joshtimonen talks

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by charlou » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:49 am

BrettA wrote:Image
Nice. :tea:
no fences

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Hermit » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:50 am

BrettA wrote:Okee dokee - Don't derail this thread with comments on this modnote??? WTF? This is the first Modnote (yes, worthy of upper case!) I ever recall seeing on Ratz and we can't fucking acknowledge the (relatively?) unprecedented nature of it?
BrettA, you misunderstood the intent of the "modnote". Thinking Aloud's post was no more than a screencap taken from the RatSkep forum and pasted here for our amusement. What makes it even more obvious, is that Thinking Aloud is not a mod here.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by charlou » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:56 am

This forum rocks. 8-)
no fences

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Gallstones » Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:49 am

Anthroban wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Thinking Aloud wrote:Image
I especially loved that last bit. "No, you can't discuss modding decisions in public, we might be wrong and we can never, ever, allow that to become public knowledge."
I started adding the bit about not discussing moderation in the thread. People were always derailing to complain about moderation. Now they all add it. I must have been on to something.
That was you?! ;ob;

Then you are my sworn enemy! :devil:
Yeah, well, love-hate can be a good thing.

Hey, I started a meme. :smug:
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Tigger » Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:44 am

BrettA wrote:Okee dokee - Don't derail this thread with comments on this modnote??? WTF? This is the first Modnote (yes, worthy of upper case!) I ever recall seeing on Ratz and we can't fucking acknowledge the (relatively?) unprecedented nature of it? Hell, this is more comment-worthy that the ostensible raison d'etre of the whole thread... though I'll be interested to see how this all pans out and frankly, I'm kind'a sad to see the direction it's taken. Kind'a puts us (collectively) in the same camp/genre/mind-set/whatever as theists, it sees.

Anyway... this is a simple plea to be allowed - with no pressure to the contrary - to comment on whatever the fuck we think is worth a comment. /end rant. And to add some more OT stuff, I've been playing with Photoshop as a N00b, so I'm sharing (No NSFW content here, it's gettin' close ;-)...
Image
Just to reinforce: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 37#p645325
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Deep Sea Isopod
Bathynomus giganteus
Posts: 7806
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Gods blind spot.
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Deep Sea Isopod » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:54 am

Can anyone remember the "Leave Britney Alone" guy on Youtube? Maybe someone could make a parody "Leave Josh alone" video? :hehe:
I run with scissors. It makes me feel dangerous Image

Image

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by lordpasternack » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:00 pm

Charlou wrote:This forum rocks. 8-)
Yes indeed, it rocks my socks
From high-brow discusion, to stuff about cocks
And plenty of pretty pictures to get off your rocks
And when it's rockin', don't come knockin'!
:awesome:

Or something... :shifty:
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Ronja
Just Another Safety Nut
Posts: 10920
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:13 pm
About me: mother of 2 girls, married to fellow rat MiM, student (SW, HCI, ICT...) , self-employed editor/proofreader/translator
Location: Helsinki, Finland, EU
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Ronja » Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:16 pm

Deep Sea Isopod wrote:Can anyone remember the "Leave Britney Alone" guy on Youtube? Maybe someone could make a parody "Leave Josh alone" video? :hehe:
The cougar appears to have at least some of the necessary skills for creating videos... :whistle:
"The internet is made of people. People matter. This includes you. Stop trying to sell everything about yourself to everyone. Don’t just hammer away and repeat and talk at people—talk TO people. It’s organic. Make stuff for the internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important. Put up more cat pictures. Make more songs. Show your doodles. Give things away and take things that are free." - Maureen J

"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
BrettA
Master Muff and Lube Guru
Posts: 1887
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:16 am

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by BrettA » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:09 am

BrettA wrote:Okee dokee - Don't derail... <edit for brevity> ...to comment on whatever the fuck we think is worth a comment. /end rant. And to add some more OT stuff, I've been playing with Photoshop as a N00b, so I'm sharing (No NSFW content here, it's gettin' close ;-)...
Image
Well, shit! This must be the very first time - in my life - that I've ever misconstrued sumptin'! Oh well - glad you liked the pic at least, Charlou!
"It's just a fact: After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F!"

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Feck » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:11 am

I would love to see the pre photoshop pic :begging:
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
BrettA
Master Muff and Lube Guru
Posts: 1887
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:16 am

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by BrettA » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:43 am

Feck wrote:I would love to see the pre photoshop pic :begging:
Will a crop suffice (I tried to pick something that might be vaguely interesting)?
Image
Opinion: Best Ratz avatar evah, Bella! Are they - erm... - people we might know here?
"It's just a fact: After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F!"

User avatar
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: joshtimonen talks

Post by Bella Fortuna » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:41 am

Alas no - just one found on a website... though I wish I had one like that of me and someone. :eddy:
Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Image
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:03 pm

Anthroban wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Anthroban wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Use proper punctuation then.
:wtf: :lol: :lol:
This is your excuse for being called out on your dishonesty (only to do it again)? Are you here to discuss this or engage in some pathetic attempt at self-aggrandisement?

The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.
I haven't in the least been dishonest.
Really? Are you quite sure? We'll just see about that then. Right now it's off to work for me. :razzle:
Yes. I'm quite sure you haven't been, though.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:11 pm

Anthroban wrote:OK, I've visited the law dept. at work and brought down Black's Law Dictionary from the shelf (8th edition)

Proceeds: n 1. The value of land, goods, or investments when converted into money; the amount of money received from a sale<the proceeds are subject to attachment[bond]>. 2. Something received upon selling, or exchanging, collecting, or otherwise disposing of collateral.

