What video?The Mad Hatter wrote:The Ratskep thread has been culled down to 81 pages. Reminds me why I don't go there. They deleted the video too.Reminds me why I don't go there. They deleted the video too.They deleted the video too.They deleted the video too.They deleted the video too.
Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
Why does that sound rather patronising.Ah - Meeky made a humourous video about Josh.
"Yes the vide0 was rather... humorous, wasn't it.
We are amused by your humorous video."
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."
- Bella Fortuna
- Sister Golden Hair
- Posts: 79685
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
- About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require. - Location: Scotlifornia
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
Didn't mean it so.The Mad Hatter wrote:Why does that sound rather patronising.Ah - Meeky made a humourous video about Josh.
"Yes the vide0 was rather... humorous, wasn't it.
We are amused by your humorous video."


Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."
- Agi Hammerthief
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:09 pm
- Location: .de
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)Coito ergo sum wrote: I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )
the goldisch rule:
don't do, of which you don't want to be accused of doing.
when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
the goldisch rule:
don't do, of which you don't want to be accused of doing.
when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
- Bella Fortuna
- Sister Golden Hair
- Posts: 79685
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
- About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require. - Location: Scotlifornia
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
I find your response humourous.The Mad Hatter wrote:

Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
- klr
- (%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
- Posts: 32964
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
- About me: The money was just resting in my account.
- Location: Airstrip Two
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
Natural ... maybe. But without permission?Agi Hammerthief wrote:well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)Coito ergo sum wrote: I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)

God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers
It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson



Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
Well.. if he owned the company and the shop was in the company's name then... he owned the shop, didn't he?
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."
- Bella Fortuna
- Sister Golden Hair
- Posts: 79685
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
- About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require. - Location: Scotlifornia
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
I think it's up for debate whether the legitimate salary he was paid was a shitload as far as what's standard/what the cost of living is for where he was (LA) - notwithstanding the fact that combined with his other paid endeavors it probably did total up to a more than adequate income. The sum for RDF, in itself, probably wouldn't be enough to scrape by on in LA, though. Nonetheless - not really up to him to determine what his employer would pay him - especially seemingly without that employer's knowledge!Agi Hammerthief wrote:well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)Coito ergo sum wrote: I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)
Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
- klr
- (%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
- Posts: 32964
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
- About me: The money was just resting in my account.
- Location: Airstrip Two
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
That's the point. The law doesn't allow you to set your own remuneration, not unless you're self-employed. Whether you might "deserve" it or "need" it are also completely besides the point.Bella Fortuna wrote:I think it's up for debate whether the legitimate salary he was paid was a shitload as far as what's standard/what the cost of living is for where he was (LA) - notwithstanding the fact that combined with his other paid endeavors it probably did total up to a more than adequate income. The sum for RDF, in itself, probably wouldn't be enough to scrape by on in LA, though. Nonetheless - not really up to him to determine what his employer would pay him - especially seemingly without that employer's knowledge!Agi Hammerthief wrote:well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)Coito ergo sum wrote: I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers
It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson



- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41035
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
but he didn't own the fucking wares, and had no permission to take a percentage of profits in addition to his already quite generous salary.The Mad Hatter wrote:Well.. if he owned the company and the shop was in the company's name then... he owned the shop, didn't he?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Thinking Aloud
- Page Bottomer
- Posts: 20111
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
Oh - we all need to chill out, by the way:
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/ Musical Me
- Bella Fortuna
- Sister Golden Hair
- Posts: 79685
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
- About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require. - Location: Scotlifornia
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
I saw that too and





Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:43 pm
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
Was running The Store the only line of business for UBP? If so (actually, either way), this was a really inefficient way to get the profits back to RDFRS. For one, as you already stated, corporations are required to pay reasonable salaries so that immediately reduces the profits. Also, unless I'm reading this wrong, the agreement was that the profits would go back to RDFRS as donations. Corporations can't efficiently deduct charitable donations. If UBP is a standard C-Corporation, then it's donations are limited to only 10% of the net income each year and the remainder is subject to both federal and California income tax. If UBP was an S-Corporation, then it's donations flow through to JT personally where he can deduct them on his personal return, limited to 50% of his Adjusted Gross Income (I looked it up and RDFRS was a "50% charity"). It just seems bizarre that he should get a personal deduction for the items sold, but that's what it would amount to. I would argue that deduction should be counted as part of the economic compensation he received.Coito ergo sum wrote:Dawkins actually did make that distinction quite clearly. He was able to differentiate among (a) hiring Timonen to work for Dawkins personally, and (b) hiring Timonen to work for RDF the foundation, and (c) having Timonen run the store as a separate entity independent and distinct from RDF to avoid any "regulatory problems" with RDF.Robert_S wrote:I'm sure Dawkins feels some moral responsibility, his mistake was not making a distinction between personal trust and business trust.
If UBP had other business, then JT really should have kept a separate set of books for it, or at least kept a separate accounting for it. The software he used (QuickBooks) is capable of separating the lines of business. If this was the case then that makes his salary even more necessary and reasonable, but then I wonder why he would turn over his complete accounting file.
I'm also not clear on how The Store's inventory was funded. Did the Foundation provide UBP the funds to purchase the items that were sold? Any insight on this?
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:43 pm
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen
JT was technically self-employed. He owned the company. Here in the US, if you own the company, the law does indeed allow you to set your own remuneration as long as it's "reasonable."klr wrote: That's the point. The law doesn't allow you to set your own remuneration, not unless you're self-employed. Whether you might "deserve" it or "need" it are also completely besides the point.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests