For Reason and Science?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 32301
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:44 pm

Unless you have evidence similar to that you have for his improprieties with the "charity", you might be going a bit far on that limb, Heather.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58947
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by JimC » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:56 pm

Exactly. I'd stick to the governance and financial issues with RDF, if I were you. There are clearly and objectively some issues there, but when you start going down the path of discussing personal, particularly sexual aspects of RD's behaviour, people will see your campaign as nothing more than a personal grudge, expressed somewhat compulsively...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:31 am

Yes - it's the fact that there's so much interplay between the two. He didn't really try very hard to keep RDF and his personal life separate. There was even a sense in which the secret financial arrangements made for RDF were intended to keep the wool over his wife's eyes.

It was all inappropriately personal, right from the very beginning.

But yes...

User avatar
Calilasseia
Butterfly
Butterfly
Posts: 5242
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:31 pm
About me: Destroyer of canards, and merciless shredder of bad ideas. :twisted:
Location: 40,000 feet above you, dropping JDAMs
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Calilasseia » Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:57 pm

lordpasternack wrote:Yes - it's the fact that there's so much interplay between the two. He didn't really try very hard to keep RDF and his personal life separate. There was even a sense in which the secret financial arrangements made for RDF were intended to keep the wool over his wife's eyes.

It was all inappropriately personal, right from the very beginning.

But yes...
I am so tempted to ask my boss at the charity I'm involved with, what she thinks of someone setting up a charitable organisation, then using the funds to finance the upkeep of a courtesan. Which is in effect what's happening here.

I suspect my boss will be wheeling out the words "Serious Fraud Squad" in pretty short order.

Mind you, I note with interest a hypothesis that has been presented here, namely, that the enemy, so to speak, is deliberately saying nothing about this, in order to avoid drawing attention to even more serious instances of fraud that they are currently engaged in. It would make at least some sense, with respect to the fact that they're resoundingly silent over this, which in the absence of fraud of their own to hide, doesn't make an atom of sense at all to me.

However, this hypothesis opens up another question. Namely, how egregious does one's abuse of charitable status have to be, before the authorities will move and start handing out prison terms without external prodding? At what level of dishonesty are these people spurred into action? I am probably not the only one here, wondering what largesse I could have helped myself to, if only I'd been shot through with the requisite level of mendacity.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:56 pm

Yeah. For some reason, mistress slush funds aren't normally granted exemption under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code, and aren't usually sanctioned as a permissable purpose of an exempt organisation...
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18912
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Hermit » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:11 pm

Now you can take out a subscription to help Dawkins finance ... whatever it is the the foundations funds finance. And look at what you get for your money! Like wow!

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Robert_S » Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:15 pm

That is so sad.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 20644
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:54 pm

lordpasternack wrote:Let's put it another way - Richard probably has a history of getting himself into sexual relationships loaded with conflict of interest and temptation to professional impropriety. He's probably indulged in a good bit of professional impropriety.

Those kinds of relationships are hard enough to manage responsibly for people who actually have fully developed social skills.
Perhaps he just has a jean-centered view of procreation?






I'll get my coat………
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
cronus
Black Market Analyst
Posts: 18033
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by cronus » Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:07 pm

I'm guessing The Darwin Circle includes a bottle of champaign en-suite? You could get me for a mere $500 and I'll remove my socks too. :whisper:
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58947
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by JimC » Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:18 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
lordpasternack wrote:Let's put it another way - Richard probably has a history of getting himself into sexual relationships loaded with conflict of interest and temptation to professional impropriety. He's probably indulged in a good bit of professional impropriety.

Those kinds of relationships are hard enough to manage responsibly for people who actually have fully developed social skills.
Perhaps he just has a jean-centered view of procreation?






I'll get my coat………
Selfish jeans?
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by klr » Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:40 pm

JimC wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
lordpasternack wrote:Let's put it another way - Richard probably has a history of getting himself into sexual relationships loaded with conflict of interest and temptation to professional impropriety. He's probably indulged in a good bit of professional impropriety.

Those kinds of relationships are hard enough to manage responsibly for people who actually have fully developed social skills.
Perhaps he just has a jean-centered view of procreation?






I'll get my coat………
Selfish jeans?
But did he ever get involved with a selfish Jean?
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58947
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by JimC » Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:53 pm

Or Shellfish Jean...

(a famous bearded clam...)
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:13 pm

Erm.....What's happening then?
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58947
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by JimC » Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:32 pm

Dawkins has converted to Islam, and pronounced a Fatwah against all the members of his old forum...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 15621
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by laklak » Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:36 am

Yeah well but he's a fucking apostate. He's on The List, if you know what I mean. nudge nudge wink wink.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests