joshtimonen talks

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I especially loved that last bit. "No, you can't discuss modding decisions in public, we might be wrong and we can never, ever, allow that to become public knowledge."

To be fair the feedback thingy is open to all members .. as is ours ..

I'll start being fair when they do the same.

[charlou]

I'll start being fair when they do the same.

Fair enough

[Coito ergo sum]

Gawdzilla, that bike looks like a sculpture of Josh Timonen.

I think Josh Timonen is a 21st century Mod.

[Svartalf]

wait, wouldn't comments on the Ratskep threads concerning da josh deserve their own thread?

[Blondie]

This is all so much speculation because until we have the statement from Josh's lawyers we don't know what he'll claim.

True, which is why I tend to stick to what is alleged in the Complaint at this point. And, where I don't I indicate that it's my opinion about what may happen.

I can tell you though, that litigants' recollections tend to conform to what may improve their legal position....they file off the rough edges, and smooth out the wrinkles, all the while truly believing they are remembering everything with 100% accuracy.

However, IIRC, in the complaint filed by the RDF/RD lawyer, it is claimed that Josh represented to customers of his store that all proceeds would be donated to RDF. That's the problem with the "Josh was just getting paid" argument. I believe that's called fraud.

They do have a fraud count.

HOWEVER -- saying that "all the proceeds" would be donated to RDF does not mean that the company will not have salaries and expenses. When a charitable organization says that "all proceeds" will go to fight cancer, they still pay their employees and independent contractors (out of donations and proceeds of bake sales and merchandising, etc.). So - conceivably - Josh can say, "yes - sure - all proceeds would go to RDF...... after expenses.....and expenses includes salaries...."

No, I'm afraid not.

Proceed - the sum derived from a sale or other transaction.

All proceeds - the entire sum derived from sales or other transactions.

That's not how charities work. Charities are allowed to use some of their revenues to pay operating costs, including salaries. If saying "all the proceeds" is the same as "all the revenues" then that would mean that cost of goods sold, shipping, receiving, handling and other operating costs couldn't be paid. Salaries are operating costs. It's how business works.

Ok first you say that's not how charities work, you then go on to describe how you think they do work, then conclude that this is how business works. So charities are businesses now?

So ignoring the lack of internal consistency of that paragraph, the store was not a charity. It was a business setup in the interests of benefiting a charity. Often businesses who donate their proceeds to charity do take losses such as you describe; they are tax deductible. What I wrote holds true.

Maybe you missed it, but Warren Dew already addressed the ambiguity of "proceeds"

proceeds

.... The term sometimes refers to net proceeds (after any commissions, fees or other charges are deducted), and sometimes refers to gross proceeds (before such deductions).

http://www.investorwords.com/3870/proceeds.html

The plaintiff's lawyer says they are only going after "profits", which suggests they are not claiming that "proceeds" meant "gross proceeds".

The Foundation's claims seek the return of profits from the sale of merchandise from the Store on the RDF website that defendants failed to remit to RDFRS.

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/5 ... enberg-esq

So the $300,000 embezzled was net, not gross. Your point was?
Were you just trying to appear clever?

When a company means what you suggest they are very careful to word it as "a portion of the proceeds will be donated to X", whether they specify it [the portion] or not.

No judge in the world is going to by your supposed sophistry.

Do you even know the precise wording?

For fuck's sake, dude - I haven't been arguing in favor of Timonen.

What the hell are you even talking about?

What I wrote holds true regardless of the interpretation of 'proceeds' you choose. We assume "proceeds" to mean 'net profit', as Warren Dew brought out, thus for Timmy to have a defence, against a criminal charge of fraud (for one thing), he would have to have made it clear that a 'portion of the proceeds will be donated to RDF". Apparently the abstraction confused you. I'll try to write more simply in the future

I am confident that this claim is true and that RDF/RD has the evidence to back it up

LOL - and you want everyone else to "spare" you of their opinions and "speculation?" Best practice what you preach...

First, don't fucking quote mine me or chop up my sentences (in case you don't know a hyphen doesn't indicate the end of a fucking sentence). This is what I wrote:

I am confident that this claim is true and that RDF/RD has the evidence to back it up - I cannot believe they would have failed to notice something so monumentally integral to entire enterprise either being missing or altered.

See how it expresses a complete thought? It can now be properly addressed!
It's not opinion, it's logic.
Want me to draw you a picture?

- I cannot believe they would have failed to notice something so monumentally integral to entire enterprise either being missing or altered.

Not sure what you're referring to about "missing or altered." But, there are quite a lot of stupid things done by folks because they are good friends and they trust each other.

You would know if you didn't respond to my fucking post by quote mining it, chopping up my sentences and threads of argument for who knows what reason, but it doesn't make for an honest discussion. It's cheap forum sophistry and nothing more.

[Warren Dew]

Timonen can also say, "look -I was taking a big risk. I was already working full time for Dawkins personally and the Foundation, and that continued. Basically, I was working another full time job to build the Store and if it didn't succeed, I wouldn't be able to pay myself any salary and I would have wasted all my time. As it was, I made it successful, took a reasonable salary and paid Norton and Graham a reasonable salary, and paid business expenses, and there was still some left over to pay over to RDF. As we moved forward, we could expect that piece - the part going over to RDF - to grow as sales grew. And, now that RDF was taking it back over since it solved its regulatory problems, RDF got a turnkey operation dropped in its lap that I built."

As I understand it, Timonen is going further and claiming that RDF actually misappropriated the turnkey operation because it was owned by him or his company. In fact, I think he has to claim this in order to claim that his work on the store was not work for hire.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is all so much speculation because until we have the statement from Josh's lawyers we don't know what he'll claim.

True, which is why I tend to stick to what is alleged in the Complaint at this point. And, where I don't I indicate that it's my opinion about what may happen.

I can tell you though, that litigants' recollections tend to conform to what may improve their legal position....they file off the rough edges, and smooth out the wrinkles, all the while truly believing they are remembering everything with 100% accuracy.

However, IIRC, in the complaint filed by the RDF/RD lawyer, it is claimed that Josh represented to customers of his store that all proceeds would be donated to RDF. That's the problem with the "Josh was just getting paid" argument. I believe that's called fraud.

They do have a fraud count.

HOWEVER -- saying that "all the proceeds" would be donated to RDF does not mean that the company will not have salaries and expenses. When a charitable organization says that "all proceeds" will go to fight cancer, they still pay their employees and independent contractors (out of donations and proceeds of bake sales and merchandising, etc.). So - conceivably - Josh can say, "yes - sure - all proceeds would go to RDF...... after expenses.....and expenses includes salaries...."

No, I'm afraid not.

Proceed - the sum derived from a sale or other transaction.

All proceeds - the entire sum derived from sales or other transactions.

That's not how charities work. Charities are allowed to use some of their revenues to pay operating costs, including salaries. If saying "all the proceeds" is the same as "all the revenues" then that would mean that cost of goods sold, shipping, receiving, handling and other operating costs couldn't be paid. Salaries are operating costs. It's how business works.

Ok first you say that's not how charities work, you then go on to describe how you think they do work, then conclude that this is how business works. So charities are businesses now?

Yes. RDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. It's a business, but not "for profit."

So ignoring the lack of internal consistency of that paragraph,

There was no internal inconsistency.

the store was not a charity.

I know, but Dawkins CLAIMS that UBP was being operated "for the benefit" of RDF, and that it was to turn over its profits to RDF, and that Timonen was not to take any compensation from the operation of UBP. UBP's non-charity status is more of a reason to conclude that Timonen could pull a salary from it, not less.

It was a business setup in the interests of benefiting a charity.

Says Dawkins, yes. And, even if it was set up to benefit the charity, there is nothing inherently wrong with pulling a salary from it.

Often businesses who donate their proceeds to charity do take losses such as you describe; they are tax deductible. What I wrote holds true.

Often businesses who donate to charity pay salaries to their employees. What I wrote holds true.

Maybe you missed it, but Warren Dew already addressed the ambiguity of "proceeds"

proceeds

.... The term sometimes refers to net proceeds (after any commissions, fees or other charges are deducted), and sometimes refers to gross proceeds (before such deductions).

http://www.investorwords.com/3870/proceeds.html

The plaintiff's lawyer says they are only going after "profits", which suggests they are not claiming that "proceeds" meant "gross proceeds".

I read the complaint. They are claiming that Timonen agreed not to take a salary and they are claiming that the salaries paid to Norton and her son are improper.

