>
When I agreed to debate Paul Elam on domestic violence on his web site, I clearly underestimated how childish, and unethical, he really is.
After I bowed out of the debate — see the details here — he decided to run the whole thing under a childish, gloating headline, and with an introduction labeling me a “fucking moron.” (EDIT: See here for my posts without Elam’s editorializing.)
Because of this behavior, I requested he either remove the headline and the obnoxious introduction, or remove my contributions to the debate from his web site entirely. After getting no response from him to this, I sent another email telling him to simply take down my writings from his web site.
Legally, he does not own any rights to my writings, and because of his behavior he no longer has my permission to run them. I may pursue legal action.
Paul, unfortunately, has chosen to escalate the situation, by running an even more childish post titled “David Futrelle- Covered in Pin Feathers and Clucking,” in which he writes:
let it be known now that any blogger in the sphere, MRA or otherwise, has my permission to repost this debate in full on their blog or website.
Obviously he has no more right to do this than I have the right to take his car on a joy ride.
He’s also apparently pitched the idea of reposting the whole debate on The Spearhead. While he doesn’t have the right to do this, and I’ve told The Spearhead that they do not have the right to reprint my writings, I might agree to the proposition provided that I’d be guaranteed in writing by The Spearhead that it would run with a neutral headline, that my latest response to Paul’s “final” post would be included, and a few other conditions.
And I would have no problem continuing the debate with Paul on The Spearhead until we each post 5 posts, as per our original agreement, were I to work out the necessary details with The Spearhead and get an agreement in writing. Or we could finish the debate right here.
I stand by everything I wrote in the debate, and have no problem continuing it, provided it be on a venue not controlled by Paul Elam and with some basic rules to guarantee fairness set forth in writing. (Paul would have to agree in writing to run the debate under a neutral headline on his site as well.)
Oh, and one final note: Paul has also removed the links back to here from the original debate, thus breaking still another condition I insisted on in order to participate in the debate in the first place. And he’s banned me from commenting in the comments section under the debate posts.
This is all very stupid and very petty.
Let me offer a challenge to anyone in the MRM whose ethics are more developed than Paul’s: Stand up and object to his illegal and unethical behavior. Were a feminist to pull this sort of thing on an MRA, I would certainly stand up and object to it.
>You're open to further engagement? Pearls before swine, David.
>@DavidGood for you. Paul has shown his true colours. IMHO, you kicked his ass in your very first post, by pointing out how flawed his one and only study that he bases his entire DV happens to men in equal numbers BS. If you're quoting back at him people the researchers who did the actual study, there's obvy something wrong with his entire argument.I wouldn't hold your breath for an apology or even for him to remove your debate information. The problem is systemic – expecting Paul to act like a grownup would be too much to ask.
>@ Marissa — Yeah, I know, but it's not actually going to happen — given Paul's behavior I rather doubt he will agree to a continuation of the debate on a level playing field.
>David wrote to Paul:"You do not have my permission to post my debate contributions on your site any longer. Since you do not have legal ownership of any of my writings, I expect you to take them down immediately.I will put my debate contributions up on my own site. You will be free to link to them, of course, and say anything you want about them.I wrote you about this before, and got no response. I expect a response this time."Translation: "You embarrassed, humiliated and schooled me during the debate. I ended up looking like a fucking idiot. I'm taking my toys and leaving! Also dear Internet Gods, please destroy all evidence of my embarrassment!"Conclusion:ROTFLMAO!
>@Antifeminist Review"Does feminism turn men into miserable, sniveling, self-loathing cowards who can't take an ounce of criticism, or does it just attract that sort of man naturally?"No, you're thinking of MRAs. MRAs are also pathetic, juvenile, pro-violence losers.Glad we cleared that one up.
