Lying for Reason and Science

[lordpasternack]

Oh, there are a few people who are worried about it, and who should be worried about it. This is the tip of the iceberg of Elisabeth Cornwell's shenanigans and bullshit. There are far more egregious allegations made against this woman, which I happen to find credible, and would like to see her finally taken to task for.

And it matters to me because I don't like charlatanism and bullshit - especially from a purported Foundation for Reason and Science - and especially when they are trading on the face value credibility of Richard Dawkins, while going against their purported values at practically every turn. I said this when I was pursuing the UK side of their foundation - and I started to pursue the UK side of things partly because of what I was hearing about Ms. Cornwell. I just wish that Paula Kirby and Richard had given a more appropriately prompt and professional response, instead of being such defensive asshats - and then I could have moved on to the bullshit of more significant import.

And whatever obsession I have still has nothing on Robin Elisabeth Cornwell's. I assure you.

And I'd admitedly at least enjoy the schadenfreude of pointing out to Richard, the next time he finds himself bewailing some Liar for Jesus - that the Executive Director of his very Foundation is demonstrably a lying bastard, fabricator, and fabulist herself - and he's perfectly willing to accommodate that, even when it happens REPEATEDLY.

[lordpasternack]

In some senses you're right, though, Surreptitious - it's quite bizarre that I should keep pushing when at times it seems that I give more of a fuck about Richard's Foundation, and his purported values, than he does.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I remember The Champion. Hah.

I'd forgotten about him until just now

[surreptitious57]

Heather what exactly is your raison d etre here : is it merely to publicise or
are there ulterior motives at work : you are here downloading all this lot
not to highlight their content rather the falsity of the credits which no
one really cares about : would be laughable if it was not so serious
I shall watch some of the videos but I am not bothered whose
name is on them : I bet you think about this every day and
most of the day too and I bet you were thinking about
it even on your birth day : you really need a hobby

[lordpasternack]

I can't even parse that. And no - I do not think about this everyday - it comes and goes in fits and starts. And I can't be bothered discussing my motives anymore. My motives are practically besides the point. Truth matters. Charlatanism matters. Cynical deception matters. Parasitism matters.

I'm not going to have that discussion until I am blue in the face. Those are my principles. They mean a lot to me. I won't insist that you agree with them, or me, but please stop dragging me over that ground when I've already made it clear to you where I'm speaking from. You are entitled to feel that I possibly have 'ulterior motives' for airing someone's mendacity publicly - but I'm not going to worry about it unless you can substantiate it with more than your gut.

Sorry - but it's just quite irritating and patronising being told to "calm down dear", and double-check myself to see if I have ulterior motives, when I am, calmly, attempting to do something quite ethical - something that happens to bother me, even if it doesn't bother you quite so much.

[Tero]

I think this is a good place to vent your feelings on this, but it's like the Zimmerman thread, only two or three read these anymore. I only open the thread to see if you changed your avatar.

[surreptitious57]

Do not think that two posts constitute dragging you over the ground
I have only asked you about this one other time so am genuinely curious
No one is patronising you and please remember that I am not a mind reader
If I knew what your motives were I would not be asking you : how ironic that you
wish to pursue truth yet I cannot ask a couple of questions in the pursuit of it as well
Please do not take it out on those who are just curious : I wish you all the success anyway

[Robert_S]

I can't even parse that. And no - I do not think about this everyday - it comes and goes in fits and starts. And I can't be bothered discussing my motives anymore. My motives are practically besides the point. Truth matters. Charlatanism matters. Cynical deception matters. Parasitism matters.

I'm not going to have that discussion until I am blue in the face. Those are my principles. They mean a lot to me. I won't insist that you agree with them, or me, but please stop dragging me over that ground when I've already made it clear to you where I'm speaking from. You are entitled to feel that I possibly have 'ulterior motives' for airing someone's mendacity publicly - but I'm not going to worry about it unless you can substantiate it with more than your gut.

Sorry - but it's just quite irritating and patronising being told to "calm down dear", and double-check myself to see if I have ulterior motives, when I am, calmly, attempting to do something quite ethical - something that happens to bother me, even if it doesn't bother you quite so much.

I may have said so in the open already but maybe it bears repeating: Whatever LP's reasons for taking a deeper look at RD and RDF in the first place; having seen what she has, it would be inexcusable for her to just let this stuff pass by without comment.

She's doing the right thing here and not just in the name of abstract principles, but for real people trying to put real hard earned cash to the service of the propagation of science and reason. Also, I don't recall this much questioning people's motives when it came to the original mile long JT-RDF lawsuit threads. Did I miss something?

As well meaning as people here may be, we should maybe think a bit before we say things that undercut and trivialize what she's revealing here in ways that might as well be concern trolling for all the good they do.

Anyone wanna take a shot at the actual content of what she's posting instead?

[Hermit]

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.

