Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Pappa]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

Actually Josh, I think it fair to say the majority of us are not interested in reading your comments at all.

[Callan]

Shouldn't this be in "Most Mediocre Announcements"?

[leo-rcc]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

Actually Josh, I think it fair to say the majority of us are not interested in reading your comments at all.

Probably, but if posting stuff that most of us have no interest in is deterred we could do with a less powerful server than we have now.

I for one think that if no one wants to read Josh' posts it might be better for them to click on any of the other 1000's of topics found on this forum.

[Pappa]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

Actually Josh, I think it fair to say the majority of us are not interested in reading your comments at all.

Probably, but if posting stuff that most of us have no interest in is deterred we could do with a less powerful server than we have now.

I for one think that if no one wants to read Josh' posts it might be better for them to click on any of the other 1000's of topics found on this forum.

But how else am I to maintain my artificially high post count?

[Thinking Aloud]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

Actually Josh, I think it fair to say the majority of us are not interested in reading your comments at all.

Probably, but if posting stuff that most of us have no interest in is deterred we could do with a less powerful server than we have now.

I for one think that if no one wants to read Josh' posts it might be better for them to click on any of the other 1000's of topics found on this forum.

Come on guys - this is the most exciting thing that's happened since yesterday. And who knows who else might post any second now.

[leo-rcc]

But how else am I to maintain my artificially high post count?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =2&t=14114

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

Actually Josh, I think it fair to say the majority of us are not interested in reading your comments at all.

Probably, but if posting stuff that most of us have no interest in is deterred we could do with a less powerful server than we have now.

I for one think that if no one wants to read Josh' posts it might be better for them to click on any of the other 1000's of topics found on this forum.

Come on guys - this is the most exciting thing that's happened since yesterday. And who knows who else might post any second now.

Hello!

[Pappa]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

Actually Josh, I think it fair to say the majority of us are not interested in reading your comments at all.

Probably, but if posting stuff that most of us have no interest in is deterred we could do with a less powerful server than we have now.

I for one think that if no one wants to read Josh' posts it might be better for them to click on any of the other 1000's of topics found on this forum.

Come on guys - this is the most exciting thing that's happened since yesterday. And who knows who else might post any second now.

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

[Pappa]

But how else am I to maintain my artificially high post count?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =2&t=14114

Well yeah.... there is that.

[Cormac]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

Actually Josh, I think it fair to say the majority of us are not interested in reading your comments at all.

Probably, but if posting stuff that most of us have no interest in is deterred we could do with a less powerful server than we have now.

I for one think that if no one wants to read Josh' posts it might be better for them to click on any of the other 1000's of topics found on this forum.

Come on guys - this is the most exciting thing that's happened since yesterday. And who knows who else might post any second now.

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Shhh. I asked you to keep it a secret!

[Thinking Aloud]

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

I know - "feck" is such a giveaway too.

[Pappa]

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Shhh. I asked you to keep it a secret!

Sorry Prof.

[Cormac]

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Shhh. I asked you to keep it a secret!

Sorry Prof.

... dammit Pappa!

[Pappa]

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Shhh. I asked you to keep it a secret!

Sorry Prof.

... dammit Pappa!

Oh fuck... sorry Rich... Cormac.

[chalkers]

Josh, why are you even bothering here?

What good will do you think you can possibly gain? Seriously!

Since Josh didn't create this thread, the thread is "Dawkins sues Josh Timonen" and Josh is being talked about I think it's fair that he does comment, on this thread, posting updates on the case in which "Dawkins sues Josh Timonen". I don't think he get's any thing from this personally, it's clear you guys have an irrational hate of him. Maybe he's naive in thinking people give a shit about the truth and evidence.

I don't know that anyone cares much about the legal whatsits concerning the case except as an exercise in schadenfreude and speculation, if anyone's not bored of that yet. You could start by morally justifying the amount of money you got from the store as a legitimate and reasonable compensation.

How about the agreement that Dawkins had with Josh? Do you care about that? That's the thing in dispute here.

You could also apologize to all those who were summarily booted off the RDF forum.

Jesus H Christ...

...and the rickrolling, the slowing down of PMs to a crawl, the deception that led to that one post by Richard, your disrespect for the volunteer efforts of the moderators, the deletion of whole accounts...

Not wanting to derail this thread...

Please accept my deepest apologies for rickrolling a curl command line client, or more specifically inorganic traffic. That was me not Josh. Josh didn't tell me to do it either. Shock horror! Neither Josh or I were the sole source of the "disrespect for the volunteer efforts of the moderators, the deletion of whole accounts"...If people wanted to "volunteer" for Richard's PERSONAL website that's fine, but they weren't doing it for a "cause" they were doing it for Richard. If someone wanted to moderate a Z-list celeb forum believing it was for cause of reason and science and not being taken for a ride that's their prerogative! If they have any misunderstandings about that all they needed to do was look at the banner at the top of the website - it's still there on http://forum.richarddawkins.net.

Any how Richard issued the apology, taking PERSONAL responsibility for the whole team, since it was his PERSONAL website at the time, where the forum resided. There was no apology on the then Foundation site.

Just a tad more background; the idea of the closure was that RichardDawkins.net was going to transition to RDFRS's US site. The ideas of having "camel toe" threads wasn't palatable to Foundation management. So the forum in it's current state had to go before the transition.

I think we all need to remember we don't really know the full facts behind every story. And Robert_S, I think you'll have to be content that you don't know the full facts behind the whole forum thing, and that you may never will. Before you start demanding apologies or "moral justifications" I would please ask you to refrain until you are justified in making such demands.

It seems that you've made the error, that others have done, attributing actions to Josh, that he didn't do. You've probably listened to the first bit of information and accepted it as gospel. Don't worry a lot of the human race does this, you're not alone.

Most of the skeptical or rational community didn't act very skeptical or rational upon the filing of this suit. Which is hilarious. If this whole forum fallout and this law suit has taught me is that the problem isn't religion, it's the human mind.

When I resigned, due to more history re-writing at the time, Richard said this:

Andrew, lawsuits are designed to get to the bottom of cases like this. Why not wait till the Judge gives his verdict? If he decides in favour of Josh, of course I will apologise profusely and try to make everything better. If he decides against Josh, well, then you should make your decision on what to do. But please don't prejudge the issue. You don't have to wait long. I believe the case is coming up during November.

He doesn't sound too confident with the statement "If he decides in favour of Josh", he did say the evidence was "compelling" but really? Where is it?

Considering Richard hasn't produced the documents to back up his changing story, alleging that these important documents are lost forever because his Uni account has been closed and Robin Cornwell's hard drive crashed, when they all use several IMAP and Webmail accounts, it doesn't look good. The judge has thrown out the criminal charges due to no supporting evidence being presented. Claims require evidence.

If Richard had any ounce of integrity he would do what he said and apologise and try and make everything better.

All your questions may not be answered now but it looks like things are going to get more interesting and will all come out in due time. But once again I suspect we all need to reserve judgement in all of this until the evidence is presented.

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Is it Roger Derwen?