Lying for Reason and Science

[chalkers]

Like all communication, the written word is an imperfect medium. I can't tell the difference

[Hermit]

Here's the conversation I had with Paula Kirby when I was alerted to Robin changing the Foundations' eMail to her personal account.



Note that this eMail address is also included in the document discovery request:
http://dawkinssuestimonen.com/documents ... 0Owens.pdf

This is not her foundation eMail address. But all her emails (even on GMail) are gone due to a hard drive crash (http://joshtimonen.com/post/7749335533/ ... tion-claim ). Does any on this forum have a GMail account? Or a .mac/MobileMe account? What does that suggest to you w.r.t the authenticity of their claim?

As for credits, and as I have posted on other threads, RDFRS under the direction of Cornwell paid (?) for the actual videos to be re-edited and have credits and copyright notices removed and uploaded them to YouTube in a private playlist to be published at sometime late in 2010. Not just Josh and Maureen's credits but all people who did any editing, composing and anything else. People who Upper Branch contracted with. This is when I resigned. They didn't publish these videos.

But it does seem every time I alerted Richard to Robin's ad-hoc and bizarre commands he used to go in an change things back. Like Josh's authorship on articles he wrote.

Why would Cornwell want to remove all traces of Josh and Maureen? Was it because it was "messy legal wise"? Did they think this would've helped their case?



Does anyone have an opinion on this behaviour? Is this the behaviour of someone who has been legitimately wronged?

My opinion?

[surreptitious57]

Now was I doing this I would submit the entire lot to Richard and Elisabeth and see what they had to
say : I would be completely open and honest and hope that they would respond accordingly : would
also not be the least bit surprised if they and especially Elisabeth however refused to co operate
I would if it were possible upload the entire lot to Richard Dawkins dot net and let the member
ship see it making it unambiguously clear that I was only interetsed in the truth and not any
thing else : I would then reference it to the Charities Commission If I was one hundred per
cent certain it warranted it : I would then cease my campaign and spend the rest of my
days on entirely different pursuits for once closure had been achieved there would be
no reason to re engage myself with the subject any more including debating it here

There is a very thin line between questioning some ones motives and assessing
their mental capability but it is a distinctive one nonetheless : it is sad to see
some cross it here on this thread : as one who believes in absolute freedom
of speech I defend to the death your right to post whatever you like : but
unless you are qualified in or have experience of mental illness it is not
wise to mention it in posts : I do have experience in this area but you
would never see me blatantly claim that Heather is ill : now this has
got nothing at all to do with her being female but with treating her
with respect as a human being and so bearing that in mind may
be a good idea then if personalised comments were therefore
not posted here but only ones pertaining to the issue it self
not Heather : I am sure she would appreciate the gesture

[lordpasternack]

You're ill, too, Hermit?

And Surreptitious - I already contacted Richard Dawkins and a few other bodies for whom this should concern within RDFRS - but not Elisabeth directly.

[Robert_S]

There is not caring about possible shenanigans in RDF because you don't care about shenanigans, which is not the same as not caring about shenanigans there because you don't care about RDF. I think a lot of people here fit into the latter category for one reason or another.

Also, as was pointed out previously, traffic on the RDF site is slowing and I wouldn't be too surprised to find donations slowing along with it. I don't think anything is going to change that since the vibrant community that grew up there was ejected as too uncouth for the sensibilities of Respectable Atheism and the forum and front page were scrapped to make way for a Real Website.

Meh, there's more interesting stuff happening on Ratskep, Randi and Freethoughtblogs and I have a hunch that those places are going to be where the future of the atheist-skeptical movement is.

[lordpasternack]

Such a parcel of rogues in a Foundation...

[Pappa]

She's not 'gliding the lily' - she's completely lying through her teeth, needlessly and pointlessly, about something that is really fucking obvious - in a way that I find simply INSANE - and in her role as Executive Director of a fucking charity devoted to reason, science, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding.

You're entitled to brush that off as nothing - but I find it galling. I think it's taking the piss out of Richard and everyone interested in his Foundation, and what it stands for, to post such glaring bullshit in her bio on that site. And I also think that it's the tip of the iceberg - and I hope that Richard Dawkins takes a similarly dim view of her fabulating.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying LP. It is ridiculous (if true) that an organisation "devoted to reason, science, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding" is run in the ways you've described, and (if true) it does say a lot about her character and also Dawkins and RDFS. But.... I think you should try to divorce the general shoddiness and bullshit stuff from anything genuinely illegal. If you have evidence of anything illegal going on, then go ahead and contact the Charities Commission.