Yes, if. Josh Timonen wasn't, though. He owned the company called Upper Branch Productions. The RDFRS commissioned UBP to make films and bought them, replete with copyright notices and credits. Now the notices and credits are being falsified by the RDFRS.

Thanks for digging this stuff out, LP. My opinion of the RDFRS has begun to decline even before it unceremoniously chopped its Feral Off Topic section off its forum for image reasons, and kept declining with every following fiasco. I thought presenting a UPS box as its headquarters marked its hitting rock bottom, but fiddling with the videos' copyright notices and credits reveals just how much lower it can go.

[Robert_S]

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.

Yes, if. Josh Timonen wasn't, though. He owned the company called Upper Branch Productions. The RDFRS commissioned UBP to make films and bought them, replete with copyright notices and credits. Now the notices and credits are being falsified by the RDFRS.

Thanks for digging this stuff out, LP. My opinion of the RDFRS has begun to decline even before it unceremoniously chopped its Feral Off Topic section off its forum for image reasons, and kept declining with every following fiasco. I thought presenting a UPS box as its headquarters marked its hitting rock bottom, but fiddling with the videos' copyright notices and credits reveals just how much lower it can go.

I'll slap together a drilling company to assist them!

[surreptitious57]

As well meaning as people here may be we should maybe think a bit before we say things that undercut and trivialize

You are absolutely right and so unreservedly apologise to
Heather for what I said about her : it was out of order
Shall in future try to be more open minded and less
judgemental both to her and other members also

[Seth]

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.

Yes, if. Josh Timonen wasn't, though. He owned the company called Upper Branch Productions. The RDFRS commissioned UBP to make films and bought them, replete with copyright notices and credits. Now the notices and credits are being falsified by the RDFRS.

Then it's perfectly clear that his work was a contractor's work for hire and he does not own the product, nor the copyrights, RDFRS does. Open and shut case. When one company "commissions" work under contract and pays for the result, unless there is a specific WRITTEN prior agreement that the "author" retains some or all copyrights that the company commissioning the work agrees to, the true legal owner of the intellectual property and all copyrights is the company that let the contract, not the contractor. Ask any for-hire contract code-monkey on earth if they retain copyrights for the code they write for Microsoft or Adobe or any other company if you disbelieve me. Copyright law is absolutely clear on this particular point. If it's a "work for hire," as you have admitted Timonen's work is, then its the absolute and sole property of RDFRS, copyrights and all.

[Robert_S]

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.

Yes, if. Josh Timonen wasn't, though. He owned the company called Upper Branch Productions. The RDFRS commissioned UBP to make films and bought them, replete with copyright notices and credits. Now the notices and credits are being falsified by the RDFRS.

Then it's perfectly clear that his work was a contractor's work for hire and he does not own the product, nor the copyrights, RDFRS does. Open and shut case. When one company "commissions" work under contract and pays for the result, unless there is a specific WRITTEN prior agreement that the "author" retains some or all copyrights that the company commissioning the work agrees to, the true legal owner of the intellectual property and all copyrights is the company that let the contract, not the contractor. Ask any for-hire contract code-monkey on earth if they retain copyrights for the code they write for Microsoft or Adobe or any other company if you disbelieve me. Copyright law is absolutely clear on this particular point. If it's a "work for hire," as you have admitted Timonen's work is, then its the absolute and sole property of RDFRS, copyrights and all.

But what does resorting to that sort of legalism make of a person or institution?

[lordpasternack]

And Seth, let me repeat one last time. There was no contract. Sorry if we're playing that troll game again, where you utterly ignore pertinent points - but it needs to be pointed out.

And aside from scrubbing Josh and others' credits - which I could ALMOST have forgiven - there is the small matter of a certain 'R. Elisabeth Cornwell' taking the liberty of adding herself as 'producer', sometime after July 2011, 2-3 years after the respective videos had been filmed and produced without her having contributed a mouse-click to their production. And there's the fact that she repeatedly lied about her desire to do this, and there are even bigger barefaced fables of hers (which I'll get onto later in the thread). There's the fact that, from my perusal of the evidence, I can't but conclude that she's a stone cold pathological liar, with a Jekyll and Hyde personality. And I think that people at least deserve to know.

And thanks - both to Robert and Surreptitious. And sorry if I was a little short with you earlier, Surreptitious - but as it happens, a few people have already tried to take me to task on my motives, and perhaps I was starting to get grumpy about it. And of course you can ask me questions - and you're likely at least to get a straight answer - it just might not necessarily be a perfectly polite answer.

And indeed, I just can't believe that I can post clear evidence of the person at the helm of a charity (and in complete control of all monetary donations to said charity) rewriting history - and unwarrantedly making it fit with their narcissism, years after the fact - and the thing that some people are seemingly more concerned about is what my motives and actions could be about.

[Clinton Huxley]

LP, if you think you have evidence for dubious dealings at the RDFRS, is that not more of a matter for the Charity Commission or whatever body regulates charities in the US? There's not a lot we can do about it....