Suppurating rat's anus.

[lordpasternack]

And it must also be stated that some of the more infuriating actions (including the Rick-rolling) - were taken not by Timonen, but by Andrew Chalkley - and also that Chalkley deleted some profiles, which he claimed was at the insistence of Paula Kirby. Chalkley has since apologised for his role in stirring up shit during that time - and he's the only individual involved who has explicitly apologised publicly - even if you personally don't accept it.

Either way - you may feel obliged to create a little bit more nuance in your mind, regarding who deserves which amount of contempt, for what happened during forumgate.

What apology? I haven't seen it, I hadn't even heard of Andrew Chalkley until you mentioned him. Did the apology come after RDF went after JT and they realised that they needed new allies? They certainly didn't go out of there way to make this apology known

He apologised personally on this forum, here. Not a grandstanding public apology.

Please accept my deepest apologies for rickrolling a curl command line client, or more specifically inorganic traffic. That was me not Josh. Josh didn't tell me to do it either. Shock horror! Neither Josh or I were the sole source of the "disrespect for the volunteer efforts of the moderators, the deletion of whole accounts"...

Is there any evidence that Paula Kirby was involved? No offence but you seem to be taking their words at face value, call me a cynic all you want but I find people will lie their arses off when backed into a corner.

She was definitely involved in the unveiling of the new RDF site in 2010, one way or another - irrespective of whether Andrew Chalkley's specific claim is accurate.

As Topsy (now known as Emmeline) noted on RatSkep:

Paula Kirby was asked to write the new website's Terms of Use and was working on it it just before the forum was shut down. I don't know if the final result is her work though.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p195391

I expect Paula was asked because even back then when she said she was doing it (quite some time before the forum was shut), they had decided not to take any existing forum staff with them into the new website, although we were asked to test-run it. I volunteered the staff's expertise to help Paula write the new Terms of Use and she accepted but we didn't hear anything more about it.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p195612

Ilovelucy was more cynical in affirming this fact, here on Rationalia:

Don't be fooled by Paula Kirby acting like a fresh voice of reason for the other side. She is already involved with the team running the front page and I will not be surprised at all if she ends up in a high up position on the new site. The exciting new site.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 81#p355381


She also ran, or still runs, the UK side of RDFRS - which in all honesty is a one man (or woman) and his (or her) dog, type of organisation. Though she's stated repeatedly on Twitter recently that she wants to distance herself from the atheist/secularist movement - and this may apply to her attachment to RDFRS, too.



But then - please explain to me why I bother referencing my responses to you, so exhaustively and robustly- when it looks as though you just skim over the glaring substantive points in my posts, and then chip in to express yet another vague generalised gripe about my tone or viewpoint?

I mean - for Christ's sake, I quoted from a legal document (which Josh's lawyers would have produced under penalty of perjury), quoting verbatim Richard Dawkins' words written to Josh Timonen in 2007, in which Dawkins stated very explicitly that Timonen had no "moral obligation" to donate profits to RDF... And RDF did not then allege that these words were not in fact written by Dawkins. RDF simply claimed that the words were being "taken out of context" - but did not elaborate on what the "correct" context of those words might be...

And your main concern, having read and processed those words, is to find out whether or not I'm secretly Timonen's best pal or something? Seriously?

[DaveDodo007]

OK I'm sensing that you are getting fed up with me and finding me to be a bit of a pain in the arse, if so I do apologise and I do appreciate the fact that you respond to my posts. I'm not red Celt as in the fact that I take disagreements personally because I simple don't. Though if something doesn't sit right with me I have to follow it though. I do read all your replies though they contain a lot of legal documents which turn my brain to mush. After reading them I'm more confused then when I started to read them.

Yes I do ask questions concerning your motivations in all this as I don't even see were you fit into all this, it is all totally left field to me. Are you claiming to be the only disinterested party in all this and you were totally swayed by all the evidence because I can see what your posting and I'm not buying it. I've admitted my bias up front, I'm a biologist because of Richard Dawkins (I was going to take mathematics at university) and when he came out against religion I did a happy dance in my living room then went to my local and visited every table and demand that they all give a toast to Richard Dawkins. Most didn't even know who he was but they knew that they better comply or else. There it is all my bias laid bare. My thoughts on JT if they ever change will be at a glacial pace.

People are very free and easy with the language they use in emails when corresponding with (former) friends, even that link you posted come across as a none apology and after the fact (lawsuit impending) damage limitation. If you think my question are bad lets hope you are not called upon to be a witness in all this mess. Like I said before the concept of 'atheist leaders' is laughable to me and I don't give a fuck about charities or foundations. My conscience demands I ask these questions but I would be upset if this disagreement sullied any future interactions between us as I don't take disagreements personally.

[lordpasternack]

As to where I sit in this - some of these historical posts might give some reference:

Subject: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen - 18 July 2011, 5:16 am, BST

Josh - even if you are in some degree innocent here, even if there is back-stabbing going on in RDFRS's boardroom (highly plausible, again, given how naive and negligent Richard is) - we'll still think you're a twat. You're a pretty spherical twat, and many of us disliked you before we got to hear about you drawing a large 'salary' from RDFRS store proceeds. Just saying…

You've shown yourself as a deceptive, narcissistic, sociopathic liar to a number of folk, some LONG before this whole brouhaha. And Richard, for all his faults, has mostly shown himself to be honest, well-meaning and quixotic. He thought the world of you. He dedicated a book to you, and leapt to your defence while you were fucking people about during the site revamping. He's now suing you. That is a pretty major decision to make in any case, but especially when it involves such a former apple of one's eye. Both your reputations go before you. I know which account I find more plausible…

And also, Richard's now well-publicised negligence may also be part of why you did decide to be a little naughty. You know you'd get away with it - as you are likely to. I'm willing to believe that Richard and co were woefully informal, negligent and unprofessional. I'm not willing to believe they'd have Richard reverse all his affections for you and go to the extent of trying to sue you on as little hard evidence as they have, out of some kind of base spite.

Subject: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen - 18 July 2011, 5:29 am, BST

Oh - and I also suspect you're taking advantage of the fact that Richard, as a matter of discretion, and likely under advice from PR people, is never going to step in to give his version of events even after this case ends - leaving you to indulge in whatever alternative history you fancy to glean moral support. Unluckily for you, we're a bunch of hardened, cynical, skeptical bastards.

Subject: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen - 18 July 2011, 5:53 am, BST

Yeah - RDFRS affairs were shitly managed - and that's why I'm innocent, and wasn't actively exploiting their shit management. Please believe me. Please forget all that other stuff that happened with me. Disregard the implausibility of Dawkins going all the way to court based on some petty grudges, and a misremembering of our deal…

Subject: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen - 18 July 2011, 7:38 pm, BST

Andrew, lawsuits are designed to get to the bottom of cases like this. Why not wait till the Judge gives his verdict? If he decides in favour of Josh, of course I will apologise profusely and try to make everything better. If he decides against Josh, well, then you should make your decision on what to do. But please don't prejudge the issue. You don't have to wait long. I believe the case is coming up during November.

Incidentally - if Richard really did say this, then he is more gobsmackingly naive than I'd feared. What. The. Fuck?

Lawsuits are not designed to 'get to the bottom' of an issue. Lawsuits are designed to prosecute or fail to prosecute someone who has genuinely aggrieved you, whom you have sound reason to believe transgressed the law in so doing. You are supposed to do the fucking 'getting to the bottom' part LONG before you take anything to court. Lawsuits are the final fucking resort, after you've had people get to the bottom of the issue, trawl through evidence, and most importantly, after you then fail to reach a settlement out of court... You go to court when you've actually got your case ready to make, and having failed at settling through other avenues. But really... I mean, maybe in the Dawkins land of comfortably oblivious and naive privilege do you throw money at lawyers and go to court before you even have a case you're convinced of...

And that's before you consider that a judge ruling in favour of Timonen doesn't necessarily mean that Timonen hadn't behaved like an arsepiece. The mind fucking boggles.

Richard, if you're reading this - are you HONESTLY that fucking naive? Are you seriously so completely removed from the real world? Such a complete chump? Jesus tittyfucking Christ Almighty - have fucking mercy on me! Wow. I am speechless. Just... No... No...

But just let me know if you have any more money you're looking to throw away. Your trash could be my treasure, and I'd be happy to do my bit to earn it. In fact, I probably already have - what with already consistently having had more of a clue than your protégés, anyway. You could always hire Cormac and I. I may be officially less experienced in the field than Cormac, but we're good friends, capable of working well and learning from each other, and I can throw in complementary blowjobs (satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back), and can provide references if need be.

Subject: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen - 18 July 2011, 8:09 pm, BST

Well, it seems that Richard Dawkins is far, far, far more naive than I feared. And this cluster fuck is far less simple than I suspected.

But can I just say - I said to Richard in an email the other day that I would refrain from calling him an idiot for rhetorical effect. I retract that. Richard, if certain things said here are correct - you're an idiot - a complete fucking, howling, gobsmacking, risible, tear-inducing idiot. And I still deeply like and respect you - but MY FUCKING GOD...! This is bad... This is WORSE...

[DaveDodo007]

See, this is what I don't get. You totally lose it and changed sides because of a misinformed lawsuit, seriously. I think there are some solicitors on this forum and if you ask them they will they will tell you that they have to deal with this shit on a weekly basis. Bad advice or his own incompetence and that's it. Fuck me I hope you are not on the jury when I hope to enter Valhalla as I make stupid choices at least once a mouth. That's why I think there is some back story to this which I am not privy to. Can you honestly say that there isn't some part of Richard Dawkins' behaviour that has hurt you personally and you want him to pay for it. I'm not judging you as I'm not qualified to do so, and we are all slaves to our emotions in some way. I have to look at the world through my eyes and I see nothing that would make me lose my shit over all this. I mean not running a charity to it's optimum level well welcome to every charity on the planet. I'm bias towards Richard Dawkins and I've never tried to hide it but I have standards and if Richard cross them I would call him out on it.

[lordpasternack]

I didn't "lose it" or "change sides" - I became seriously shocked by how some facts didn't fit my most basic expectations of due care and attention on Richard's part…

As for the rest of what you say - it would help if you actually read my posts and followed the overall thread of conversation between us. I have already addressed and rebutted numerous points that you've made - and you don't quite seem to be registering the covered ground, properly.

[JimC]

Will someone give the fucking rat some antibiotics!

[DaveDodo007]

I didn't "lose it" or "change sides" - I became seriously shocked by how some facts didn't fit my most basic expectations of due care and attention on Richard's part…

Again I'm not having a go at you but are you really this naive, every charity and/or foundation ends up being about plush offices with nice carpets and trustees on high salaries. Maybe you have higher ethical standards then me, maybe you are young enough to still be an idealist. I'm old enough for this to be the norm. I will say it again, you either die a hero or live long enough to have all your flaws exposed.

As for the rest of what you say - it would help if you actually read my posts and followed the overall thread of conversation between us. I have already addressed and rebutted numerous points that you've made - and you don't quite seem to be registering the covered ground, properly.

I have read everything you have given me though this being Rationalia it always ends up being derailed about sex which we can both agree is the way Ratz likes it. Even with my bias toward Richard I still find some of the ire directed at him to be incomprehensible. You talk of you and your friend cormac(sp) running it better, well maybe but is that not also nepotism? It is a shitty foundation that is doing fuck all and I wish I was still young enough to get all upset over it but when you reach my age and if you are as cynical as I am well colour me surprised. Show me a charity/foundation that is doing wonderful and world changing things?

[DaveDodo007]

Will someone give the fucking rat some antibiotics!

Or some gin.

[pErvinalia]

Will someone give the fucking rat some antibiotics!

[lordpasternack]

I didn't "lose it" or "change sides" - I became seriously shocked by how some facts didn't fit my most basic expectations of due care and attention on Richard's part…

Again I'm not having a go at you but are you really this naive, every charity and/or foundation ends up being about plush offices with nice carpets and trustees on high salaries. Maybe you have higher ethical standards then me, maybe you are young enough to still be an idealist. I'm old enough for this to be the norm. I will say it again, you either die a hero or live long enough to have all your flaws exposed.

Not having a go at you - but you seem to have been quite vexed about Timonen's alleged "embezzlement", which seems to have been nothing of the sort - and seems to have been something possibly similar to the very scenario you paint above.

Well, vexed about that, and what you perceive to have been his dickish behaviour.

It is a shitty foundation that is doing fuck all...

