joshtimonen talks

[Bella Fortuna]

joshtimonen
Forum Member

Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:16 am
Age: 29

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:16 pm
Last visited: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:26 am

[Don't Panic]

joshtimonen
Forum Member

Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:16 am
Age: 29

Holy Fuck, Timonen is only the same age as me.

[Mysturji]

[Blondie]

Use proper punctuation then.

This is your excuse for being called out on your dishonesty (only to do it again)? Are you here to discuss this or engage in some pathetic attempt at self-aggrandisement?

The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.

[Coito ergo sum]

Use proper punctuation then.

This is your excuse for being called out on your dishonesty (only to do it again)? Are you here to discuss this or engage in some pathetic attempt at self-aggrandisement?

The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.

I haven't in the least been dishonest.

I have discussed it and corrected your mistakes. Please see my last post, or do I need to repost it.

The rest of my post doesn't merit a response?

Oh, you mean the part where you argued that a charitable organization isn't a business, and I pointed out (correctly) that it is, in fact, a business? A 501(c)(3) organization, formed as a corporation, and engaging in business, albeit "not for profit."

Or, is it the part where you claimed that there were "criminal charges" of fraud at issue here, when there are no criminal charges involved? This is a civil action.

Or, is it the part where you claimed that RDF was only after "net proceeds" (not including salaries paid to employees) when in fact the Complaint says exactly opposite? See paragraph 30 which itemizes the $375,000 claimed, most of which is salaries and the rest are business expenses that RDF claims are improper.

I'm happy to discuss any point you like about this case, and will do so in a civil tone. Don't get upset. Just identify an issue you want to discuss, tell me your position on it and if I differ I'll explain why. Maybe we agree on more than we disagree on, and maybe one or the other of us, or both, will have good points to share.

[Blondie]

Use proper punctuation then.

This is your excuse for being called out on your dishonesty (only to do it again)? Are you here to discuss this or engage in some pathetic attempt at self-aggrandisement?

The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.

I haven't in the least been dishonest.

Really? Are you quite sure? We'll just see about that then. Right now it's off to work for me.

[Blondie]

OK, I've visited the law dept. at work and brought down Black's Law Dictionary from the shelf (8th edition)

Proceeds: n 1. The value of land, goods, or investments when converted into money; the amount of money received from a sale<the proceeds are subject to attachment[bond]>. 2. Something received upon selling, or exchanging, collecting, or otherwise disposing of collateral.

Net proceeds. The amount received in a transaction minus the costs of transaction (such as expenses and comissions). - also termed net balance.

There is no ambiguity in law over what "proceeds" means. "Net proceeds" is seperately defined.

Also this:

Direct: adj. 1. (Of a thing) straight; undeviating <a direct line>. 2. (Of a thing or a person) straightforward <a direct manner> <direct instructions>. 3. Free from extraneous influence; immediate <direct injury>. 4. Of or relating to passing in a straight line of descent, as distinguished from a collateral line <a direct descendant><a direct ancestor>. 5. (Of a political action) effected by the public immediately, not through representatives <direct resolution><direct nomination>

This is not an argument, just noting some proper legal definitions for later use. ( I wish they'd let me take this dictionary home for the weekend )

[hadespussercats]

I'm not, but when I agree to work for a certain amount, I understand that that's the amount I'm going to get when the work is done-- even if I made a mistake and underbid.

We don't know what Josh agreed to. All we know is what the plaintiff's lawsuit alleges he agreed to.

Bella's version may be more accurate:

How did Dawkins meet Timonen?

They were having lunch together at a diner and Josh faked an orgasm, and the guy at the next table said "I'll have what he's having..."

I Like Bella's version. Still, as you point out, we don't know what JT agreed to-- because he was an independent contractor without a contract. Which is a stupid thing to be, unless you think it allows you free rein to determine your own compensation without discussing it with the people you're doing work for.

An independent contractor can always determine his own income from his own corporation. If the company makes $100,000, and the owner wants to pay himself $90,000 in salaries and dividends, then that's his prerogative, normally. The internal workings of company X is nobody's business but the shareholder's of company X, generally speaking.

The Complaint filed by RDF alleges, specifically, that Timonen is 100% owner of UBP, Inc. So, normally, it would be none of RDF's business what the internal workings of independent contractor UBP, Inc., including but not limited to the salaries paid by it. It would ONLY be RDF's business if UBP made some sort of binding commitment in that regard - hence the oral contract. RDF has to prove that Timonen agreed not to take a salary from UBP, or that Timonen agreed to run UBP for the benefit of RDF and that the salaries and expenses incurred were unreasonable or improper.

I've worked as an independent contractor for much of my working life, and I've never been able to simply say, "I'm taking x for this work" without working that out beforehand with the people I'm contracting for. Now you're trying to point out that JT can assign himself whatever salary he wants from his own corporation, which may be true-- even though we don't know what sort of company JT owns-- an LLC, a sole proprietorship, etc., etc.

My point is that the funds from the RDF online store were not from his own company-- his company was managing those funds, amongst other management tasks. So assigning himself a salary, or simply taking funds, from the proceeds of the online store, was inappropriate and probably illegal.

You're right that charitable organizations are allowed to pay their workers and cover other expenses, like independent contractors, before sending the rest off to directly charitable ends, but JT's company is not a charitable organization-- it is a company working on behalf of a charitable organization, namely RDFRS. Therefore, it would be RDFRS's place to pay JT's company as agreed, or for JT to write off the time and resources invested in that charity on his taxes.

EDITED TO ADD:
Some people have beat me to a few of these points-- sorry for the repetition.
Also, when I used the phrase "work for hire" in discussing the "A" logo, I should have pointed out that the phrase, in the design world, means the designer is relinquishing copyright claims to any work done on a particular project. As you say, people like Julie Taymour, and companies like Disney, use contracts which clarify these issues. Most intelligent people do.

Funny. I'd always considered Richard Dawkins intelligent.

[Gallstones]

The staff are considering locking this post for review.

And a cool down. Don't forget the cool down.

[Gallstones]

I especially loved that last bit. "No, you can't discuss modding decisions in public, we might be wrong and we can never, ever, allow that to become public knowledge."

I started adding the bit about not discussing moderation in the thread. People were always derailing to complain about moderation. Now they all add it. I must have been on to something.

[Tigger]

I'm not doing the fix on that one.

[Blondie]

I especially loved that last bit. "No, you can't discuss modding decisions in public, we might be wrong and we can never, ever, allow that to become public knowledge."

I started adding the bit about not discussing moderation in the thread. People were always derailing to complain about moderation. Now they all add it. I must have been on to something.

That was you?!

Then you are my sworn enemy!

[charlou]

I especially loved that last bit. "No, you can't discuss modding decisions in public, we might be wrong and we can never, ever, allow that to become public knowledge."

I started adding the bit about not discussing moderation in the thread. People were always derailing to complain about moderation. Now they all add it. I must have been on to something.

That was you?!

Then you are my sworn enemy!

With enemies like you, who needs friends?

[Equivokate]

What was I doing missing out on the Ratz Action side?

[BrettA]

Okee dokee - Don't derail this thread with comments on this modnote??? WTF? This is the first Modnote (yes, worthy of upper case!) I ever recall seeing on Ratz and we can't fucking acknowledge the (relatively?) unprecedented nature of it? Hell, this is more comment-worthy that the ostensible raison d'etre of the whole thread... though I'll be interested to see how this all pans out and frankly, I'm kind'a sad to see the direction it's taken. Kind'a puts us (collectively) in the same camp/genre/mind-set/whatever as theists, it sees.

Anyway... this is a simple plea to be allowed - with no pressure to the contrary - to comment on whatever the fuck we think is worth a comment. /end rant. And to add some more OT stuff, I've been playing with Photoshop as a N00b, so I'm sharing (No NSFW content here, it's gettin' close ;-)...