Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Ronja]

And some of the threads even now are of that calibre. It's pretty much the status quo, only shitter than it used to be. Marginally better in some areas, but overall, shitter.

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. Only RDFRS approved.

Can we start alluding to Animal Farm and other Orwell hits, yet?

Submit your allusion applications in triplicate to klr - he has lots of experience in bureaucracy...

[Ayaan]

You worked on the old forum, you have some axes to grind, and camel toes are a real sticking point for you.

It was an interesting conference call explaining what a camel toe was

There were other threads discussed, I think there was a sense of embarrassment because of threads like "What music should I listen to as an atheist" type threads.

Then why the fuck wasn't this raised with forum staff, at any point? Not even a gentle nudge?

And some of the threads even now are of that calibre. It's pretty much the status quo, only shitter than it used to be. Marginally better in some areas, but overall, shitter.

As a former staff member, I was wondering the same thing myself. RD had access to the mods' forum, he had email addresses for most of us, and the phone numbers for some of us - he and Topsy talked on the phone a number of times. Towards the end the only person we heard from was Josh with promises of a shiny new 'discussion area' and admonishments not to bother RD about any of the changes.

Just a couple thoughts:

You aren't going to find many Dawkins alcolytes on this site. Though many of us met through RDF, few are devotees of the man himself although a good percentage of us respect his scientific work and writings.

That being said, I am not sure that the animosity towards Josh is completely deserved, though I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth. What I do know is he was the face and the voice of what happened during the fall-out and certainly seemed to be the one calling the shots as far as the timing and specific technical decisions during the blow-up. You won't find many people here who disagree with the idea that the foundation had every right to decide what content they wanted to include on their site, even if we personally have different ideas and viewpoints on it. What caused the problem was not the shutting down of the site, but the immediate and incompetent way it was done which seemed to have a goal of cutting off any kind of communication between members of the community and blaming them completely for how and why it was done. Essentially,"Thanks for your years of helping build up this community, but you've embarrassed Richard, now fuck off and shut up".

If I rationally think about it I can even understand why signatures would be disabled, but what in the world would be the point of disabling PMs or deleting accounts and all their posts with them? It seemed that many of the decisions were being made out of spite because of the angry response and it just escalated from there especially because of the misrepresentation of events that continued to be broadcast. Many/most assumed that Josh was the one giving Richard the information that led to things like his little scolding letter.

I think you'll find most people on THIS site really just don't give a shit what happens in the case because there isn't a heck of a lot of love left for either party

Every word of it.

[charlou]

You worked on the old forum, you have some axes to grind, and camel toes are a real sticking point for you.

It was an interesting conference call explaining what a camel toe was

There were other threads discussed, I think there was a sense of embarrassment because of threads like "What music should I listen to as an atheist" type threads.

Then why the fuck wasn't this raised with forum staff, at any point? Not even a gentle nudge?

And some of the threads even now are of that calibre. It's pretty much the status quo, only shitter than it used to be. Marginally better in some areas, but overall, shitter.

As a former staff member, I was wondering the same thing myself. RD had access to the mods' forum, he had email addresses for most of us, and the phone numbers for some of us - he and Topsy talked on the phone a number of times. Towards the end the only person we heard from was Josh with promises of a shiny new 'discussion area' and admonishments not to bother RD about any of the changes.

Just a couple thoughts:

You aren't going to find many Dawkins alcolytes on this site. Though many of us met through RDF, few are devotees of the man himself although a good percentage of us respect his scientific work and writings.

That being said, I am not sure that the animosity towards Josh is completely deserved, though I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth. What I do know is he was the face and the voice of what happened during the fall-out and certainly seemed to be the one calling the shots as far as the timing and specific technical decisions during the blow-up. You won't find many people here who disagree with the idea that the foundation had every right to decide what content they wanted to include on their site, even if we personally have different ideas and viewpoints on it. What caused the problem was not the shutting down of the site, but the immediate and incompetent way it was done which seemed to have a goal of cutting off any kind of communication between members of the community and blaming them completely for how and why it was done. Essentially,"Thanks for your years of helping build up this community, but you've embarrassed Richard, now fuck off and shut up".

If I rationally think about it I can even understand why signatures would be disabled, but what in the world would be the point of disabling PMs or deleting accounts and all their posts with them? It seemed that many of the decisions were being made out of spite because of the angry response and it just escalated from there especially because of the misrepresentation of events that continued to be broadcast. Many/most assumed that Josh was the one giving Richard the information that led to things like his little scolding letter.

I think you'll find most people on THIS site really just don't give a shit what happens in the case because there isn't a heck of a lot of love left for either party

Every word of it.

Like RobertS's use of 'vast majority', I object to the use of 'many of us' and 'few of us' ... As ever, I ask that people just speak for themselves. Cheers.

[charlou]

Very interesting. The plot definitely thickens.

BTW - be careful of what you post - the current UK libel laws are pretty draconian, and in principle global (if the "injured" party has a "credible" connection to the UK, or legalese to that effect).

It was just a couple of felching ads

.

Charlou - my comment was for Andrew (chalkers).

Yikes, a narrow escape.

[rachelbean]

I chose my wording purposefully knowing there are people who would not want to be included, but speaking for myself includes what I have heard and observed and I think my statements are reasonable. Of course it's my personal opinion and observations, I don't think anybody would mistake me for a mouthpiece and clearly anybody is free to object to any of my thoughts.

[Pappa]

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.

Incidentally - if Richard really did say this, then he is more gobsmackingly naive than I'd feared. What. The. Fuck?

That read a lot more like sarcasm than naivety to me.

[Ayaan]

... As ever, I ask that people just speak for themselves. Cheers.

Maybe if I wasn't running late to work due to car problems.

[Ronja]

Charlou, Rachel wrote "many of us met through RDF". AFAIK, that is a fact. I know I have seen posts by at least 20 different current or historic ratz on RDF (cautious estimate), and 20 does amply qualify as "many".

I respect your aversion for being included into a group that you have not selected yourself, your aversion for being spoken "for" and your right to protest if such inclusion or speaking "for" happens, but not all statements that contain the word "many" and/or "us" are statements of such inclusion or speaking "for" others.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Charlou, Rachel wrote "many of us met through RDF". AFAIK, that is a fact. I know I have seen posts by at least 20 different current or historic ratz on RDF (cautious estimate), and 20 does amply qualify as "many".

I respect your aversion for being included into a group that you have not selected yourself, your aversion for being spoken "for" and your right to protest if such inclusion or speaking "for" happens, but not all statements that contain the word "many" and/or "us" are statements of such inclusion or speaking "for" others.

Most of us agree with this but we all share Charlou's concerns.

[charlou]

Very interesting. The plot definitely thickens.

BTW - be careful of what you post - the current UK libel laws are pretty draconian, and in principle global (if the "injured" party has a "credible" connection to the UK, or legalese to that effect).

It was just a couple of felching ads

.

Charlou - my comment was for Andrew (chalkers).

Yikes, a narrow escape.

This was sarcasm, Ronja. I'm holding my tongue in response to your latest helpful post.

[charlou]

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.

Incidentally - if Richard really did say this, then he is more gobsmackingly naive than I'd feared. What. The. Fuck?

That read a lot more like sarcasm than naivety to me.

That would certainly be his style.

[lordpasternack]

If it was sarcasm, or any other kind of irony, then it flew way over my head...

Incidentally, today when I went to the chemist to buy two 12-packs of condoms and a good sized bottle of lube, the lady at the counter started going through a rote-learned sales pitch as she rung my order through, of telling me there was a £5 off voucher for facials included with my receipt. She at least had the presence of mind to stammer awkwardly and try to rephrase that as she handed my goods over to me... I just wish I had the presence of mind to tell her thanks, but I can get them for free, and I prefer pearl necklaces, anyway...

Sorry, I just thought that might go down well with the talk of how all that talk of camel toe is jeopardising the PR of the cause of rationalism, and just thought I'd say it because I can - because this is Rationalia. Fuck yeah.

[charlou]

[Geoff]

If it was sarcasm, or any other kind of irony, then it flew way over my head...

Incidentally, today when I went to the chemist to buy two 12-packs of condoms and a good sized bottle of lube, the lady at the counter started going through a rote-learned sales pitch as she rung my order through, of telling me there was a £5 off voucher for facials included with my receipt. She at least had the presence of mind to stammer awkwardly and try to rephrase that as she handed my goods over to me... I just wish I had the presence of mind to tell her thanks, but I can get them for free, and I prefer pearl necklaces, anyway...

Sorry, I just thought that might go down well with the talk of how all that talk of camel toe is jeopardising the PR of the cause of rationalism, and just thought I'd say it because I can - because this is Rationalia. Fuck yeah.

And the prize for the best post in 48 pages of the thread goes to lp!

[Gallstones]

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?

Oh geezusfuckingchrist, do you not recognize how and you sound?