Beltway Atheists

You know how people are always offering to post all the emails in a particular thread to prove their case. Well here are all of my emails from the April Shitstorm. These are the ones I wrote, along with the emails to which I was responding. The emails were in a private thread and were not posted on the Beltway Atheists message board. None of my emails in this thread were ever addressed to Shelley.

My first email on this thread. (This was a response to an email I received - I did not start the thread.)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:36:41 -0400
Subject: RE: Question: IS POLYAMORY finding a safe harbor in Beltway Atheists???

First, let me say that I have no personal aversion to polyamory. No one can accuse me of being a prude and I say to each his own. But polyamory has nothing to do with atheism. Besides, this issue has a little history which makes this subject especially inappropriate for Beltway Atheists.

A few people on this list have been privy to my own (and [JW]'s) unfortunate dealings with [NF]. Indeed, Beltway Atheists exists primarily because of [NF]'s abuse of his position as a meetup organizer and the damage he did to the atheist community, especially single women. It is shockingly inappropriate and sickeningly slimy to use one's position as organizer of an atheist meetup, using pre-admittance interviews as a ruse to troll for women for his polyamory meetup. Several women made us aware of [NF]'s behavior and, when the former organizer of the other DC atheist meetup failed to stop him, we bolted and started Beltway Atheists. If Beltway Atheists had a single founding principle, it was that [NF] was persona non grata.

In several conversations with Shelley, I made my strong aversion to [NF] perfectly clear. It was more than a little distasteful and disheartening to hear that Shelley had been in consultation with [NF] on issues which affected Beltway Atheists. I don't know if [NF] had anything directly to do with the re-introduction of polyamory into the mix, but given my history with [NF], I find the sudden re-emergence of the subject to be stunningly inappropriate, insensitive and tone deaf.

Since I asked Shelley to act as Organizer of BA, it has been my practice to not be publicly critical or to second guess or override her management decisions. I have generally kept my head down and have avoided criticism or comment. And, to be fair, she has been a very capable manager who has continued the growth in membership and has kept the calendar very full. Whether or not the polyamory event had anything to do with [NF] I cannot say, since I chose not to attend. But I consider the inclusion of [NF] in ANY business having to do with Beltway Atheists to be just plain wrong and absolutely unacceptable.

[NF] is the last person who should ever have any input into the workings of BA.

Rick Wingrove

I find it interesting that Rick has chosen to send an e-mail about events posted on our calendar to everyone except myself, Organizer of Beltway Atheists. For the record, Rick has not contacted me privately. I have not spoken to, or seen him, since December 2009. I am still waiting for a response to the last e-mail I sent him.

The polyamory event was hosted by Washington Area Secular Humanists Northern Virginia Chapter. Since the Northern Virginia Chapter of WASH had been inactive for 2 years and I care about the secular community at large, a verbal agreement was made with WASH that all NVC events would be cross-posted for a period of 90 days. (This period has now ended.)

For the record this was a discussion, not a do-it-yourself workshop as implied by the meetup account "Shelley Whitevirgin" that was created yesterday to impersonate me and send derogatory and obscene comments about WASH and members of our community.

(A series of links were inserted here. Most were broken. Only one showed “derogatory” – none showed obscene comments. - RW)

Clearly some people disagreed with the sentiment expressed by Rick, Kathy, and Jeff, as fifty-one people attended the event.

Rick is no longer an Assistant Organizer of Beltway Atheists. He was removed some time ago after I was informed by Don Wharton that Rick had contacted him and said he was no longer interested in Beltway Atheists as he now had a paid position with American Atheists. Also, on the day his Assistant Organizer role was terminated, Rick had gone over 3 months without visiting the Beltway Atheists Meetup Page.

He was, however, still an Assistant Organizer at the time the polyamory event was listed and he voiced no objection when the subject was brought up on the organizer discussion list.

