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
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 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:19 pm

I want to add a small caveat to what I said earlier, about Richard badmouthing me behind my back, while never saying anything openly, where I could have the opportunity to respond.

The reasons for this kind of behaviour ultimately boil down to fear of the consequences of speaking directly or publicly about someone. There are some legitimate reasons for engaging in this, such as when a someone has a serious complaint, as well as a significant fear of backlash and retaliation, possibly violent, if they speak openly about it.

But let me just put this into perspective for you: Richard Dawkins is a wealthy, esteemed academic, bestselling author, and established figurehead in the atheist movement. And he can afford good lawyers. I am a young Glaswegian woman with a science degree and a decent brain, who is a relative nobody by comparison.

Which of us would ordinarily take on the greater risk, if publicly badmouthing the other? And under what circumstances should Dawkins fear the consequences of publicly badmouthing someone in my position, who has never threatened him with violence, or shown any inclination to be violent or menacing?

In my case, the answer is: when she's telling an inconvenient truth, has the evidence, and you know very well that you'd never win a fair fight.

This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.

So the mighty Dawkins is reduced to smearing me behind my back, and hoping to god that I don't find out about it. Because he's scared of what will happen if I do find out about it. Because I'm really, really scary.

And that's it in a nutshell so far as I understand it. I take it as a preliminary sign that I'm winning this war, when I've reduced him to that level of pathetic conduct.
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
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 27314
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:27 am

So basically, in public he wants to appear like the big man who's above it all, while being the bitchy small man in private. Don't let him troll you LP - he ain't wurfit. ;)
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"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
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:18 am

Thanks.

Image

:hehe:
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
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 35366
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Svartalf » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:22 am

:hehe:
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by mistermack » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:24 pm

lordpasternack wrote: Which of us would ordinarily take on the greater risk, if publicly badmouthing the other?
I don't think LP understands the economics of badmouthing.

It's people like Dawkins who have something to fear from doing it openly, not people like her.
He's got more to lose.
No point in suing someone who's got bugger-all.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21774
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Hermit » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:55 pm

mistermack wrote:It's people like Dawkins who have something to fear from doing it openly, not people like her.
He's got more to lose.
No point in suing someone who's got bugger-all.
That is what I understood Lordpasternack to say.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists

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 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:31 pm

Yes, but rich people can use lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits, not to actually win damages, but to make people STFU. Indeed, if they're wealthy, they might not even care about winning monetary damages.

On the flipside, if anyone wanted to sue Dawkins for defamation, they'd have to get good lawyers, and pay them a retainer to keep them on the case, on top of the hourly rate for their services - and risk paying their opponent's legal costs on top of their own, if they lose the case. Even "no win, no fee" offers, made for cases likely to win, carry the risk of having to pay the defendants' legal fees in the event of losing the case.

Suing for defamation is the domain of the wealthy and privileged. Dawkins has nothing to fear from any commoners threatening legal action against him - not unless he says something really egregious (and false), like calling Mr Smith on High Street a child rapist and terrorist.
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
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Rum » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:41 pm

I feel dirty just reading the last couple of pages. Wish I hadn't now.

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 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:43 pm

Rum wrote:I feel dirty just reading the last couple of pages. Wish I hadn't now.
Thank you for your insightful contribution. You are more than welcome to desist from reading and commenting.
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
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:04 pm

What surprises me most about Rum's reaction is his apparent eagerness to see past both the obvious need for RDF to be vetted, and my intended clemency in giving Richard one last opportunity to run RDF properly - which is an opportunity that Richard seems very reluctant to take, without serious pressure from outside.

And, well maybe I was a little too subtle - but I do eventually want reconciliation - but I want it to be sincere and mutual, and part of that will involve Richard dampening the hostility against me that he has purposely and dishonestly engineered behind closed doors. He has been a dishonest, spiteful wanker - and he of all people knows this best. I think he can change, though - and he must change.

The fact is that Richard set up a charity under semi-corrupt pretenses, has run it incompetently, has failed to respond in any decent or competent way to complaints and tip-offs - and has said far worse things about me in private than I have ever said about him on this thread or anywhere else.

This pattern has persisted over several years, despite repeated attempts from several people, to get through to him nicely, diplomatically, and without rocking the boat. Those tactics simply don't work.

I don't know how anyone, knowing or reasonably believing that version of events, would come out of the other side thinking "poor Richard, poor guy, why don't you just cut him a break?"

I hope you eventually find something else to gripe at me vaguely about.
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
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by mistermack » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:03 pm

lordpasternack wrote:Yes, but rich people can use lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits, not to actually win damages, but to make people STFU.
Yes they can. But he hasn't, has he?

So either he's not bothered, or your argument doesn't stand up.

In fact, trying to silence people has been a poison chalice lately, for lots of rich and famous people.
It has the tendency to backfire.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21774
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Hermit » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:09 pm

And the chance of this one backfiring looks pretty good.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists

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 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:25 pm

This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.
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
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 27314
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:05 pm

I wouldn't hold your breath for a reconciliation LP. Though I don't doubt your sincerity, I think the main focus is the dodgy bookkeeping and the missing funds. That which is in Dawkins' gift is beyond your ability to influence, and the ashamed often resent those who shame them even when that shaming is due.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"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
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 Apr 30, 2015 9:19 pm

Just trying to get DaveDodo007 as the last post.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests