RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Svartalf]

IIUC, this is in the guest viewable section. Staff would know better, of course.

[kiki5711]

JayG - I have asked Richard Dawkins and his colleague Paula Kirby, who claims to run the UK side of RDFRS, simply to explain what RDFRS does - with reference to the Mission Statement, if they could provide this. I first made this enquiry on the 1st of November. Richard Dawkins has absolutely been made aware of this. I have told them very unambiguously that I plan on complaining to the Charity Commission and generally tarnishing their image if they can't or won't respond to this most basic query. I banged doors, fired warning shots, and loudly stated how I would escalate things. AND I HAVE STILL HAD NO RESPONSE, SIX WEEKS LATER.

Does that smell right, to you?

Since you asked me, I'll say that it smells exactly as I would expect it to smell.

CAn you explain Jay? How "would" you expect it to smell? Are you in agreement with LP or somthing else?

[Jay G]

JayG - I have asked Richard Dawkins and his colleague Paula Kirby, who claims to run the UK side of RDFRS, simply to explain what RDFRS does - with reference to the Mission Statement, if they could provide this. I first made this enquiry on the 1st of November. Richard Dawkins has absolutely been made aware of this. I have told them very unambiguously that I plan on complaining to the Charity Commission and generally tarnishing their image if they can't or won't respond to this most basic query. I banged doors, fired warning shots, and loudly stated how I would escalate things. AND I HAVE STILL HAD NO RESPONSE, SIX WEEKS LATER.

Does that smell right, to you?

Since you asked me, I'll say that it smells exactly as I would expect it to smell.

CAn you explain Jay? How "would" you expect it to smell? Are you in agreement with LP or somthing else?

I'm saying that if I ran an organization and somebody asked me to explain what I was doing with the implication that he is going to make my life as miserable as possible, I would not respond.

[kiki5711]

JayG - I have asked Richard Dawkins and his colleague Paula Kirby, who claims to run the UK side of RDFRS, simply to explain what RDFRS does - with reference to the Mission Statement, if they could provide this. I first made this enquiry on the 1st of November. Richard Dawkins has absolutely been made aware of this. I have told them very unambiguously that I plan on complaining to the Charity Commission and generally tarnishing their image if they can't or won't respond to this most basic query. I banged doors, fired warning shots, and loudly stated how I would escalate things. AND I HAVE STILL HAD NO RESPONSE, SIX WEEKS LATER.

Does that smell right, to you?

Since you asked me, I'll say that it smells exactly as I would expect it to smell.

CAn you explain Jay? How "would" you expect it to smell? Are you in agreement with LP or somthing else?

I'm saying that if I ran an organization and somebody asked me to explain what I was doing with the implication that he is going to make my life as miserable as possible, I would not respond.

So what you're saying is if you were Richard, you would not respond to LP's accusations and threats? Or do you mean something else?

[Jay G]

JayG - I have asked Richard Dawkins and his colleague Paula Kirby, who claims to run the UK side of RDFRS, simply to explain what RDFRS does - with reference to the Mission Statement, if they could provide this. I first made this enquiry on the 1st of November. Richard Dawkins has absolutely been made aware of this. I have told them very unambiguously that I plan on complaining to the Charity Commission and generally tarnishing their image if they can't or won't respond to this most basic query. I banged doors, fired warning shots, and loudly stated how I would escalate things. AND I HAVE STILL HAD NO RESPONSE, SIX WEEKS LATER.

Does that smell right, to you?

Since you asked me, I'll say that it smells exactly as I would expect it to smell.

CAn you explain Jay? How "would" you expect it to smell? Are you in agreement with LP or somthing else?

I'm saying that if I ran an organization and somebody asked me to explain what I was doing with the implication that he is going to make my life as miserable as possible, I would not respond.

So what you're saying is if you were Richard, you would not respond to LP's accusations and threats? Or do you mean something else?

I would not respond to LP's accusations and threats. If I had nothing to hide, then I would feel that it's a waste of time. If I HAD something to hide, I'd be on the phone to my attorney.

[lordpasternack]

7th of November:



11th of November:



13th of November:



15th of November:



17th of November:



18th of November:



25th of November:



FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

[lordpasternack]

I would not respond to LP's accusations and threats. If I had nothing to hide, then I would feel that it's a waste of time. If I HAD something to hide, I'd be on the phone to my attorney.

JayG - charities have a professional duty to be transparent about what they do. I did not ask for a free pony. I asked them, politely, what they do. They not only should have nothing to hide - they should be glad to BRAG to us about what they are doing. It is their professional duty as a charity, and its in their best interests, AND it's courteous and decent - AND IT IS WHAT YOU'D EXPECT FROM A CHARITY CHAMPIONING, CRITICAL THINKING, SCIENTIFIC THINKING AND EVIDENCE-BASED UNDERSTANING.

If you run a charity devoted to evidence-based understanding, and you have to speak to a lawyer when someone requests evidence that you are living up to that noble mission - then you should be aware that something's seriously, seriously amiss.

And could you outline my 'threats and accusations'?

[Jay G]

7th of November:



11th of November:



13th of November:



15th of November:



17th of November:



18th of November:



25th of November:



FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Reminds me of "Play Misty for me"

[lordpasternack]

JayG - I simply asked them what they fucking do. I 'asked for evidence'. They shouldn't be so coy. They shouldn't need to lawyer up. I hope you're only pretending to be so dense.

[Jay G]

JayG - I simply asked them what they fucking do. I 'asked for evidence'. They shouldn't be so coy. They shouldn't need to lawyer up. I hope you're only pretending to be so dense.

Could this kind of density be an act?

[hadespussercats]

Another thing that I want to add, purely by the way, is that Andrew told me that while he was working for Richard/RDFRS - Richard encouraged him to charge his me.com account (an Apple thing) through RDFRS, as their expense. And I'm sorry, but that's not 'generous' - it's disingenuous and a few shades too nepotistic to be respected. What self-respecting charity tells its workers: "Please do charge your various utility bills as expenses to the charity's accounts"?

It only strengthens the view I already had of RDFRS as being more of a tightly reserved nepotistic circlejerk than anything else. And also makes me doubt the strength of Richard's case against Josh - since there's a good chance that he really did make such similarly 'generous' offers to Josh, which he'd forgotten the details of.

I think it's reasonable to expect transparency from a charitable organization-- just putting that bit out front.

But there are instances where having your work pay for services you need to do that work is appropriate. For instance, if you need to work with certain software, it's not unreasonable to have your employers pay for licensing. Or employers might pay or subsidize phone/cable/etc. service for someone working at home, or pay for a cell phone if the work requires contact while an employee is out and about. Sometimes work might even pay for transit cards or subsidize gas/other automotive expenses.

So I'm not sure I'm seeing the disingenuousness or nepotism here.

[kiki5711]

RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.

It tells you right on the front page what their mission statement is. What other explanation do you want.

[Jay G]

RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.

It tells you right on the front page what their mission statement is. What other explanation do you want.

I think he wants an explanation of what they are actually doing to promote their mission.

[kiki5711]

they're putting out books, connecting with other like minded men and women, having speaches, networking globally. etc....etc...

the only thing they don't have is the 'FORUM" like we had before and I think that's part of the resentment.

[Jay G]

they're putting out books, connecting with other like minded men and women, having speaches, networking globally. etc....etc...

the only thing they don't have is the 'FORUM" like we had before and I think that's part of the resentment.

I'm still upset over the loss of the chat room.