As far as [NF] is concerned, I do speak to [NF]. I am the only leader who has a speaking relationship with a leader of every group in our community (regardless of my personal feelings) and I think this is beneficial overall. [NF] is not a member of Beltway Atheists. I would not approve his membership, but this is a moot point as he has no interest in being one. However, simply the fact that occasionally I speak to [NF], has continually been a problem for Rick. As far as I am concerned, I have no obligation to adhere to Rick's opinion of who I should and should not speak to. The polyamory event was unrelated to [NF] . He did not attend or express interest. The event was planned by Don Wharton.

I would consider it a professional courtesy for someone, such as Rick, to come to me first with complains rather than spread misinformed statements about me privately. (Kathy Brooks did this, and although we did not remove the event, Don and I did engage in a dialogue to express our justification.) I am disappointed in Rick, just as I am disappoint in those of you who consider yourself friends yet did not tell me this conversation was going on behind my back and inquire as to whether others were taking action. Only two people have had the integrity to say something to me. I know this will not be taken well, but I am shocked that I have been *volunteering* for almost two years for a community that would have such disrespect for me in the end. Rick and Jeff have an agreement to pressure me to resign as Organizer so they can regain control thus the need to now present objections after the fact. I am sending this e-mail solely to clear the misconceptions that have been presented.

Jeff Wismer has been removed from this e-mail as I intend to persue legal action for the false and defamatory statements that have been made against me. Jeff Wismer has sent me threats of violence and I am concerned for my safety. The organizer discussion list currently has an active thread discussing the potential physical harm that could result from Jeff Wismer's recent re-emergence at our events although he is banned from the group.

**Points of interest: Shelley concedes that I have not contacted her personally.
Shelley concedes my point about speaking to [NF] . She claims that his participation is beneficial but, strangely, will not approve him as a member.
I have no agreement with anyone to pressure Shelley into resigning nor have I ever called for her resignation or removal.
This post contains the first of several threats of legal action.

My Second Email on this thread
Sent: Fri 4/23/2010 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: Question: IS POLYAMORY finding a safe harbor in Beltway Atheists???

However I insist that the record be complete as well as accurate. I was removed as an assistant organizer with no notice whatsoever. No phone call, no email, no nothing. It was very thoughtful of her to wait exactly 90 days from my last logon to fire me. Typically the founder of a meetup will get a little slack but, hey, rules are rules. But, wait, that's not really a rule, is it. Yikes! I'd hate to think it was personal.

Btw - between last August and this March I was making a couple of exhausting trips per month to American Atheists HQ in NJ to work on their computer system, so I may have missed a couple of meetups. I may also have failed to notify Shelley of my whereabouts.

Anyway, in case anyone missed this little subtlety, Shelley confessed that she is doing exactly what I said she was doing - talking to [NF] regarding Beltway Atheists. I reiterate that [NF] was using his position in a way that was both slimy in the extreme and harmful to the atheist community, not to mention frightening to some of the women who were tricked into one of his patented prescreening interviews. It is a little... ironic to defend him as one of the pillars of the atheist community, especially considering that it was revulsion towards his behavior which was the impetus for the formation of Beltway Atheists.

Shelley is free to talk to whomever she likes. But, including [NF] in BA business will certainly draw criticism. As I stated, my problem was never with a discussion of polyamory.

[JW] is also free to say and think whatever he likes. His remarks are his personal opinions and no one may construe them to be my opinions. Only my own words can be construed to reflect my opinions.

This may look and sound like a soap opera but I do not have enough time in my day to plot the downfall of Shelley.

Shelley’s response to another email that I did not send to her:

Subject: Re: FW: Question: IS POLYAMORY finding a safe harbor in Beltway Atheists???

I see Rick has yet again replied to everyone but me. If we are to make sure the the record is accurate, why is there a need to hide this information?

For the record, every Assistant Organizer has an obligation to plan one event a month. I do have this in writing and I have discussed it with Rick (in regards to other Assistant Organizers) in the past. Three months is more than generous. Also, it's my understanding that meetup.com sends an automated message when a member's status is changed so he should have been notified. But again, Rick had told Don Wharton that he was no longer interested in the group and, I was told, he made similar statements in public at a CFI event. I had no reason to believe Rick needed a personal phone call and let's not forget that I am a *volunteer* for Beltway Atheists - juggling work, graduate school, and several groups. At the moment, Rick has not been to our page in four months. All the evidence indicates that he is no longer interested.

