Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I do not share the Dawkins hate that some here seem to have, although it's nothing compared to Ratz... Jesus, I was just there and I'm remembering where all the "OMG they killed 'Off Topic' " people went. Now that was a hysterical overreaction if ever I saw one. Some of those people need to chill the fuck out and get a sense of proportion.

Might as well have a little dig while we're talking about the same thing...[/spoiler]

Ha ha!

487 posts about Josh drama on Ratz.

1720 posts about Josh drama on Ratskep.

Pots and kettles, eh?

3.531827515400411/1, not a bad ratio.

[Feck]

I do not share the Dawkins hate that some here seem to have, although it's nothing compared to Ratz... Jesus, I was just there and I'm remembering where all the "OMG they killed 'Off Topic' " people went. Now that was a hysterical overreaction if ever I saw one. Some of those people need to chill the fuck out and get a sense of proportion.

Might as well have a little dig while we're talking about the same thing...[/spoiler]

Ha ha!

487 posts about Josh drama on Ratz.

1720 posts about Josh drama on Ratskep.

But what about high-quality, rationally skeptical posts?

I don't remember us being foul- mouthed hysterical Ratz when all those 'nice' rational people needed somewhere to go .

[devogue]

I do not share the Dawkins hate that some here seem to have, although it's nothing compared to Ratz... Jesus, I was just there and I'm remembering where all the "OMG they killed 'Off Topic' " people went. Now that was a hysterical overreaction if ever I saw one. Some of those people need to chill the fuck out and get a sense of proportion.

Might as well have a little dig while we're talking about the same thing...[/spoiler]

Ha ha!

487 posts about Josh drama on Ratz.

1720 posts about Josh drama on Ratskep.

Pots and kettles, eh?

3.531827515400411/1, not a bad ratio.

Bible pi.

[Bella Fortuna]

Mmm.... bible pi....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

3.531827515400411/1, not a bad ratio.

Bible pi.

I'd call it a repeating decimal if I knew what "repeating" meant in this case.



And "decimal".

[Bella Fortuna]

3.531827515400411/1, not a bad ratio.

Bible pi.

I'd call it a repeating decimal if I knew what "repeating" meant in this case.



And "decimal".

Fucking maths - how does it work??

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fucking maths - how does it work??

From what I've read and understand, there are lines of farce that dissolve around Poles, like Pilsudski and that other one.

[Clinton Huxley]

Maths? Load of nonsense. We didn't use maths at Inkerman.

[Bella Fortuna]

Fucking maths - how does it work??

From what I've read and understand, there are lines of farce that dissolve around Poles, like Pilsudski and that other one.

Isn't there an ark in there somewhere?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
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)

Natural ... maybe. But without permission?

The thing is. Timonen owned 100% of UBP, which is the entity that owned and operated the Store - that is what RDF alleges in its complaint against Timonen.

So, the only person who needs to give permission in that case is Timonen. Like anyone who owns 100% of a business, they pay themselves what they pay themselves. What RDF is alleging here is that Timonen made a verbal contract to only operate the Store through UBP for the benefit of RDF, but we don't know exactly what RDF thinks that means, except that RDF has taken the position that whatever Timonen was required to do to operate the Store was to be at no additional compensation. There is nothing in writing to that effect.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maths? Load of nonsense. We didn't use maths at Inkerman.

We had wrestling maths in high school. I always got floor burns from them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fucking maths - how does it work??

From what I've read and understand, there are lines of farce that dissolve around Poles, like Pilsudski and that other one.

Isn't there an ark in there somewhere?

Ah, the ark furnace, used in the Bessemer Process to produce pig iron and pigs feet.

[Agi Hammerthief]

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.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
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)

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!

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.

I wasn't talking about the law there, just about the direction JT's train of thought might have been going there:

1) I get x amount for z work
2) z increases by y%
3) I pay myself, from the company I own, that runs The Shop, that causes y% increase of z, y% of x in wages

because no matter how big z actually is,
if y% "feels" more than what JT agreed with RD to do for no extra charge,
this "feeling" generates a sense of "I deserve this"

thus his as a reaction to the charges

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
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)

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!

Except.....Timonen was not RDF's employee.

1. He earned money from Dawkins and RDF for certain services as an "independent contractor." That's what RDF alleges in its complaint.
2. He ran the Store through UBP, a company that he owned 100%. There was no written contract between Timonen or UBP and RDF/Dawkins. It's generally not assumed that a separate corporation is controlled by a third party other than its shareholder(s). A corporation would not be an employee. And, it would stand to reason that if RDF/Dawkins were to retain control over UBP that they would do so in writing because otherwise all we see is a Timonen owned and controlled corporation operating an online store as if it owned the Store. The first time we see RDF/Dawkins making a fuss is when they "worked out their regulatory issues" and could now run the Store as part of their charitable enterprise, whereas before they could not.

[devogue]

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.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
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)

Natural ... maybe. But without permission?

The thing is. Timonen owned 100% of UBP, which is the entity that owned and operated the Store - that is what RDF alleges in its complaint against Timonen.

So, the only person who needs to give permission in that case is Timonen. Like anyone who owns 100% of a business, they pay themselves what they pay themselves. What RDF is alleging here is that Timonen made a verbal contract to only operate the Store through UBP for the benefit of RDF, but we don't know exactly what RDF thinks that means, except that RDF has taken the position that whatever Timonen was required to do to operate the Store was to be at no additional compensation. There is nothing in writing to that effect.

I don't know about the US, but in the UK verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on.