Net proceeds. The amount received in a transaction minus the costs of transaction (such as expenses and comissions). - also termed net balance.

There is no ambiguity in law over what "proceeds" means. "Net proceeds" is seperately defined.

Also this:

Direct: adj. 1. (Of a thing) straight; undeviating <a direct line>. 2. (Of a thing or a person) straightforward <a direct manner> <direct instructions>. 3. Free from extraneous influence; immediate <direct injury>. 4. Of or relating to passing in a straight line of descent, as distinguished from a collateral line <a direct descendant><a direct ancestor>. 5. (Of a political action) effected by the public immediately, not through representatives <direct resolution><direct nomination>

This is not an argument, just noting some proper legal definitions for later use. ( I wish they'd let me take this dictionary home for the weekend :lol: )
Dude - the Complaint says what it says. Have you read it? They aren't claiming only "net proceeds."

Here is part of paragraph 30 and paragraph 31. Read the Complaint yourself so that you can know what you're talking about.
Defendants used RDFRS’s money (generated by The Store) to pay “salaries”
of at least $43,000 to Timonen and $168,509.08 to Norton – including an
astonishing $73,941.18 in 2009 alone.
d. Defendants paid another $103,000 to “CSL” (much of it denominated
“officer salaries” or “wages” in UBP’s QuickBooks records). Plaintiffs are
informed and believe and therefore allege that Timonen and Norton either
received these “CSL” funds directly, or personally benefitted from them.
e. Defendants paid an additional $29,045 to Graham Norton (Maureen Norton’s
teenage son), $300 to “Michelle Norton,” $350 to “Brittany Norton,”
$1,102.75 to Ohana Farms (a business Plaintiffs believe to be owned by
Maureen Norton’s parents) and $64.90 to “Pondbiz.”
31. In summary, over approximately 3.5 years of operating The Store, Defendants consumed
or expended at least $375,000 of the profits generated to personally benefit themselves
and their relatives. Meanwhile, they “contributed” only $30,000 from The Store’s net receipts to
RDFRS. Put another way, Defendants kept at least 92% of the positive cash flow generated by
The Store themselves and paid less than 8% to RDFRS.
So, what are you on about? RDF is claiming that the salaries to Timonen/Norton/Norton's son, and some other expenses, amounting to a total of $375,000 were improper and were embezzled, or taken in breach of contract, or taken in breach of a fiduciary duty, or fraudulently obtained.

The salary to Timonen was improper because RDF claims that "Timonen was already being adequately compensated and would not receive additional
compensation for operating The Store or developing any of the merchandise or marketing materials it used." paragraph 23.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:22 pm

hadespussercats wrote:
I've worked as an independent contractor for much of my working life, and I've never been able to simply say, "I'm taking x for this work" without working that out beforehand with the people I'm contracting for.
Of course. That's different. If you run ABC, Inc., and contract with Big Co. to do some contracting work, you - of course - have to negotiate the cost of the job with Big Co.

But, as an independent contractor, it is none of Big Co's business what you do with the revenues of ABC, Inc. You might work for many other companies besides Big Co., and earn $500,000 i revenues on the year - whether you take $100,000 in salary or $20,000 in salary is entirely up to you.
hadespussercats wrote:
Now you're trying to point out that JT can assign himself whatever salary he wants from his own corporation, which may be true
Not "may be true" - "is true."
hadespussercats wrote:
-- even though we don't know what sort of company JT owns-- an LLC, a sole proprietorship, etc., etc.
No - we do know - it's a corporation, UBP, Inc. A sole proprietorship is not a corporation, its an unincorporated business. An LLC is not a corporation, it's a limited liability company. The Complaint states explicitly that it is is a Corporation.
hadespussercats wrote:
My point is that the funds from the RDF online store were not from his own company--
If his company, UBP, Inc., owned the Store, then yes it was. That is, unless RDF is correct in stating that there was a verbal contract by with UBP would operate the business "for the benefit of RDF," in which case the Devil is in the details of that contract.
hadespussercats wrote:
his company was managing those funds,
That's what Dawkins alleges, pursuant to a verbal contract.
hadespussercats wrote:
amongst other management tasks. So assigning himself a salary, or simply taking funds, from the proceeds of the online store, was inappropriate and probably illegal.
It's possibly inappropriate - possibly a breach of contract.
hadespussercats wrote:
You're right that charitable organizations are allowed to pay their workers and cover other expenses, like independent contractors, before sending the rest off to directly charitable ends, but JT's company is not a charitable organization--
Yes, which means it is even freer in its business practices than a charitable organization. Regular C or S corporations can pay salaries as determined by management, subject to the board of directors and shareholders.
hadespussercats wrote:
it is a company working on behalf of a charitable organization, namely RDFRS. Therefore, it would be RDFRS's place to pay JT's company as agreed, or for JT to write off the time and resources invested in that charity on his taxes.
Doesn't that depend on the terms of the alleged "verbal agreement?"

hadespussercats wrote: EDITED TO ADD:
Some people have beat me to a few of these points-- sorry for the repetition.
Also, when I used the phrase "work for hire" in discussing the "A" logo, I should have pointed out that the phrase, in the design world, means the designer is relinquishing copyright claims to any work done on a particular project. As you say, people like Julie Taymour, and companies like Disney, use contracts which clarify these issues. Most intelligent people do.

Funny. I'd always considered Richard Dawkins intelligent.
Me too.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests