RDFRS

[Schneibster]

Yay.

[lordpasternack]

Still, it's worth testing how capable RDFRS is at answering arguably the most obvious general enquiry that could be posed, before I take that action. My hopes aren't high, but don't let them say I didn't fairly and reasonably invite them to falsify my hypothesis - both in cooperating in sharing what keeps them busy, and with any luck showing me that I and some others are wrong to be so cynical of RDFRS.

The more emotional energy a person puts into an organisation, the more aggrieved that person can become at its failure to return the investment. To put a large amount of time and effort in, as invited by the organisation, only to find it jettisoned is an injustice. But pursuing justice then requires yet more emotional energy and potentially greater grievance. Every person must make their own decision at what point they cut their losses.

I assure you, I'm on autopilot now, on a practical mission for CLOSURE on the RDF front. I've surmised and insinuated a lot of things about the organisation, and this is the perfect opportunity for it to redeem itself, or fail to, in various degrees. This is me finally quittin' bitchin' and calmly dropping some litmus papers in. Let's see what happens now.

[Jason]

I think a lot of skeptics have feet of clay in some way. It depends how forgivable it is. PZ's weak spot is his unscrupulous support of things that come under the heading of feminism - which isn't that egregious, except insofar as it makes me roll my eyes occasionally.

I support feminism to the degree that it will get me some more nookie.

[lordpasternack]

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Pub ... c10.aspx#c

Being a charity is about more than paying for extortionate legal advice, having an urge for philanthropy and 'doing good', being zealously defensive of your foundation, and saying all the right things on the day to the Charity Commission, Richard. 

You are weak or completely absent on practically all of the hallmarks - not least transparency and accountability to the public. You DESERVE to lose your charitable status if this is true. Religious biases of the Charity Commission aside - they would only be doing their duty in telling you you are majorly unfit for purpose and unworthy of being a charity. 

And I'd only be doing my duty as a rationalist to suggest you have no fucking business going around preaching evidence-based understanding, sceptical enquiry and the importance of asking for evidence and giving evidence, if you can't even get a handle on the rudiments within your own foundation. 

Regards,

Heather. 

[lordpasternack]

[lordpasternack]

I'm sure my call is very important to them.

[PsychoSerenity]

I'm sure my call is very important to them.

They're now too busy to reply - you've got them all panicking, running around in circles saying "What do we do, what do we do? I didn't know we had to actually do anything!"

At least, I like to think so.

[Audley Strange]

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Pub ... c10.aspx#c

Being a charity is about more than paying for extortionate legal advice, having an urge for philanthropy and 'doing good', being zealously defensive of your foundation, and saying all the right things on the day to the Charity Commission, Richard. 

You are weak or completely absent on practically all of the hallmarks - not least transparency and accountability to the public. You DESERVE to lose your charitable status if this is true. Religious biases of the Charity Commission aside - they would only be doing their duty in telling you you are majorly unfit for purpose and unworthy of being a charity. 

And I'd only be doing my duty as a rationalist to suggest you have no fucking business going around preaching evidence-based understanding, sceptical enquiry and the importance of asking for evidence and giving evidence, if you can't even get a handle on the rudiments within your own foundation. 

Regards,

Heather. 

That was delicious.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I'm sure my call is very important to them.

You don't suspect perhaps that your certain.. ..um... ..'way with words' may be partly responsible for the lack of response..?

[Callan]

I'm sure my call is very important to them.

You don't suspect perhaps that your certain.. ..um... ..'way with words' may be partly responsible for the lack of response..?

First laugh on Ratz all day - thank you, HBM.

[lordpasternack]

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Pub ... c10.aspx#c

Being a charity is about more than paying for extortionate legal advice, having an urge for philanthropy and 'doing good', being zealously defensive of your foundation, and saying all the right things on the day to the Charity Commission, Richard. 

You are weak or completely absent on practically all of the hallmarks - not least transparency and accountability to the public. You DESERVE to lose your charitable status if this is true. Religious biases of the Charity Commission aside - they would only be doing their duty in telling you you are majorly unfit for purpose and unworthy of being a charity. 