As for the rest, either find a more constructive way of improving and/or bringing it to the attention of those concerned and interested, or just accept that lots and lots and lots of organisations (maybe most) are genuinely run that badly.

If you want to follow it up either direct with RDFS or indirectly via it's current or past supporters, I think you'd do a lot better if you cleaned up what you're saying a bit. Stick to the facts and ditch the insinuations and allegations that you can't back up easily. A lot more people would be willing to listen properly if you did.

[Robert_S]

Such a parcel of rogues in a Foundation...

U Maddy?

[lordpasternack]

Thanks Pappa. I agree with you - and thanks for being sensible and constructive. I'd also say that part of the reason I got angry and defensive was due to being patronised and dismissed in this thread. I was completely constructive (I believe) in my brief correspondence with people within RDFRS - which I hope was heard by them. And I didn't enter this thread grumpy, either...

[lordpasternack]

Such a parcel of rogues in a Foundation...

U Maddy?

Robert Burns.

http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/tra ... nation.htm

[Robert_S]

Such a parcel of rogues in a Foundation...

U Maddy?

Robert Burns.

http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/tra ... nation.htm

I was making a reference to the Steeleye Span version of the song and album named for it. Maddy Prior was in that band.

[surreptitious57]

What has been the response from Richard then assuming he
has replied and would you consider the possibility of contacting
Elisabeth herself given how she seems to be more the focus of your
attention : may not be productive though you have nothing to lose and
in situations like these addressing the individual themselves can often get
to the heart of the matter more quickly than by other circuitous methods : can
you give some idea of how much more quantity wise there is in terms of material
I notice you are arranging it in some numerical or chronological order so do you have
a complete dossier or is it just a work in progress : you the only one that is engaged in
this and would you consider the possibility of collaborating with others : I know it is not the
same thing but the New York Times / Guardian / Der Spiegel collaboration with Julian Assange
on Wikileaks springs to mind : there was quite some bitter in fighting in that relation ship as well

[Robert_S]

Such a parcel of rogues in a Foundation...

U Maddy?

Robert Burns.

http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/tra ... nation.htm

I was making a reference to the Steeleye Span version of the song and album named for it. Maddy Prior was in that band.

I should have gone with "Feel da Burns!!! "

[Hermit]

You're ill, too, Hermit?

While your obsession causes me occasional moments of amusement, I don't like so many forum members making that the topic.

Also, as has been pointed out, shenanigans like the editing and deleting of film credits will not bring the foundation down. If that is what you want to do, you'd be better off demanding to look at its accounts. Late last year Pensioner provided a link to what is publicly available via The Charity Commission for England and Wales. So far four annual reports can be viewed there in PDF format. While they don't reveal much detail, a summary is interesting. Over four years the foundation's reports claim to have received 535268 pounds worth of donations, incurred £108864 in costs, made donations to the tune of £146149 and have £280594 sitting in a bank at the end of it. Subtracting all the latter amounts from donations made, there is a discrepancy of £81836. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong about the discrepancy. I am not an accountant, and I may well have made a mistake somewhere because of that, but you might spend some of your time and energy chasing up more details, and perhaps find someone with the expertise and authority to audit and analyse the accounts properly. None of the reports are audited. Perhaps that should be done one day. By an independent auditor.

While the ratio between donations received and donations paid out is not particularly wonderful, it is worth noting that of the £156497 that were paid out, at least £102039 went to the RDFRS US branch, and what happened to that is anyone's guess. For all we know, a goodly part went into a swimming pool and other home improvements. That leaves £44110 worth of other donations the foundation has actually made out of the over half a million it has received.

The trustee shuffle listed in the 2010 report is a bit mystifying. One left late in '09. A new one was appointed Feb '10, and another on the 20th of May. Then yet another resigned on the 22nd of May, and the newly appointed trustees in turn resigned a few days later (25th and 28th of May respectively). There may be a perfectly innocuous explanation for all of this, but it does look odd.

I don't know where to look for financial statements that are publicly available concerning the US branch of the foundation. That may be something worth chasing up too.

[lordpasternack]

Thanks for the heads-up, Hermit.

Another small bit of context, though, for the doubters: You'd expect someone who had already been starkly accused of "persistent rewriting of history", in the resignation letter of a former worker for the Foundation - to proceed with a little more caution in future to avoid raising those kinds of suspicions. Especially when one is supposed to be the Executive Director, and given what this Foundation claims that it stands for.

Maybe one should venture on the safe side - and just not enter gratuitous, petty, intelligence-insulting lies into one's biography, which happen to relate directly to Josh Timonen's former duties - amongst other iffy things - in that context.

She clearly doesn't respect Richard's intelligence much, does she? And perhaps the evidence suggests that she's quite right not to.