Natalie Reed

Natalie Reed is the author of Sincerely, Natalie Reed, one of the Baboon boards. Her writing style can best be described as repetitively verbose endless deepity. Her main rhetorical technique is Proof by Verbosity. In her first 28 posts (Jan-23-2012 - Feb-06-2012), she averaged 1,688 words and 25 paragraphs per post. Of her posts over 1,000 words (18 posts), she averaged 2346 words in 32 paragraphs.
==Background==
Natalie first came to the attention of Queen Bee (Rebecca Watson) when she posted long, rambling diatribes as Natalie_B on the SGU forums. This quickly led to a short-lived appointment on Skepchick which ended early January of 2012 due to interpersonal conflicts. She claims she can not discuss the reasons any further, fearing it would blow the situation into "an outright disaster".
During her brief time at Skepchick she helped found, and was an initial contributor to, Queereka, a blog site dedicated to "the intersection of skepticism and LGBTQ topics". The fact that this "intersection" is about as big as the one between mountain goats and spatulas seems lost on most baboons. She departed from the blog as a consequence of her fall-out with Skepchick.
She commenced blogging on FreeThoughtBlogs on January 23, 2012.
==Comment policy==
On February 2, 2012, Natalie unveiled her comment policy in typical long-winded fashion. John Greg graciously provided an abridged version of the policy on ERV:
: You can use any words you want unless I don't like them depending on the context or I do like them but you are a male person which is bad but the context doesn't matter because all bad words are sexist except when they're not which is context dependent except when it's context independent which only I can determine unless it doesn't bother me in which case it doesn't matter except when it does because the context is bad if you are a known MRA unless you're not which is decided by the fact that you were once wrongly accused or rightly so of using a bad word or not that I once thought was a good word but do not think is a bad word before it was a good word turned bad because some other feminist once did or didn't like it maybe or maybe not depending on my mood at the time ... and Oh Noes, I still need another five thousand words to finish my meaning in this paragraph describing good words that you can use except when you can't or can because you can use any words you want unless I don't like them depending on the context or I do like them but you are a male person and therefore bad but the context doesn't matter because all bad words are sexist except when they're not which is context dependent except when it's context independent which only I can determine unless it doesn't bother me in which case it doesn't matter except when the context is bad if you are a known MRA unless you're not which is decided by the fact that you were once wrongly accused or rightly so of using a bad word or not that I once thought was a good word but do not think is a bad word before it was a good word turned bad because some other feminist once did or didn't like it maybe or maybe not depending on my mood at the time in this paragraph describing good words that you can use except when you can't....
== To Be Clear or Not to Be Clear==
Natalie is sometimes confused, not to say confusing.
I thought I would add some more examples of why Natalie Screed is such a poor writer. Her latest epic novel is a ponderance of so-called trigger warning. She opens by questioning what, if any, value trigger warnings hold, if and when they are appropriate, and several other questions.
She then states that she is "seriously wondering why there doesn’t seem to be much conversation going on in regards to the subject" [sic] and continues by making one of her classic blanket statements asserting that everyone has just accepted the practice without question and without criticism. Remember that italicised bit.
The next paragraph has her saying "At the very least, I think the practice warrants a bit more critical discussion of its relative merits, within the community that engages that practice, than its yet received" [sic].
In other words, c'mon folks, get cracking! Debate this, express some disagreements and disputes, etc.
What's important is that immediately before that last quote, and following her own claims of the necessity of questioning the validity and so on of trigger warnings, she says:
"... which is not to say no one is questioning it, but that generally the people questioning it are trolls and jerks from outside the social justice community who aren’t really invested or interested in the practice anyway, rather than those of us who are engaged with it and sincere in that engagement" [sic].
If that is not a head-desk moment, I do not know what is.
Yah, good writing indeed.
==All in==
On August 10, 2012, Natalie 'served the movement her divorce papers' in a post totaling more than 5800 words (later also adding other 240+ words as an "EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION") naming many who were previously named 'Witch of the Week' including -- at the very least -- Harriet Hall, Thunderf00t, Paula Kirby, The Amazing Atheist, and Staks Rosch...seemingly as persons to be blamed, at least partially, for her leaving 'the movement,' Also mentioned and/or referenced were fellow Freethought Blogs blogger Daniel Fincke, Mallorie Nasrallah, Ernest Perce, trolls on Reddit, Justin Trottier. Men's rights movements and libertarianism was also seemingly blamed along with, of course, the slimepit.
Special mention was reserved for past witches Richard Dawkins, Justin [Fucking] Vacula, and D.J. Grothe.
Natalie wrote,
"The Atheist Movement doesn’t have a monopoly on atheism. Anyone can simply come to the conclusion that religion is kind of silly and dangerous. The Movement doesn’t have a monopoly on secularism. Anyone can pitch in and help fight to keep religion from influencing legislation. The Movement doesn’t have a monopoly on skepticism. It barely practices it. Anyone can learn to value critical thought, doubt, hesitation, humility, honesty and questioning their perceptions and biases. And none of us need their permission. We don’t need DJ Grothe or Richard Dawkins or Justin Fucking Vacula’s seals of approval to do any of this."
Of particular note are allegations that Thunderf00t -- following his expulsion from Freethought Blogs -- threatened to release the "confidential contents of FTB's private listserv." Natalie says that information about her identity (Natalie Reed is a penname) is contained with the listserv Thunderf00t accessed "by finding some kind of easy exploit in the security." Confidentiality, Natalie says, protects her "physical safety from those who feel the need to enforce their beliefs and feelings about gender through violence" and protects her "from the countless rad-fems and HBSers who consistently out or dox trans women, often with the deliberate, explicit intent of exposing them to harassment, discrimination and violence."
Freethought Blogs bloggers Ashley Miller and Zinnia Jones have made similar allegations. More posts will surely follow.
Thunderf00t has responded .
He writes:
"I, and everyone else on that mailing list, would have had all of those details (whatever they actually are, I still have no idea) anyways from when they originally signed me up to the mailing list. So what exactly are these personal details they think I’ve ‘stolen’ here? Secondly I DONT FUCKING DOC DROP. Even if I actually knew what this personal information was (I seriously have no idea who most these people are) I wouldn’t care, because: I DON’T DOC DROP. Never have done. Never will."
==Content of EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION==
Natalie at least needs to be commended for running contrary to FfTB culture and attempting to reign in, rather than inflame, the anti-Thunderf00t hysteria -
: EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: Something I noticed in the comments that I’m a bit worried about, and might make things worse, is people thinking Thunderf00t has directly threatened to out me or my name, or has suggested this is something he intends to do, for its own sake.