Latest post of the previous page:Thanks for that, Alicia. I couldn't be bothered to respond to what Steve said about the school letter because they used their wearisomely familiar tactic of using it to try to make a fallacious point about skepticism, which I think readers can see through easily enough. Apparently Andy can't say he's a skeptic because he won't allow them to bring their personal squabbles (oh, sorry, I mean their very important 'evidence' of course) to his blog and by posting a link to a school letter that gives the school's perspective, I'm not practising skepticism either. They're not the sharpest knives in drawer though they are certainly the most obsessed I've ever encountered.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Most remarkable are their continued protestations that their critics don't have evidence of what we are accusing this pair of, i.e. harassing someone who has made it clear from the start he wants nothing to do with them.
I've lost count of the number of times I've pointed out that what they say and do online is evidence itself but they just don't get it. It's not hard to imagine what Simon Singh and SAS thought on seeing this tweet from Angel:
The SAS tweet was about a different Lewis. This was pointed to Angel who apologised and said, "Possibly. Hard to tell with just surname. I’m referring to Andy Lewis."
Yeah, that's a good way to win friends and influence people, Angel: tweet high-profile science campaigners with comments that make you sound neurotic and ridiculous. Nice one.
http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... a39-sjpari
http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/n ... 00_pupils/
EDIT: For some reason, all the comments seem to have disappeared. Fortunately, I kept a copy of the evidence here:
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Wanting nothing more to do with someone = bullying on Planet Steve Paris, whereas posting no fewer than 9 articles slagging her off and trying to hijack other people's blogs to do so, is a perfectly appropriate way to behave.
This guy and his wife are so beneath contempt, words fail me. I wonder if Andy Lewis might consider posting their most recent letter to him. OTOH, they are obviously so desperate for publicity of any sort they might even post it themselves. As Alan says, they have no self-awareness and have no idea just how despicable their communications to AL shows them to be.
In the meantime, I'd never say my enemy's enemy is my friend but I was amused to be tweeted at by a supporter of Steiner schools, with a link to a piece he'd written about Steve and Angel.
Spot on, mate.They pursue their campaign using a number of twitter accounts, a number of internet domains, and a number of video clips.
The obsessive way they do this has made other Steiner critics on the net distance themselves from the couple when they try to engage them in their cause.
While they critizise other Steiner critics for not making their cause against the former school of their children their own, their main target, except the school, is the UK rationalist blogger and Steiner critic Andy Lewis, that they stalk on the net. The reason for this is that he at one time did not immediately publish a comment they made at his blog, something they describe as "censorship" and have stalked him for since then.
Indeed. At the weekend, I blocked the pair of them; it's made Twitter a much nicer place...Athena wrote:Angel and Steve's behaviour has deteriorated considerably lately
Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.
Lest we forget, allow me to bring a bit of Twitter here. Some 18 months after being banned from Andy's personal blog because she'd posted a comment naming and criticising other individuals she had grievances with on matters that had nothing whatever to do with Andy and then harangued him by Twitter by and email (Angel's account is here), Angel is still tweeting such dishonest, juvenile and cerebrally challenged tweets as this one:Tetenterre wrote:Indeed. At the weekend, I blocked the pair of them; it's made Twitter a much nicer place...
What can one say except that Angel is a bare-faced liar? A glance at the comments beneath his many blog posts tells us that Andy allows dissent, he allows anecdotes, he allows off-topic comments. He doesn't 'get rid of pesky other people' but then most people don't try to hijack his blog in a desperate bid for personal attention.
Plenty more where that came from.
Unsurprisingly, their attempt to persuade the BHA to remove him from their list of speakers at the forthcoming CFI conference has been unsuccessful. What did they expect? It seems they still don't realise that Angel's website (for link see last comment) provides all the evidence anyone needs that they are delusional, desperate and malicious.
Anyway, the BHA's refusal to countenance their attempt to defame AL has caused Angel to go into meltdown on Twitter. I don't need to say any more about this. Her tweets speak for themselves.
"hiding facts"? "dismissing/disregarding human rights"? "publishing untruths against kids"? "trashing little girls account of bullying"? WTF??
Naturally, they don't provide any evidence whatsoever that Andy is guilty of any this stuff. As far as I can see, what has sent them on this rampage of utter lunacy are two things: the first is that AL barred them from his blog because they tried to bring their personal squabble with other people to it and secondly this paragraph from the ONE blog Andy has written about them.
Little wonder that this pair, with their multiplicity of websites, their youtube channel and their video-making knowledge are such spectacular failures as amateur journalists. Little wonder that they are so desperate to use Andy Lewis to gain attention to themselves. His blog attracts thousands more viewers than do all of their websites and videos combined (without his needing to spam the crap out of twitter promoting them). Their attempt to hijack his blog failed so now they resort to trying to ruin his reputation.Steve and Angel are in dispute with a Steiner School in New Zealand. They claim their children were expelled because they were being bullied. I understand the school says it was because of the parents’ behaviour.
What they appear to be in denial over is the fact that Andy's blog is so highly regarded by so many precisely because his arguments are dispassionate, objective and supported by evidence that is recognisably evidence. IOW, it is the exact opposite of Angel and Steve's portfolio of bitter, malevolent, ignominious verbal assaults on people whom they hate for not giving them the time of day.
To be continued.
A large portion of my working life was spent working for a local Victim Support charity in London. For years I worked with women who'd been beaten to within an inch of their lives by their partners and men who'd suffered the same at the hands of strangers. I worked with victims of sexual assault, families bereaved by murder and people who endured months and years of being harassed, bullied and defamed. I know what it does to people and when I see it happening under my nose there is no way I'm not going to object to it and keep on objecting to it until it stops.
And that's all there is to it.
I contacted the website to ask why they'd published the piece, given that it says nothing whatever about either domestic or sexual abuse. I was told,
"Regardless of its content, if comments do not contain abusive language, they are published," and "If you would like to have your say wholly anon, I am happy to publish a comment anonymously."
I chose not to comment as I knew it wouldn't help matters. The only redeeming feature of the Angel's piece is that - unlike the dozens of articles on her own websites - it doesn't contain the real names of her victims because the website won't allow it.