I did not say [NF] was involved in the group. I admitted that I do occasionally speak to him and I asked for evidence of his involvement in the group. There is none.

I hear postings have been deleted for the links I sent and therefore I have attached screenshots. I am also pasting in one of the threats of violence I have allegedly not received. There is no doubt that I am concerned for my safety. Several people can provide verification that I canceled an event at my home and postponed scheduling the traditional July 4th picnic out no other reason than concern for my safety and the safety of those who may attend.

- Shelley

First I just have to say that “choak you with my cock” is certainly crude and artless, but it’s not a serious threat of violence.

Btw – this is not the first time I’ve been booted as asst. organizer. I was booted last year over fear that I would sabotage an event. Seriously. Sabotage. This was of course nonsense. It’s just not the way I operate – it’s something you see on daytime TV. I was quickly reinstated when the “threat” turned out to be 100% phony and 100% paranoid.

Nevertheless, it has apparently become imperative to purge members who do not meet certain arbitrarily enforced criteria. [KB] has just been ejected. [KB] was one of the first 5 members of Beltway Atheists. If fairly and consistently applied, I expect to see membership drop from the published number of 688 down to a more realistic 150-200 since there are a large number of members who have never attended an actual meetup event.

If at least 300 names don’t disappear from the membership roles by tomorrow we will know that this was personal, it was vindictive, and that it was pure retribution against [KB] for speaking out.

Another response from Shelley to an email from [former Beltway member]

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Question: IS POLYAMORY finding a safe harbor in Beltway Atheists???

We have an Organizer discussion list - Rick was no longer participating in that or hosting his Dulles Happy Hours. I was told he made statements at a CFI event that he wasn't interested. He sent an e-mail to Don Wharton (which done [sic] forwarded to me) that said he wanted to talk to him about Beltway Atheists.
Don Wharton isn't just "someone" - he is the Organizer of DC Atheists Meetup, a WASH Board Member and (although I can't confirm that Rick was aware of this at the time) Christopher and I were discussing making Don an Assistant Organizer of this group as well. Don told me when he talked to Rick he again confirmed that he was not interested as he now had a paid position with Beltway Atheists. For what it's worth, I assume Rick contacted Don out of embarrassment.
Other Assistant Organizers have been removed for not planning events - the requirement to plan one event a month is stated. It's apparent on the Organizer Discussion list, it's on our FAQ, and it's been on every announcement calling for Assistant Organizers. Since he still had a paid position with American Atheists and that is what is (according to him, Don, and several others) what is keeping him from being involved there is no reason to discuss being "reinstated."
That's what happened... if you don't believe me or you don't consider me "credible" then so be it. If anything, though, I should be criticized for waiting three months as opposed to removing the position.

Sat 4/24/2010 12:06 PM
RE: FW: Question: IS POLYAMORY finding a safe harbor in Beltway Atheists???

It was never anything but a temporary consulting gig with AA, taken on an emergency basis because of the sudden departure of their IT guy. I consulted with American Atheists on their IT infrastructure from August of 09 until Late March of this year. I was indeed paid for my expertise and my services as this took a great deal of my time and a lot of travel and expenses. My involvement in that project is now over.

So, if Shelley is quoting [DW] accurately, he may have remembered some of the details slightly wrong. Or maybe her manicured version of a conversation in which she did not participate is, in some way, more self-serving, although I am not sure why she wants to make my work for AA sound like something nefarious. IT consulting is part of what I do for a living and AA is the oldest Atheist organization in the world – the giant upon whose shoulders the rest stand. I am proud to have been of service. I apologize for the inconvenience this caused for management at BA.

Further, a key feature of my extended conversation with [DW] was an open and unsolicited acknowledgement to [DW] that Shelly had done a great job in growing and managing Beltway Atheist. That part of the conversation is missing from this report, either in [DW]’s telling or in Shelley’s. Anyone can ask [DW] about that.