The Foundation's claims seek the return of profits from the sale of merchandise from the Store on the RDF website that defendants failed to remit to RDFRS.

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/5 ... enberg-esq

So the $300,000 embezzled was net, not gross. Your point was?
Were you just trying to appear clever?

You obviously haven't read the Complaint. It specifically states that the money that they are looking for Timonen to pay back includes salary he took from UBP and salary paid to Norton and Norton's son - in fact - the salaries total about $268,000 of the $375,000 that the complaint claims needs to be returned.

I'm not trying to appear clever, but I am correct. Read the complaint.

What I wrote holds true regardless of the interpretation of 'proceeds' you choose. We assume "proceeds" to mean 'net profit', as Warren Dew brought out, thus for Timmy to have a defence, against a criminal charge of fraud (for one thing),

There are no criminal charges.

he would have to have made it clear that a 'portion of the proceeds will be donated to RDF".

For Dawkins/RDF to prevail on the civil fraud count, Dawkins/RDF must show that Timonen: (a) intentionally made a statement of material fact TO DAWKINS OR RDF; and (b) that statement of material fact was false when made, and (c) Dawkins/RDF justifiably relied on the false statements made, and (d) they suffered damages as a result. If Dawkins/RDF fails to prove any of those elements by a preponderance of the evidence then Timonen wins.

Apparently the abstraction confused you. I'll try to write more simply in the future

You've got yourself confused. You're confusing the issue of someone being criminally charged for defrauding customers with Timonen being liable to RDF/Dawkins for damages for civil fraud.

First, don't fucking quote mine me or chop up my sentences (in case you don't know a hyphen doesn't indicate the end of a fucking sentence). This is what I wrote:

I am confident that this claim is true and that RDF/RD has the evidence to back it up - I cannot believe they would have failed to notice something so monumentally integral to entire enterprise either being missing or altered.

See how it expresses a complete thought? It can now be properly addressed!
It's not opinion, it's logic.
Want me to draw you a picture?

"I cannot believe..." indicates that you are expressing your opinion. You may not be able to believe something, but that doesn't make it true. If you haven't established it as a verifiable fact, which you haven't, then it's your opinion.

- I cannot believe they would have failed to notice something so monumentally integral to entire enterprise either being missing or altered.

Not sure what you're referring to about "missing or altered." But, there are quite a lot of stupid things done by folks because they are good friends and they trust each other.

You would know if you didn't respond to my fucking post by quote mining it, chopping up my sentences and threads of argument for who knows what reason, but it doesn't make for an honest discussion. It's cheap forum sophistry and nothing more.

Use proper punctuation then.

[Hermit]

I hope the Hells Angels haven't seen this. The creator of that work is sailing awfully close to the wind, as far as copyright of logo infringement is concerned.

THE HELLS Angels' official club is suing three fashion houses for using its logo without permission on handbags, jewellery and clothing.

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, whose members are perversely proud of the death's head logo of a skull with wings, is taking action against Alexandra McQueen, Saks and Zappos.com.

...the group claims that unauthorised use by these defendants will cause its reputation "irreparable harm".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 5944506162

[charlou]

"perversely proud" ... WTF?

[Trolldor]

I hope the Hells Angels haven't seen this. The creator of that work is sailing awfully close to the wind, as far as copyright of logo infringement is concerned.

THE HELLS Angels' official club is suing three fashion houses for using its logo without permission on handbags, jewellery and clothing.

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, whose members are perversely proud of the death's head logo of a skull with wings, is taking action against Alexandra McQueen, Saks and Zappos.com.

...the group claims that unauthorised use by these defendants will cause its reputation "irreparable harm".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 5944506162

Doesn't appear to have wings, just to be a skeleton-bike.

[Hermit]

"perversely proud" ... WTF?

The writer of the article was probably told to use more adjectives.

[charlou]

...the group claims that unauthorised use by these defendants will cause its reputation "irreparable harm"

yah right

[Hermit]

Doesn't appear to have wings, just to be a skeleton-bike.

So what? The Hells Angels like suing others over that kind of stuff. Three years ago they sued Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group alleging copyright infringements in this film:

[Trolldor]

I would sue them too.
Atrocious film.
That said, the bike is fairly bad ass while those they sue tend to malign their image by being tough but cuddly.

[Mysturji]

joshtimonen
Forum Member

Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:16 am
Age: 29