For Reason and Science?

[lordpasternack]

Yes - you're missing all the intrigue - including potentially criminal intrigue - for which Dawkins and some of his hangers-on will be thoroughly roasted.

[mistermack]

Yes - you're missing all the intrigue - including potentially criminal intrigue - for which Dawkins and some of his hangers-on will be thoroughly roasted.

I suppose so.
But it's hardly Watergate.
He's 73 and still enjoying life, as far as I can tell. He hasn't got much to lose in the long run.
I can't see it all coming crashing down around his ears in the next ten years.

As far as the others go, I guess you need to know them, for it to matter much. It's not like they are running a country.

[Hermit]

Is it actually important what happens to Dawkins organisation any more?

The website is now nothing like what it was, now it's mainly publicising Dawkins own events, the comments section has no appeal.
It's hardly a movement with potential any more.

( all my own impressions, maybe a bit dated, I don't look in there very often ).

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing something. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is still a registered charity in the US and the UK soliciting donations and allegedly frittering most of that money away on projects other than those it said it would.

[mistermack]

Is it actually important what happens to Dawkins organisation any more?

The website is now nothing like what it was, now it's mainly publicising Dawkins own events, the comments section has no appeal.
It's hardly a movement with potential any more.

( all my own impressions, maybe a bit dated, I don't look in there very often ).

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing something. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is still a registered charity in the US and the UK soliciting donations and allegedly frittering most of that money away on projects other than those it said it would.

Nothing new there then.
I doubt if one percent of charities are any different.

[Hermit]

Is it actually important what happens to Dawkins organisation any more?

The website is now nothing like what it was, now it's mainly publicising Dawkins own events, the comments section has no appeal.
It's hardly a movement with potential any more.

( all my own impressions, maybe a bit dated, I don't look in there very often ).

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing something. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is still a registered charity in the US and the UK soliciting donations and allegedly frittering most of that money away on projects other than those it said it would.

Nothing new there then.
I doubt if one percent of charities are any different.

Well, yes. If you donated to the Missionaries of Charity, you could be pretty confident that about 93% of your money will disappear into the Vatican's coffers, but being religious institutions, everybody involved in that racket is immune to any form of correction or prosecution. Going by what I read, the Red Cross isn't exactly a top performer either. I've come across some independently conducted audits of Community Aid Abroad, and the figures are excellent, demonstrating that the right thing can actually be done. CAA has merged with Oxfam some years ago, though, so I don't know what its performance is like now.

[Surendra Darathy]

Yes - you're missing all the intrigue - including potentially criminal intrigue - for which Dawkins and some of his hangers-on will be thoroughly roasted.

What's not to miss?

[Brian Peacock]

My thoughts LP. You've taken a forensic approach to this issue, and even though you may not have been entirely dispassionate you've certainly gathered a lot of information and reflected long and hard on what to do with it and about it.

Perhaps it's time to stop prevaricating now. Time to decide if you're going to let this go, to drop it in the bin or send it out into the world. Either way that means drawing a line under all this and saying good-bye to it all.

I would totally understand if you decided to drop it, but I would totally urge you to gather it up, send it out into the world, and let the world do with it whatever it will. What happens after that would no longer be your concern.

[Calilasseia]

Yes - you're missing all the intrigue - including potentially criminal intrigue - for which Dawkins and some of his hangers-on will be thoroughly roasted.

If they're caught trying to fuck over the tax people, we won't be talking "roasted". We'll be talking "turned into incandescent plasma and undergoing fusion". Fuck over the tax people, and they fuck you over in return. The difference being that your fucking the tax people over looks like this:



Whilst their fucking you over looks like this:

[lordpasternack]

I want to add one thing that I've been thinking about in the back of my head - and which I want to be taken on board by the various silent anonymous people following this thread:

I am regarded with suspicion by both the FreethoughtBlogs/Atheism+ crowd and the anti-FtB/A+ crowd - by simple virtue of the fact that I am a member of Rationalia (remember that rape joke?), who also criticises Dawkins - and especially Cornwell, who has been regarded as a "brave hero" of the anti-FtB/A+ crowd.

Both "sides" have, at various times, tried to dismiss me as "one of them" - and both have failed - because I'm on neither side. I'm not defined by tribal loyalties - and neither are the facts of this case, nor the truth of the matter.

Reflect on that: the truth isn't going to be determined by which side said what. It's not going to be determined by whether or not you like me, or I like you. It's not going to be determined by how credulous or incredulous you are about any claims made by anyone. The truth is going to be determined solely by what is actually factual - no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient that is, for anyone concerned.

The truth, and the implications of the truth, matter more to me than any amount of petty tribal squabbling. I know that enough people who matter to me feel the same way about this - and I hope others will begin to accept this mindset.

[lordpasternack]

I also want to say - I actually think that Paula Kirby's brief stand against the "FtB Bullies" was actually a case of redirected aggression, which occured at a time when she was becoming increasingly disillusioned by Richard Dawkins and RDF. This doesn't mean that her arguments can be dismissed on that basis - I just think it was a time of general inner upheaval for her, in which the only external expression of her disillusionment was aimed at the FtB crowd.

She has stated repeatedly that she is no longer involved in "the movement", point blank - and also that it wasn't just that particular issue that pushed her away. It's on the record that there was conflict between her and Cornwell, and that Kirby had felt frustrated by failed attempts to make Dawkins see sense on certain issues.

She now Tweets almost solely about East Germany, and it's obvious that if she has any involvement with RDF these days - her heart's not really in it. It wasn't the FtB Bullies who pushed her towards that point.

Consider that - and consider it as another example of how the truth is not going to be decided by who's "side" you think a person is on.

[klr]

I also want to say - I actually think that Paula Kirby's brief stand against the "FtB Bullies" was actually a case of redirected aggression, which occured at a time when she was becoming increasingly disillusioned by Richard Dawkins and RDF. This doesn't mean that her arguments can be dismissed on that basis - I just think it was a time of general inner upheaval for her, in which the only external expression of her disillusionment was aimed at the FtB crowd.

She has stated repeatedly that she is no longer involved in "the movement", point blank - and also that it wasn't just that particular issue that pushed her away. It's on the record that there was conflict between her and Cornwell, and that Kirby had felt frustrated by failed attempts to make Dawkins see sense on certain issues.

She now Tweets almost solely about East Germany, and it's obvious that if she has any involvement with RDF these days - her heart's not really in it. It wasn't the FtB Bullies who pushed her towards that point.

Consider that - and consider it as another example of how the truth is not going to be decided by who's "side" you think a person is on.

East Germany? Is the DDR still around?

[lordpasternack]

I mean she tweets almost solely about DDR history.

[surreptitious57]

Reflect on that: the truth isn't going to be determined by which side said what. It's not going to be determined by whether or not you like me, or I like you. It's not going to be determined by how credulous or incredulous you are about any claims made by anyone. The truth is going to be determined solely by what is actually factual - no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient that is, for anyone concerned

I am neutral with regard to all this but you are one hundred per cent right with what you say here. Furthermore this is a universal concept so is not just specific to this particular case. As a point of principle I try very hard to focus just on objective truth and to disregard subjective interpretations of it no matter how logical or moral they may appear to be. I reject tribalism in all its forms. No one after all has a monopoly on wisdom. I do not know if you apply the same degree of scrutiny to all other matters but the principle you reference here is the natural default position for anyone claiming to be a sceptic. I am not interested in who lordpasternack is. But I am interested in what she has to say. And that is how I approach all. For objective truth trumps subjective interpretation every single time. This is so simple and beautiful it can be - and should be - understood by everyone. Long as you stick to this principle you cannot go wrong. I totally respect your single minded approach here because it is the only way to proceed once you have decided to do so. Tribalism compromises that because one is then unconditionally expected to conform to the mantra of the echo chamber - whichever one it happens to be. This is the cult of the collective and I reject it just as much as you do. As I say I am neutral on the subject matter in question but the way you are going about it is the right way and the only way too and for that if nothing else I salute you

[lordpasternack]

RDF submitted their 2012 return to the IRS in March of this year - only 10 months late! You may view it, here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3ceSok ... cslist_api

There are no donations associated with Non-believers Giving Aid on page 11 of their return - which is odd, considering that they had a fundraising campaign for NBGA in 2012: http://web.archive.org/web/201208141051 ... wkins.net/

And odd since they had previously claimed that NBGA donations for 2012 would be found on the respective Form 990... to the order of $13,279.90, allegedly...

What a bunch of fucking liars and incompetents.

PS. This also means that anyone who might have been optimistic that RDF had possibly sent its 2011 NBGA donations in 2012 - we're sorry to have to tell you... No... No NBGA donations whatsoever, recorded in RDF’S outgoings, for 2011 and 2012.

[Calilasseia]

If he tried running this past the Charity Commissioners here in the UK, he'd be saying a big "Hello, trick or treat?" to the Serious Fraud Squad in no time.

Frankly, LP, if you want to go for the nuclear option at this stage, I'll hand you the fucking launch codes if I can find them. Even though doing so will probably result in a lot of regrettable collateral damage of the sort I've discussed at length earlier. Quite simply, I don't want someone whose financial conduct is only marginally better than Kent Hovind's, claiming to represent me or people like me. At this stage, I have to say I'm seriously disappointed that he's fucked about in this manner. Though perhaps it was naive of me to expect better. But then, I didn't know about his shag banditry until I started sniffing around these threads.