If you address/apologise for them, I could talk to you, otherwise you are what you are: your neediness to show yourself as a good puppet of the cult is reflected by your pitiful dishonesty.

For people that want to know how the melodrama operates, see here
http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Witch_of_the_Week

Normal people are much more interested in getting on with serious issues, like the reach of religion in American politics, and how such things infect debate around the world. You are not interested in serious things, you are a liar and a fool.