Also missing in this second-hand report of that conversation with [DW] was the part where I expressed great concern and a sense of betrayal over Shelley’s admitted conversations with [NF] . Again, ask [DW].

Shelley assumes much. But embarrassment (??) was not a factor in anything. That sounds a little like Rovian projection. Accuse the other person of what you are guilty of.

It seems that an important component of credibility is the ability to utter the phrase, “You have a point.”

And despite Shelley’s seemingly infinite patience with me, a lot of people would still consider it common courtesy to inform someone that they had been fired.

Another Response from Shelley (to an email which was not sent to her by me. Again, here, she conflates alleged threats from others with my criticism. In what version of rational discourse is that fair, appropriate, or acceptable?)

Another e-mail about me sent to everyone but me.

I'm appalled that Rick would not consider sexual assault to not be a form of violence. Any reasonable person would consider this a threat considering the surrounding text and the language used by this individual on our mailing list at the time. For those who do not recall or are not subscribed to the list, I've included another e-mail below. I can tell you when I reported the e-mail I sent previously, I was not told it was not a threat.

I assume this, according to Rick, would not be considered a threat either.
The Threat:
Are you alive or what????
We will find you. We will.
You better kill yourself if you aint' dead already

Shelley continues:
Rick is correct about being removed as an Assistant Organizer previously. In November 2008, Jeff Wismer told me he had a way to cancel the Festivus party that was scheduled at my mother's home. Rick and I do not have a good relationship for a variety of reasons. At the time Jeff threatened to cancel the party, we were not speaking. Rick has repeatedly taken Jeff's side, I reached the reasonable conclusion that he intended to use Rick's permissions on Meetup to do so. I had spent several thousand dollars on the party and I was concerned about the implications of it being maliciously canceled. I had only been the Organizer for a few months and this was the first major event I had planned. I removed Rick as an Assistant Organizer to remove his ability to cancel the event. That was the only reason why he was removed as an Assistant Organizer and once the situation was rectified (turned out NOT to be true – RW), a few days later, he was reinstated.

Jeff may have been involved in building this community but he has also damaged it. This is something Rick failed to accept in the past and, as apparent in the "heartwarming" e-mail Jeff sent, has failed to accept again.

As far as our membership is concerned, 62% of our 668 members are active. This number is current, as I analyze the statistics every month. The comment regarding Kathy's inactivity was not a cause for removal but rather intended to illustrate that she, herself, had decided not to participate - presumably due to the polyamory event. Meetup automatically removes inactive members after 6 months.

I would prefer to end this conversation, and work on the thesis paper I have needed to turn in for several weeks, however I refuse to do so until these allegations against me cease.

- Shelley

**Btw – a member of my family suffered a sexual assault a few years ago. I take it quite seriously. - RW

My Fifth Email in this Thread:

RE: FW: Question: IS POLYAMORY finding a safe harbor in BeltwayAtheists???
Sat 4/24/2010 9:54 AM

Oh, trust me that I do indeed consider sexual assault to be a form of violence. To accuse me publicly of possessing such a deplorable mindset is defamatory. Perhaps Shelley failed to consider the hurtful impact of this unfounded and malicious charge. Or perhaps she fancies herself a mind reader with the ability and the right to make defamatory remarks in the absence of evidence. Or maybe a careful reading of the charge shows that the inclusion of the word “would” allows the speaker to give the impression of an indictment but allows the one making the charge to claim they didn’t really say that. That would be like if I were to say, “It *appears* that Shelley has got Chris doing her dirty work for her.” Now, I have known Chris a long time and would never accuse him of that, but I can only guess how kicking out Kathy might appear to the casual observer. This just shows how easy it is to make specious charges.

Be all that as it may, the “choak on my cock” remark was not a serious threat and obviously no one got “choaked” on anything. And I have it on good authority that it was actually kind of hilarious.

I don’t defend the language of intimidation. As a long-time activist, state director and author of an atheist website, I have received my share of threats. But I also know the difference between a death threat and an ill-considered angry outburst. I think that Shelley’s lawyer is going to have a hard time pointing to the actual death threat in that particular tirade. Besides, those emails have got to be pretty old by now – hard to say since the dates have been removed. So, enough with the lawyer threats already. Those are also meant to intimidate.

I do, however, thank Shelley for admitting to what I said, that I was removed once before for reasons that turned out not to be true but which were based entirely upon unfounded paranoia. In other words, yet another “threat” that was not real and never materialized.

Now, regarding [KB]’s ejection – it is clear that it was retribution. Shelley concedes that only 62% of 688 members are current. That means that approximately 261 members meet exactly the same ejection criteria as Kathy. But [KB] expressed an opinion which could not be characterized as anything but exceedingly mild. Nor did she say she wanted to quit, she said she had considered it based on the perceived inappropriate nature of one event. She was not abusive, threatening, or profane. She merely expressed an opinion. AND did so in a conversation happening entirely off the board. Many others have exhibited far worse behavior on the board and have suffered no repercussion.

So, it would appear that merely being inactive is NOT adequate reason to eject a member, but it actually requires expressing an opinion that pisses off an organizer even if that opinion is expressed off the meetup board. That is straight up retribution for a trivial offense. I suggest that the only right thing to do is to reinstate [KB] immediately with full seniority and an abject apology. To do less *would appear* to be an act of douchbaggery. *IMHO*

Btw – I suspect the reason those inactive members are not removed is that a membership of 688 is very impressive. But, remove 261 and you are left with a much more honest but far less impressive, middle of the pack number of 427.

I received an email from Christopher Arntzen (speaking for Shelley) this morning informing me that I have been kicked out of Beltway Atheists. This was not unexpected. [KB] was ejected for a shockingly trivial offense, so it was just a matter of time before I had to go. Nevertheless, the selective nature of enforcement reveals that it is entirely personal and retributive with little regard for fact or fairness.

Christopher/Shelley’s stated reason is that I was participating in an email conversation in an attempt to vilify Shelley Mountjoy. If “vilify” means set the record straight against specious charges, then I plead guilty.

My only charges against Shelley were: that (1) she had had conversations with [NF] – which she conceded was true; (2) that I had once before been removed, without notice, as assistant organizer based on reasons which turned out not to be entirely false – also acknowledged by Shelley; and that (3) she had inaccurately claimed that I hold a paid position with American Atheists – which I do not.

And, of course, I did accuse Christopher/Shelley of booting [KB] for personal reasons. Since the original reason given was focused on her alleged inactivity, I suggested that the other 260 inactive members be likewise booted. Of course, none were – only the ones who confronted Christopher/Shelley for her less-than-admirable behavior. And of course, if you boot all the people who have never shown up for an event, the membership will drop to the low 400’s – much less impressive than the inflated and bogus number of 667.

Nevertheless, I am out at BA. But I want to thank those who have supported me from the day we founded Beltway Atheists back in 2006. Our goal was a social organization which would draw in a large number of unaffiliated atheists, and we did that. And I find it… entertaining that the organization continues to bear the name and logo which were both created and are owned by me. My website – beltwayatheist.org – and our non-profit organization – Beltway Atheists, Inc. – will continue to exist and will be expanding their role in the Atheist community.

But, now the BA Meetup has taken a new direction with a focus on discipline and control. I think authoritarian control and elimination of dissent are ultimately counter-productive to the mission, the outreach, and the activism of any Atheist organization. Best wishes to those who choose to stay and make BA Meetup a better organization.

[EB] has now been ejected from Beltway Atheists. She put up a post on the Discussion board this morning simply stating that I had been ejected. The post has been deleted by management. Apparently, the posting of facts on the Discussion board will not be tolerated.

And that is pretty much it.
There are some private exchanges with individuals on the list but they are not part of the public record and do not substantially say anything different.

Please note that they contain no threats, no profanity, no calls for any action against Shelley or by Shelley. What they do contain is the assertion of facts regarding Shelley’s behavior. Those facts are either conceded by Shelley or are demonstrably true.

Participation in an online discussion does not, in any way, satisfy any legal definition of harassment.

The April Shitstorm