Richard would very forcefully disagree with that sentiment, y'know? I mean, he'd be wrong - but he'd still very adamantly disagree - and take very grave offence at that statement.

And unfortunately what seems to have flown right over your head is that the issues involved here are about more than mere incompetence, negligence or private indulgence. RDFRS pursued a lawsuit that now looks as though it could have been utterly defamtatory - and then lied through their teeth and backtracked shamelessly on the topic of their ownership of intellectual property, and defied numerous valid cease and desist notices.

And of course there's a lot more where that came from.

You may personally take a jaded and cynical attitude towards these facts - but the law doesn't - and RDFRS, and specific named individuals within RDFRS, are currently coursing towards paying out a shitload of damages for their folly. Which, with any luck, may get to be as widely publicised as the initial lawsuit against Timonen.

I apologise if such realities are all too "left-field" for you. I'll do my best in future to couch the substantive evidence in terms that are slightly more "right-field" - for your benefit.

[DaveDodo007]

I didn't "lose it" or "change sides" - I became seriously shocked by how some facts didn't fit my most basic expectations of due care and attention on Richard's part…

Again I'm not having a go at you but are you really this naive, every charity and/or foundation ends up being about plush offices with nice carpets and trustees on high salaries. Maybe you have higher ethical standards then me, maybe you are young enough to still be an idealist. I'm old enough for this to be the norm. I will say it again, you either die a hero or live long enough to have all your flaws exposed.

Not having a go at you - but you seem to have been quite vexed about Timonen's alleged "embezzlement", which seems to have been nothing of the sort - and seems to have been something possibly similar to the very scenario you paint above.

Well, vexed about that, and what you perceive to have been his dickish behaviour.

It is a shitty foundation that is doing fuck all...

Richard would very forcefully disagree with that sentiment, y'know? I mean, he'd be wrong - but he'd still very adamantly disagree - and take very grave offence at that statement.

And unfortunately what seems to have flown right over your head is that the issues involved here are about more than mere incompetence, negligence or private indulgence. RDFRS pursued a lawsuit that now looks as though it could have been utterly defamtatory - and then lied through their teeth and backtracked shamelessly on the topic of their ownership of intellectual property, and defied numerous valid cease and desist notices.

And of course there's a lot more where that came from.

You may personally take a jaded and cynical attitude towards these facts - but the law doesn't - and RDFRS, and specific named individuals within RDFRS, are currently coursing towards paying out a shitload of damages for their folly. Which, with any luck, may get to be as widely publicised as the initial lawsuit against Timonen.

I apologise if such realities are all too "left-field" for you. I'll do my best in future to couch the substantive evidence in terms that are slightly more "right-field" - for your benefit.

I don't give a fuck about JT as he is a fucking loser, what do you hope to gain by being allied with him. He only made money though being linked to Richard. Even if it wasn't through "embezzlement" he still has nothing of his own in the locker. What has JT done for the 'atheist community' the one chance he had to make any positive output aka tell Richard to keep the forum going, he baled. Richard can lose lawsuit after lawsuit against him and he still has nothing new to sell on his fucking era geocities website, an anything he continues to sell will get old pretty fast. I don't even go to RDF website no more because it is shit with a few loyalists hanging out there. Shouldn't it have been his job to advise Richard against this and cameltoes be damned. He didn't even do the job he was supposed to do and stabbed a lot of people in the back all to keep his grasping hand firmly on Richard's tit.

He is a nobody now and will continue to be a nobody I doubt he has had an original thought in his life. What ever you think of Richard Dawkins he is still out there promoting science and reason, standing up to religion. Show me what JT is doing on that front? There is nothing positive that is going to come from all this, I actually think no one on either side is bothered. I just think you are backing the wrong horse in a two wrong horse race. Sorry for caring as I think your talents would be better employed elsewhere.

[lordpasternack]

Lovely cogent post, demonstrating a fine grasp of the issues at hand.

[JimC]

Will someone give the fucking rat some antibiotics!

Or some gin.

It would sting a bit, but it will kill the suppurating...

[DaveDodo007]

Lovely cogent post, demonstrating a fine grasp of the issues at hand.

If that's your opinion I suggest you read it again. Obviously we are just going to have to agree to disagree here, no hard feeling and best of luck with your campaign.

[Jason]

So.. how about that anal sex?

Tight!