joshtimonen talks

[charlou]

Nice.

[Hermit]

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.

[charlou]

This forum rocks.

[Gallstones]

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?!

Then you are my sworn enemy!

Yeah, well, love-hate can be a good thing.

Hey, I started a meme.

[Tigger]

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 ;-)...

Just to reinforce: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 37#p645325

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Can anyone remember the "Leave Britney Alone" guy on Youtube? Maybe someone could make a parody "Leave Josh alone" video?

[lordpasternack]

This forum rocks.

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'!

Or something...

[Ronja]

Can anyone remember the "Leave Britney Alone" guy on Youtube? Maybe someone could make a parody "Leave Josh alone" video?

The cougar appears to have at least some of the necessary skills for creating videos...

[BrettA]

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 ;-)...

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!

[Feck]

I would love to see the pre photoshop pic

[BrettA]

I would love to see the pre photoshop pic

Will a crop suffice (I tried to pick something that might be vaguely interesting)?

Opinion: Best Ratz avatar evah, Bella! Are they - erm... - people we might know here?

[Bella Fortuna]

Alas no - just one found on a website... though I wish I had one like that of me and someone.

[Coito ergo sum]

Use proper punctuation then.

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.

Yes. I'm quite sure you haven't been, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

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 )

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]

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.

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."

-- 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.

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.

his company was managing those funds,

That's what Dawkins alleges, pursuant to a verbal contract.

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.

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.

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?"

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.