For Reason and Science?

[Svartalf]

Has Lp's bj skills been factored into the current assets involving Scotland's bid for independence as it is only fair we get Lp in exchange for the Scots defaulting on your share of the national debt.

I fear that there's something of a speculative bubble growing around the value of my BJ skills...

No need to be modest, you're honey and men are bees.

[Hermit]

Has Lp's bj skills been factored into the current assets involving Scotland's bid for independence as it is only fair we get Lp in exchange for the Scots defaulting on your share of the national debt.

I fear that there's something of a speculative bubble growing around the value of my BJ skills...

A bubble? Ewwww....

Too right. Michael Jackson had a pet monkey he named Bubbles. The story goes that he just loved blowing bubbles.

[lordpasternack]

Has Lp's bj skills been factored into the current assets involving Scotland's bid for independence as it is only fair we get Lp in exchange for the Scots defaulting on your share of the national debt.

I fear that there's something of a speculative bubble growing around the value of my BJ skills...

No need to be modest, you're honey and men are bees.

Men drink lots of nectar then vomit me into into little beeswax capsules to feed the hive?

[Svartalf]

I'll tell you when I know you IRL

[surreptitious57]

If Heather actually manages to get a book deal from this and it is written as detailed as possible from as neutral a standpoint as it is all things considered I would buy it and read it. Not for malice but curiosity. I know I may have been critical of her motives in the past but she is an adult so capable of making her own decisions. Long as she is breaking no laws she can do what ever she wants. But for all the effort that she is putting in it would be a shame for it all to go to waste. I do not take sides and do not know enough to anyway but as I said am curious. From what I have read here she starts off being entirely reasonable and then gets less so as time goes on if her requests are not made. I may not agree with that methodology but at least I can understand t. I hope you get to write that book because browsing it online now n dribs and drabs is not the way I like to read stuff. Anyway that is my two cents. I know you will probably not reply but do not worry I have very thick skin ha ha ha. Seriously though keep on being true to your self. I think on balance that you are a person of integrity. And I am not saying that to make you feel good now but because I mean it

[lordpasternack]

I don't want a book deal. The most I'd like published is an article, and I don't necessarily want to be the author of the published article.

And as to your previous comments - I have some autistic spectrum traits, and am mildly bipolar. I wouldn't say that I "suffer" from these things, because I think I also benefit from them in some cases. They are more of a mixed blessing than a pathology, to me.

[Brian Peacock]

You watch out for them libel lawyers LP. OK?

[lordpasternack]

You watch out for them libel lawyers LP. OK?

A libel suit would have the potential to backfire horribly on the parties concerned - especially since what I say is accurate and true, and they know it.

[Brian Peacock]

The truth and accuracy of a claim has never stopped the wealthy from resorting to the libel courts to shut people up. Remeber Archer and Aitken? I'm just saying. Nobody wants to see you roasted on the hot coals chuck.

[lordpasternack]

Brian - the fact is that a libel suit would not shut me up. It would make me more eager to roast them back. The absolute worst that would happen is that I'd have a bit of stress during a suit, and have to pay damages for some tort.

I don't think Dawkins even understands what "tort" means. I don't think he'd want to get involved in a lawsuit which he's too naive to follow, over claims which he knows to be true.

[PsychoSerenity]

I don't think he'd want to get involved in a lawsuit which he's too naive to follow, over claims which he knows to be true.

Isn't that what he did with the Timonen thing?

[lordpasternack]

I don't think he'd want to get involved in a lawsuit which he's too naive to follow, over claims which he knows to be true.

Isn't that what he did with the Timonen thing?

He took nothing to do with the lawsuit. He delegated everything to Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, who was the one who knew the claims being made were false. Dawkins just didn't have a clue, from start to finish. And he made no real attempt to acquire a clue - which as founder and Trustee of his charity, he damn well should have done.

If he wanted to pursue a personal lawsuit against me, he would actually have to be involved personally. He would probably incur more stress in the process than me, because he is so clueless and naive.

And I can only repeat - it would not shut me up. Not ever.

[Pappa]

Brian - the fact is that a libel suit would not shut me up. It would make me more eager to roast them back. The absolute worst that would happen is that I'd have a bit of stress during a suit, and have to pay damages for some tort.

I don't think Dawkins even understands what "tort" means. I don't think he'd want to get involved in a lawsuit which he's too naive to follow, over claims which he knows to be true.

But he could also be too naive to understand the negatives of a libel suit.

[Calilasseia]

Brian - the fact is that a libel suit would not shut me up. It would make me more eager to roast them back. The absolute worst that would happen is that I'd have a bit of stress during a suit, and have to pay damages for some tort.

I don't think Dawkins even understands what "tort" means. I don't think he'd want to get involved in a lawsuit which he's too naive to follow, over claims which he knows to be true.

But he could also be too naive to understand the negatives of a libel suit.

In which case, he's heading for a world of hurt if he launches one.

Libel suits in the UK are a circus. Just ask Simon Singh, the man who was sued for telling the truth about homeopathy.

If you really want an insight into the dystopian universe of libel cases, look up Nikolai Tolstoy and the Aldington case. A book on the subject that should make chilling reading for anyone entertaining a libel suit, is The Cost of a Reputation by Ian Mitchell. In addition, look up the nefarious activities of Peter Carter-Ruck, who effectively shaped the modern libel litigation environment in the UK. Dawkins isn't rich enough to play this game, and stands a good chance of being ruined if he tries.

Here's what you can look forward to if you launch a libel suit:

[1] The cost of hiring a barrister to take on the case. Standard fees begin with a £50,000 up front payment, followed by £1,500 per day retainers. A libel specialist with a proven track record of winning will charge three to five times as much for his services.

[2] The cost of hiring a legal firm to assist the barrister. Fees start at £2,000 per day.

[3] Add to this court fees once the trial starts. If the trial runs for six weeks, add six weeks of court fees to six weeks of the above fees in [1] and [2].

[4] At the end of the trial, the loser frequently ends up having the winner's costs awarded against him, which on its own will wipe out the finances of anyone other than a banker on bonuses or Bill Gates. That's before the matter of the damages is taken into account.

The short version of the above: does Dawkins have £10 million spare to burn on this if he goes ahead?

Of course, LP might want to factor this into her equations as well.

None of the exposition above on fees takes into account the intrigues and skulduggery that can emerge during a libel trial. Which can have, shall we say, an interesting Dostoyevskian effect on the outcome.

[lordpasternack]

Up until as recently as 26 March this year, the "donations" page at RDF had a small statement that read thus:

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are deductible under section 170 of the Code. We are also qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the Code.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/201403021835 ... ations/new

This statement regarding tax exempt status is conspicuously absent from the current version of that same page: https://www.richarddawkins.net/donations/new

I obviously can't speak for what anyone other than me has done with information that I've posted in the public domain - and I still haven't completed and posted my comprehensive referral to the IRS - but it's possible that they might have been paid a visit this month, in light of this:



If this is so, I only want to make one thing clear: If RDF has lost their tax-exempt status - if they're going through an audit and being subject to fines and sanctions - it is because that is what they deserve. It's not my fault - it's their fault. All I've done is criticise them honestly and share information both publicly and privately. At the end of the day, if my criticisms were not valid, they'd pass an IRS audit and could safely dismiss me, using all the epithets that Richard Dawkins tried to use to dismiss me - but it ain't so.

If the IRS is taking action against RDF - it's not a decision they would have taken lightly. They wouldn't do it just because I'm really insistent. They wouldn't do it because they like my prose. And if sanctions are placed against RDF - it won't be because I was "obsessive" or "bloody-minded" - it'll be because that's exactly what they deserve, for all the things they've done and failed to do, in the past 7 years.

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.