Lying for Reason and Science

[Pappa]

Actually, this part of the forum is open to the world.

My front window is open to the world but not many people peer in....

I was wondering, if LP said something libellous, would Rationalia be liable, as the "publisher". Don't know.....

The staff have discussed this before and I think the site owners would swiftly take down any content that could cause us legal problems upon receipt of a letter from a solicitor or a genuine and sensible cease and desist.

[klr]

Adding yourself to credits is naff but that's all it is

It's can also be viewed as an instance, albeit petty - of lying through your teeth about something obvious, with no regard to basic decency and honesty.

bit of an extreme reaction. Its just a bit of vanity

Power corrupts ... give someone a little bit of power and not enough accountability, and watch them behave in a less than edifying fashion. Such is life.

[Pappa]

Christ. It's perfectly straightforward.

If you have evidence that the officers of the RDFRS are not following statuory reporting and accounting practices for charities, this is a matter for the authorities. Paas the info on to them. They can decide if anything could or should be investigated. It doesn't matter if you think this is impossible.

If you just don't like the way RDRFS operates but don't have any evidence that they are actually breaking any laws, then, by all means, moan on and on and on about it on here but you are wasting your time. If they are a shit charity, walk away, start your own, get involved with something else. You clearly are obsessed.

It woiuld be nice to see you get stuck into THIS forum a bit more, rather than flogging this one horse. Flog some more horses.

I have to agree with the Huxter here LP. If you think you have enough evidence that dodginess is going on, just report it to the Charities Commission or wherever the best place be.

[lordpasternack]

Adding yourself to credits is naff but that's all it is

It's can also be viewed as an instance, albeit petty - of lying through your teeth about something obvious, with no regard to basic decency and honesty.

bit of an extreme reaction. Its just a bit of vanity

"Just a bit of vanity" which is obviously completely dishonest - and which the initiator knew was completely dishonest. It's lying. Vain lying.

If I somehow added my name to the creators of this forum, or gave people the explicit impression that I'm a moderator, or an admin - it's not "just vanity". I'd be a bullshitter. A vain bullshitter.

[Seth]

Adding yourself to credits is naff but that's all it is

It's can also be viewed as an instance, albeit petty - of lying through your teeth about something obvious, with no regard to basic decency and honesty.

bit of an extreme reaction. Its just a bit of vanity

"Just a bit of vanity" which is obviously completely dishonest - and which the initiator knew was completely dishonest. It's lying. Vain lying.

And this surprises you why, exactly? It was patently obvious to me that Dawkins is a narcissistic ass the first time I heard him speak about Atheism. Why are you surprised that everybody who works for him is likewise a narcissistic ass?

Dawkins and his ilk are neither honest nor humble, any rational person knows that, so what do you expect?

[Svartalf]

When vanity goes to abusing your position to get yourself credited for stuff done before you even came onboard, something still is pretty wrong.

[Robert_S]

You are "going to make Richard awaken from his coma" by putting comments on here? Ok.

This is where I'm starting. People deserve to know. Richard deserves a wake-up call.

Why is that your job?

I was the only one quixotic enough.

If you want to raise awareness within the foundation, then an accusatory tone is precisely the wrong way to go. People tend to close ranks and go into defense mode when they, or someone they care about is threatened or attacked. Instead of evaluating the evidence coming in for its truth value, they tend to evaluate it on its threat level.

[tattuchu]

I have to say, I couldn't care less. But you've got a lot of spunk in you, LP. I admire you for that.

[lordpasternack]

I have to say, I couldn't care less. But you've got a lot of spunk in you, LP. I admire you for that.

In the UK, 'spunk' means 'semen'…

[tattuchu]

I have to say, I couldn't care less. But you've got a lot of spunk in you, LP. I admire you for that.

In the UK, 'spunk' means 'semen'…

I know

[klr]

I kind of guessed you did. It would have been too much of a coincidence.

[Svartalf]

I have to say, I couldn't care less. But you've got a lot of spunk in you, LP. I admire you for that.

In the UK, 'spunk' means 'semen'…

Well, I nearly answered that all red blooded men want to give you more... heck, I do.

[lordpasternack]

When vanity goes to abusing your position to get yourself credited for stuff done before you even came onboard, something still is pretty wrong.

She was present within the Foundation since its inception, and she reportedly came up with some of the initial ideas for the videos - but she had no physical hand in actually creating the videos at any stage. And yes, I still think that having enough preoccupation with the issue to go and run through videos systematically to efface credits and then later to stick your name in there dishonestly, years later, represents something pathological in someone who is supposed to be at the helm of a charity devoted to reason and science.

It's sometimes legitimate to feel that you've had your ideas used and been denied due credit - but when your best claim to involvement in a particular area was floating some frankly rather mundane (if very sensible) ideas - and your subsequent reaction to your internal feelings of indignation is to scrub out the people who did substantially more to polish those ideas, give them legs and make them concrete - and then to shoehorn your name in years after the fact, even if it means being dishonest - then you've crossed the fucking line.

Anyway - I need to sleep now. Sorry I didn't get onto what I said I would, today.

[hadespussercats]

When vanity goes to abusing your position to get yourself credited for stuff done before you even came onboard, something still is pretty wrong.

She was present within the Foundation since its inception, and she reportedly came up with some of the initial ideas for the videos - but she had no physical hand in actually creating the videos at any stage. And yes, I still think that having enough preoccupation with the issue to go and run through videos systematically to efface credits and then later to stick your name in there dishonestly, years later, represents something pathological in someone who is supposed to be at the helm of a charity devoted to reason and science.

It's sometimes legitimate to feel that you've had your ideas used and been denied due credit - but when your best claim to involvement in a particular area was floating some frankly rather mundane (if very sensible) ideas - and your subsequent reaction to your internal feelings of indignation is to scrub out the people who did substantially more to polish those ideas, give them legs and make them concrete - and then to shoehorn your name in years after the fact, even if it means being dishonest - then you've crossed the fucking line.

Anyway - I need to sleep now. Sorry I didn't get onto what I said I would, today.

What do you think producers on a film do?

Adding her name to the credits doesn't necessarily mean they don't belong there. I don't know this woman from Adam, but nothing you've written has indicated to me that she wasn't a producer on those films. Just that she wasn't given credit as such earlier.

[hadespussercats]

Also-- I asked earlier who it is that's giving you this information.

You've mentioned that you're being "informed." By who? How is this not mainly gossip?