>There's nothing illegal or unethical about Paul's behavior. You both agreed to a "public" debate at the outset, which implies that the information is for the public and therefore not a private exchange. You are continuing to also keep it in the public realm yourself. You are just pissy because you can't control the spin.You were the one to slither over to AVfM and throw down the hissy fit gauntlet, no one else. You got b slapped and and now trying to take the position that the terms were somehow breached, like after a good round of mutually satisfying fucking, you're crying rape cuz he didn't cuddle you after taking your virginity.Do yourself a favor and move on to a different topic…there's got to be something you can speak knowledgably about?
>@TecI know feminists aren't fond of scrutiny, but I'll give you a chance to stand up for what you have to say. My blog has the challenge. I'll also be more than happy to post any irrelevant excuses you can think of for not attending.
>@Antifeminist reviewWhat are you even talking about?
>I've just got here.. Im looking forward to seeing this being debunked like your other posts, feminst research is advocacy research designed to conform to a man made ideology that doesnt ring true in real life. Its much the same thing as creationist "science".Women ARE half the problem and most of the problem in child abuse.
>I've offered several times.Are you ignoring me?
>huh?
>What?!
>@Antifeminist reviewThanks for "giving] you a chance to stand up for what you have to say" on your anti-women website. *sarcasm* The funniest part is I didn't get a "say" in anything – you decided the guidelines so why would I agree to anything that wasn't even discussed with me? Puts a whole new perspective on the false rape debate – what you consider "consent" isn't at all. Good job though in proving how pathetic you are!
>@Feminism Review, You challenged us to go to your blog and name one study that didn't blame men 100% for everything. I thought I'd check it out and I asked for your sources as I couldn't find any studies that blamed men 100% for everything. I checked back for your reply and the whole blog entry is gone? Did I just miss it? Or is it really gone?
>Paul Elam has already been exposed as an INTELLECTUAL COWARD who would never dare debate Manhood Academy. Like all cowards, the best they can offer is slanderous sideline commentary like mother hens. But face with the prospect of actually having to account for all false claims, they wither under the merciless heat of critical scrutiny.Sure Paul Elam will debate someone like David. Like all feminists, David plays the professional victim role to a T; instead of focusing on the actual argument, he tries to control how men are allowed to argue with him. Such fools hang themselves.But faced with the prospect of addressing real men who have no problems answering his hypocrisy, Paul Elam tucks his tail between his legs and runs for cover.Cowards like Paul do NOT represent the opinions of REAL men who are NOT afraid to stand behind their words. And unlike Paul, Manhood Academy does not duck from opposition. We love posting the responses of our critics so we have the opportunity to answer them in full. Instead of hiding from public scrutiny, we find public debates to be the best antidote to elitist secret-handshaking hypocrisy.Paul, on the other hand, is notorious for censoring dissenting opinions, especially those that expose his hypocritical position.You know where we are, COWARD.xoxo,Manhood Academy
>@MH: Posting this once is sufficient. I deleted the other two identical comments.
David, you LOST and then ran away. Get over it. It’s just the internet version of what would happens to you in a real world encounter (minus the running away part because you’re so fat).
LOL. If Paul was winning, why was he so terrified that he changed the agreed upon rules of the debate. Hint: Because he was LOSING and the only way he could think of to salvage a shred of his dignity was to stack the deck in his favor — and he still would have lost, which is why he didn’t want to run David’s last response.
The funniest part of all of this is that you came to a nearly 4-year old thread to embarrass yourself as a Paul Elam-fanboy. Which is hilarious, but also really, really sad.
Is that Woody?
Necroing a 4 year old thread to call David fat? Wow. What a cool guy you are! s/
Given that just over a month ago, Paul’s debating technique was to read from a script, I don’t see how Paul’s debating technique could be superior 4 years earlier.
Wow, this post is really old. It’s all different and I don’t recognize the original commenters. The comments all start with a symbol like they were typed into a Zork game or something.
Why are you telling David from four years ago to get over it? Maybe you need to get over it?
It seems like David got over it on October 30, 2010.
Four years ago?
That must take the troll prize for being slow on the uptake.