RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Rum]

I think you should relax a little.

..and don't tell me off for suggesting it!

[lordpasternack]

I think you should relax a little.

..and don't tell me off for suggesting it!

Don't tell me not to tell you off!





Sorry - I was getting more riled by the people trying to tell me that it's trivial if you press a charity for six weeks - a charity devoted to evidence-based understanding, no less - and get no adequate professional response at all, but do get a little ladling of spite for good measure.

[Rum]

I've hired a room! See you there in half an hour...

I do understand but at the end of the day your own equilibrium is more important than your sense of injustice and frustration.

[chalkers]

[sarcasm]I'm very excited about the changes in 2012. It's going to be a great year for evidence based roller coaster rides.[/sarcasm]

[lordpasternack]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6441 ... ent_899309

You hear that, RDFRS - just stop being so damned modest! There's just no need to be so coy when someone asks you to explain what you've been doing. You really don't have to be so humble that you hold back from bragging so much for six damn weeks, you know.

[chalkers]

I was comment #1 on that thread.

Comment 1 by chalkers

Has Mike Cornwell left now?

What happened to Todd Stiefel and Greg Langer?

Quote Permalink Wednesday, 07 December 2011 at 10:01 PM | #896595

I wonder why they would delete this? Perfectly normal questions.

[lordpasternack]

It is arguably off-topic for the thread in question.

[chalkers]

It is arguably off-topic for the thread in question.

According to "moderator", maybe.

I thought since Mike did a lot of work before, seems odd not mentioning him by name.

Since they were introducing new and existing trustees I thought they would thank the outgoing ones?

[Gallstones]

[sarcasm]I'm very excited about the changes in 2012. It's going to be a great year for evidence based roller coaster rides.[/sarcasm]

No one has to climb aboard.
As long as idealism holds sway over reason, there will be roller coaster rides.

RDF is dead. Died a couple years ago.
If I was to bet money, my bet would be on it being a memory and staying dead.

[lordpasternack]

It's not idealism - it's 'image'. They have to protect their image more than they have to hold themselves to account, or let themselves be held to account. They must cover their arses more than be honest and take ownership of the problem. You can't ask inconvenient questions that might damage PR. Whistleblowers are shamelessly spited. It's a bit like Catholicism.

Supporting critical thinking my arse. Love of truth my arse. Every single one of the rest of their aims that they can't substantiate - my arse.

[Robert_S]

[sarcasm]I'm very excited about the changes in 2012. It's going to be a great year for evidence based roller coaster rides.[/sarcasm]

No one has to climb aboard.
As long as idealism holds sway over reason, there will be roller coaster rides.

RDF is dead. Died a couple years ago.
If I was to bet money, my bet would be on it being a memory and staying dead.

If the donations dwindle to a trickle and the torch is picked up by some other organisation/s then perhaps it would be best for all to learn their lessons and move on.

Is it merely egos at stake here, or is there more to it?

[charlou]

Heather, you seem to have valid concerns*, but you need to take a step back from the emotional approach. Seriously, it's not constructive, nor is it getting you anywhere in gaining the information you seek.


*I certainly agree with Jan's point about the RDFRS needing to be more forthcoming with information about what they're doing with donated funding.

[lordpasternack]

I asked them what they do, Charlou. It's not a complicated question. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth. I started off politely. They have failed to even directly acknowledge the query in over six weeks - in spite of the fact that I pointed out that they have a professional duty as a charity to do so. I told them politely but firmly right at the outset that I hoped for a satisfactory response, and if I didn't get one, I'd be escalating the complaint. This isn't even just about what they do anymore - but their incompetent bungling of dealing with this query, right from the start - on top of everything else. Saying that I have 'valid concerns' is just a gross understatement. It's perfectly level-headed to say that this situation smells rank on their end.

They are normally so fretful of threats to their Foundation - they should have jumped the very minute I brought the Charity Commission up. They should have been eager to allay my doubts, and stop me fomenting more doubt and suspicion about them. If me getting 'emotional' is making them hold back from responding to the query of what it is that they DO, then I STILL have valid concerns. As I said, people naturally get angry if they feel their complaints are being purposely ignored and inadequately responded to. They should know that. Richard himself would get miffed in the same circumstances. I could bet on it.

[JimC]

I would bet that, in their version of "mod chat", they are saying things like

"shit, it's that woman again!"

"why doesn't she just fuck off!"

"if we ignore her long enough, maybe she'll just go away"

[Hermit]

I started off politely.

Maybe my memory is unreliable, but if it is not, your very first request for information included a threat. While it is reasonable to plan an escalation if such information is not forthcoming within a generously specified span of time, it is not a good idea to announce such an intention right at the outset. I am not surprised that Dawkins and company are digging their heels in straight away.

That said, I hope you succeed in forcing the RDFRS to make the kind of public disclosures they have so far resisted in providing and which ought to be mandatory if they are not already. At this stage the foundation seems to me very similar to another institution - the catholic church - in so far it keeps stonewalling 'attacks' that amount to no more than demands that information is made available which would enable the public to examine if the charities are run properly and above board, that is to say, that the donors' money is spent appropriately and with a modicum of efficiency. Looking at what little information is available at this point, no such determination can be made.