Lying for Reason and Science

[lordpasternack]

Part 1: In which R. Elisabeth Cornwell royally fucks about with video credits

Now, as most of us who were involved with richarddawkins.net way back when know - virtually all of the videos uploaded to RD.net's YouTube channel, and published to the RD.net website between 2007 and 2010 were filmed by Josh Timonen (some of which filmed in collaboration with others, such as Wayne Marsala (AKA 'obscured by clouds')) - and produced by Josh and his girlfriend Maureen Norton, and a few other subcontracted companies.

No matter what we may think of Josh, Maureen or Wayne, and any of their behaviour in the past few years - this fact is obviously and trivially true. They were filmed for RD.net - but the filming and production matters were dealt with (either directly, or through subcontracts) by these specific individuals. This is trivially and obviously true. But let me show a little of how those plainly obvious credits have been completely insanely fucked about with in the past two years:

I have a comprehensive list compiled here - of the particular videos that were fucked about with, should you wish to peruse it.

Most of the fucking about was done particularly to remove Josh and Maureen's credits, and then later reinstate time. (Wayne's credits were also removed - but I think that that's just because his name was beside Josh's, and therefore had to go. Don't ask me to try to comprehend the motives and actions of this woman.) But that clearly wasn't enough for some, so, sometime after July 2011 (that's the latest archive I can find), someone - most definitely R. Elisabeth Cornwell - stopped by to work systematically through all of these videos and credit yours truly 'R. Elisabeth Cornwell' falsely as a 'producer'. A task that was as petty as it was batshit and deceitful.

It's nice that she applies such zeal and concentration in trying to rewrite history. And I suppose it's nice that she finds the time, amongst her other serious duties she fulfills diligently as Executive Director - particularly at a time when RDFRS has been driving slowly into attrition, under her directorship.

Let's start with this video for instance. (And I'm selecting videos that have the best available archives, not by any criteria of importance.)



Here's how the credits appeared in their original form on 30 March 2010



And here's how they appeared by 6 April 2010 - and at least throughout the whole of April 2010.



Hmmm... Where have those credits gone?

And here's how they appeared by 22 October 2010



Oh, they're back!

And here's how they look now. (And here's the Google Cache of that, in case it gets amended in the near future. I also have my own personal cache.)



Oh? Really? R. Elisabeth Cornwell is a 'producer'? Where did that one come from?


Okay - now for some Baloney Detection, folks!




Here's how the credits appeared in their original form on 18 February 2010




And here's how they looked on 27 June 2010



Why, where did those darned credits go?


And on 22 October 2010



Oh, they're back!


And here's how they appeared until a few days ago - when Ms Cornwell obviously began to suss what I was onto. (The Google Cache has expired there - but I will upload my personal cache, soon.)




And how they look now:



Hmmmmm... Are you starting to detect Baloney yet?

...

[Svartalf]

Heather, do you ever stop obsessing about the minutiae of the doings of RD and his foundation ?
I mean, once it was established that there were no good guys but that everybody was a liar, crook, bumbling incompetent, or combination thereof, why keep watching the trainwreck?

[lordpasternack]

Heather, do you ever stop obsessing about the minutiae of the doings of RD and his foundation ?
I mean, once it was established that there were no good guys but that everybody was a liar, crook, bumbling incompetent, or combination thereof, why keep watching the trainwreck?

Some of the kings horses and men just might be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again?

The unfolding drama in unravelling the evidence is spellbinding?

Frankly, quixotically speaking - R. Elisabeth Cornwell has been on a rather noxious little PR campaign since early 2010 - which admittedly has mostly being going down like a damp squib - but it hasn't stopped her trying. She clearly wants glory, and from the evidence I've looked at, it doesn't matter how much she has to rewrite history and whose backs she needs to stab in order to do so.

And whatever obsession I may have with RD and/or his Foundation - it is at least a noble obsession, if you will. It has absolutely nothing on the noxious, cynical obsession of hers - evidenced by the circa 73 videos she worked through, systematically, selectively - first to efface credits, then to reinstate them, then to credit herself falsely as producer - a list of which I've compiled here, for anyone's perusal.

And that's still just the tip of the iceberg... There's so much more, believe me...

[Svartalf]

You know, I think I'm more interested in pseudo history or pseudo science books like the stuff by Graham Hancock, Zechariah Sitchin, the Holy Blood/Holy Grail folk etc... at least, in those, you can make a game of extracting the nuggets of truth from the woo matrix.

[Robert_S]

Were all these 73 videos all produced by JT/Upper Branch?

[tattuchu]

I wouldn't half mind

[lordpasternack]

Were all these 73 videos all produced by JT/Upper Branch?

Most definitely. They don't all have explicit copyright notes - and there may indeed be some genuine ambiguity as to who owns intellectual property there - but if you look at the evidence, for the ones I was capable of unearthing evidence for - they were at least filmed by JT (occasionally in collaboration with others).

And that R. Elisabeth Cornwell is so blithe as to remove a clear copyright notice - as if that means that, therefore - poof! - the copyright ceases to exist - tells you much of what you need to know about her fundamental soundness of mind. Of course - the same goes for the rest of the credits she's gone and disappeared - but I just thought that example really took the biscuit - and on a fucking Baloney Detection video, too!

Either she has no sense of irony, or this is all a very elaborate set-up. Like a test, to see which of Richard's fans really are critical thinkers, and devotees to evidence-based understanding.