And I'd only be doing my duty as a rationalist to suggest you have no fucking business going around preaching evidence-based understanding, sceptical enquiry and the importance of asking for evidence and giving evidence, if you can't even get a handle on the rudiments within your own foundation. 

Regards,

Heather. 

That was delicious.

I'm sure each and every word was savoured and treasured.

On second thoughts, though, it would be incredibly mean and wrong to go jeopardising their charitable status, after all the hard work that they've been doing. All that hard work that they're so coy about divulging…

[lordpasternack]

I'm sure my call is very important to them.

You don't suspect perhaps that your certain.. ..um... ..'way with words' may be partly responsible for the lack of response..?

I was perfectly congenial at the get-go - and in any case, as a charity, as a professional organisation, they have an obligation to deal with queries and complaints positively and professionally, to allay doubts and inspire confidence, and certainly as bodes best for their reputation and their interests. It isn't in their interest to have people taking the piss out of them and communicating cynicism of their activities, and escalating that query to the Charity Commission along with a complaint of their non-response, irrespective of how 'testy' a comment or query posed to them is.

And in any case, it's not like I was asking for a free pony with every email they read - I'm asking them what it is that they fucking DO. It's the most obvious and simplest of enquries they could ever hope to come up against. So simple and easy to address. If Richard Dawkins of all people is so stunned by my rhetoric that he is grudgingly withholding the information of what RDFRS does - then they at least have one niggling issue to address on their hands.

Oh, and I also made it clear that the response doesn't have to be made to me as such. They could just update their websites - which, other than NBGA, has their most latest projects as being from 2009.

ETA: I used to work in telebanking, and got raged at, sworn at, and insulted, and begged and pleaded from, a few times on a daily basis. They must be very green if they can't handle my relatively moderate manner.

[lordpasternack]

This was my tone on the 3rd - two days after the initial enquiry:

Please also note that I am deadly serious about following this enquiry up. It's true that I have a somewhat sceptical/cynical view of RDFRS (with reason) - about what it is in practice rather than in theory - but this is my earnest attempt to falsify my hypothesis. I am cordially inviting you to show me I'm wrong, to me personally, or by adding the pertinent information to your site for general consumption - which as someone else who believes in working with the currency of EVIDENCE, who encourages people to 'ask for evidence', and given that this ethos is supposedly what your charity is all ABOUT - I'm sure you'd respect and appreciate.

Please don't demonstrate that, over and above my initial cynicism, RDFRS isn't capable of responding appropriately to the most elementary General Enquiry. People may be busy, preoccupied, have other priorities to attack at any particular time - but if nobody in the organisation has the time or wherewithal to respond to this basic but important enquiry, within, say the next three months or so, then you'll have questions to ask yourself a bit more probing than anything I've put forward.

Please sir, may I have some evidence?

Heather

[lordpasternack]

And on the 5th:

Please note that I will continue to remind you about this simple enquiry frequently over the next few months - and as and when I'm going to stop reminding you about it, if nothing has been forthcoming from you or your foundation, it will be to give you a final opportunity to say something - anything - before I decide whether I should pass my enquiries and note of your lack of response to the Charity Commission in the UK, and send it along to some other people who probably should know if you are reluctant or incapable of responding to simple requests for evidence that you are living up to your mission statement.

I will remind you about it frequently, not out of obsession, but because I'm trying to be rigorous. I am trying to FALSIFY my theory that RDFRS is badly infested with incompetents, that deafening silence is its only way of responding to challenges and criticism, and that it is not living up to its mission statement in any real, worthy, concrete way.

If you can't or won't let me know that someone will address this enquiry, over the next few months, I want to have a case to present that it is obvious that you have been made fully aware of the issue, and are making an active choice not to respond to it. Which is a shame - since I don't think it's too much to ask. Asking for evidence shouldn't be like pulling teeth, should it?

...

Want to avoid a lot of stress and annoyance? Simply support the 'Ask For Evidence' campaign by starting at home. Anytime now.

Regards,

Heather.

[Drewish]

I appreciate watching some of the lectures put up by the RDF.