I'll similarly use TwitLonger to respond to your 'terms.'

I find it quite odd that you need to propose 'terms' before a discussion is had. People on 'my side' are more than willing to have a conversation despite the grievances we have. Following contact from Lee Moore, I found so many people who, without any questions, said they'd be willing to participate. Should not the discussion be about the grievances...rather than stating them beforehand and seemingly postulating that people are guilty of them?

When you put these 'terms' forth, and suggest I agree with them, it seems to be the case that I need to plead guilty before discussion starts. That's quite unfair as are your terms inappropriate.

I've never made threats of rape of violence. I've never used 'bitch' or 'cunt' to describe people (and don't think they're 'sexist slurs,' anyway, in all or even most cases). I don't imply that physical characteristics has bearing on validity of their opinions [although my detractors seem to suggest that being a male disqualifies one from having a reasonable opinion]. I don't ogle people, touch people without permission, or infringe on personal space. I don't act as if I'm entitled or others' time or attention (If people don't want to talk, they don't, but I'd suggest they display cowardice if they refuse discussions in some cases). I don't contact people when they ask me to stop (although I will respond to people who include me on Twitter messages, bringing me into discussions when I never engaged them to begin with on that day).

I associate with a great deal of people including members of the Westboro Baptist Church (I interviewed them many times and have correspondance here and there), political commentators I disagree with, etc. I think communication with all sorts of people is beneficial because it exposes me to more ideas and keeps me honest.

How about you cease contact with PZ Myers, commenters on FTB who tell people to fuck off and go die in a fire, Greg Laden, Ophelia Benson, Surly Amy, Rebecca Watson, Amanda Marcotte, and others? I don't, though, propose these terms and don't care who you contact. Although I have serious grievances with many people, I don't propose "don't associate" terms before I have open discussions with people. I don't buy into the concept of #followcrime and rebuke people for Twitter associations, either.

Why is it all about women for you? Don't use inappropriate words about women....don't make women uncomfortable...listen to the women... What about men? How about all people? How about 'treat all people with respect?' Why talk about all of these individual grievances, many of which you can't honestly claim I am guilty of.

I'll listen to complaints from people who say they are uncomfortable, unequal, unwelcome, etc. I ask for the evidence and the reasoning. When I ask, though, I get dismissed almost immediately as someone who is 'invalidating the experiences of women' a 'rape apologist,' 'misogynist,' and the frequently associated terms. I continue to hear that people are harassed at conferences (or that this is a common problem which needs to be addressed), but I don't see any evidence of this - and instead see conferences failing to acknowledge these things happen (and come forth saying noone registered complaints or otherwise expressed satisfaction on post- anonymous surveys). I'll listen to people who claim to receive 'hundreds of rape and death threats from atheists' when they show evidence of this (they have not). I hear false stories and rumormongering about - "monopod man engages in upskirt photography," "there are dangerous male speakers." No evidence whatsoever. While there may be some instances of harassment at conferences, I wouldn't imagine, and haven't seen reason to believe, what it is a "major problem" and/or anything different than what would be expected from a random group of strangers meeting.

I'll call people professional victims when they embark on Twitter purging/mass blocking and continue to directly communicate with people whom they claim are harassing them and then continue to complain about these people. I've only used the term once, though. I also don't call people attention whores or whiners (although I might have used 'whiner' in some case, who knows, you're free to provide evidence of this).

I show my support of reasonable anti-harassment policies when I see them. I don't really see a need, though, because we have laws which exist that still apply to conferences regardless of any policies. If someone has a problem, they should inform conference organizers and even contact security/police. Is there any reason to believe that conference organizers have been deficient in acknowledging complaints? I see terms of 'harassment,' 'staking,' and the like going around and applied to behaviors much unlike what real victims of harassment and stalking report to police and are successful in doing so. Conference policies as of late, using this loose language and constant redefinition, are being used as leverage to pre-ban people/exclude 'non-approved' people from conferences.

Who the hell is opposed to free childcare? Have it. I welcome it. This will be great for both men and women. Which conferences are not inviting speakers of all races and genders? I've seen great diversity. I'm going to attend Women in Secularism 2 - in which talks which address "entrenched power differences" while likely be addressed.

Why do I or why should I encourage secular orgs to seek out people of all races and genders - this is already happening and something which should go without saying. I'm not going to suggest leaders of orgs are incompetent.

I'm sorry to read all of this propaganda from you, Adam. Just have a discussion already and stop proposing others jump through hoops and bounds before having the discussion. ...but of course I'm the entitled one.