[Seth]

Were all these 73 videos all produced by JT/Upper Branch?

Most definitely. They don't all have explicit copyright notes - and there may indeed be some genuine ambiguity as to who owns intellectual property there - but if you look at the evidence, for the ones I was capable of unearthing evidence for - they were at least filmed by JT (occasionally in collaboration with others).

And that R. Elisabeth Cornwell is so blithe as to remove a clear copyright notice - as if that means that, therefore - poof! - the copyright ceases to exist - tells you much of what you need to know about her fundamental soundness of mind. Of course - the same goes for the rest of the credits she's gone and disappeared - but I just thought that example really took the biscuit - and on a fucking Baloney Detection video, too!

Either she has no sense of irony, or this is all a very elaborate set-up. Like a test, to see which of Richard's fans really are critical thinkers, and devotees to evidence-based understanding.

If Timonen was an employee of Dawkins at the time the films were made, it was a "work for hire" and he doesn't own any of the copyrights, and unless he negotiated a legal document specifying that he be credited with certain aspects of production, he's just fucked and Dawkins can scrub his name if he wants.

[Robert_S]

The flaming irony from hell is if JT hadn't nuked the forum, there'd be a lot more sets of eyes looking at this and giving a damn.

I sorta give a damn out of principle, but as far as any passion for the cause of science and freedom from religion, RDF doesn't really register any more. It's no more than a blog to me at best and a drain of resources that would lead to a more unified-yet-divided bottom-up movement at worst.

Were all these 73 videos all produced by JT/Upper Branch?

Most definitely. They don't all have explicit copyright notes - and there may indeed be some genuine ambiguity as to who owns intellectual property there - but if you look at the evidence, for the ones I was capable of unearthing evidence for - they were at least filmed by JT (occasionally in collaboration with others).

And that R. Elisabeth Cornwell is so blithe as to remove a clear copyright notice - as if that means that, therefore - poof! - the copyright ceases to exist - tells you much of what you need to know about her fundamental soundness of mind. Of course - the same goes for the rest of the credits she's gone and disappeared - but I just thought that example really took the biscuit - and on a fucking Baloney Detection video, too!

Either she has no sense of irony, or this is all a very elaborate set-up. Like a test, to see which of Richard's fans really are critical thinkers, and devotees to evidence-based understanding.

If Timonen was an employee of Dawkins at the time the films were made, it was a "work for hire" and he doesn't own any of the copyrights, and unless he negotiated a legal document specifying that he be credited with certain aspects of production, he's just fucked and Dawkins can scrub his name if he wants.

Legally maybe, but then Dawkins & Co. are still going against their stated principles and would have less moral standing if they were to engage in civil disobedience, like challenging hate-speech and incitement laws for example.

[lordpasternack]

Were all these 73 videos all produced by JT/Upper Branch?

Most definitely. They don't all have explicit copyright notes - and there may indeed be some genuine ambiguity as to who owns intellectual property there - but if you look at the evidence, for the ones I was capable of unearthing evidence for - they were at least filmed by JT (occasionally in collaboration with others).

And that R. Elisabeth Cornwell is so blithe as to remove a clear copyright notice - as if that means that, therefore - poof! - the copyright ceases to exist - tells you much of what you need to know about her fundamental soundness of mind. Of course - the same goes for the rest of the credits she's gone and disappeared - but I just thought that example really took the biscuit - and on a fucking Baloney Detection video, too!

Either she has no sense of irony, or this is all a very elaborate set-up. Like a test, to see which of Richard's fans really are critical thinkers, and devotees to evidence-based understanding.

If Timonen was an employee of Dawkins at the time the films were made, it was a "work for hire" and he doesn't own any of the copyrights, and unless he negotiated a legal document specifying that he be credited with certain aspects of production, he's just fucked and Dawkins can scrub his name if he wants.

He was a contractor - except that there was no contract, besides the much disputed 'oral contract'.

And a further note - it's not Dawkins obsessively scrubbing Josh's name, and adding himself in as a 'producer' three years after the fact. It's his Personal Assistant with benefits, who fancies herself as a competent Executive Director.

[Strontium Dog]

Why are you called Lord Pasternack if you're a girl?

[Svartalf]

Why are you Strontium Dog if you're a flesh and blood human?

[lordpasternack]

Why are you called Lord Pasternack if you're a girl?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, the etymology of the word can be traced back to the Old English word hlāford which originated from hlāfweard meaning 'bread keeper' or 'loaf-ward', reflecting the Germanic tribal custom of a chieftain providing food for his followers. The appellation "lord" is primarily applied to men, while for women the appellation of "lady" is used. However, this is not universal; the Lord of Mann, a title currently held by the Queen, and female Lord Mayors are examples of women who are styled lord. The word lady originates from a similar structure, believed to have originally meant 'loaf-kneader.'

Emphasis mine.

But Lord Pasternack isn't my real name.

[Tero]

Was RD forum the first "atheist" forum for all of you people? I was involved with a a bunch of forums then so I did NOT post that much. I was mainly looking for places to practice some Finnish on a daily basis.

[Svartalf]

Was RD forum the first "atheist" forum for all of you people? I was involved with a a bunch of forums then so I did post that much. I was mainly looking for places to practice some Finnish on a daily basis.

It was for me... and it took me a long time before I succumbed to the blandishments of a friend who did some modding there and registered.
Of course, it lasted less than a year.