RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Rum]

This obsession would be fitting if we were talking about a criminal who was trying to cover his tracks, but at worst (it would appear) we are looking at some ill managed resources and finance generated by the thinking and writing of a well respected and to many people, great man.

I think your time would be spent better on digging out evil elsewhere, for god knows there is plenty out there, rather than (possible) incompetence and poor decision making of someone who never responded to your pleas for a pity fuck. Given the history, which many of us are aware of here, including your infatuation with the man and your subsequent conclusion that he, as many people we put on pedestals has feet of clay one can only be suspicious about your motives. I think your latest posts and exchanges on FB and here are close to outrageous, petty, vindictive and self serving and I for one want nothing more to do with you either here or there.

Get a life Heather.

[Hermit]

Get a life

Notwithstanding any ulterior motives Lordpasternack may or may not have, she is doing sterling work in digging out incompetence, nepotism and skullduggery occurring within RDFRS. That boat may eventually deservedly sink - taking down some of atheism's credibility as it goes - but I don't think LP is doing a disservice to it in the long run. We keep harping on about the Vatican's persistent coverups of its clergy's abuses. While the scale of RDFSR's malignant dysfunctions pale in significance by comparison, it's not doing atheism any good to cast aspersions about the motivation of a dirt-digger within the ranks, even if they are true.

Would you please address the actual matters LP raised, Rum, instead of attacking the whistleblower?

And onya, LP.

[lordpasternack]

Thanks Hermit. And I would only add that my "exchanges on Facebook" were borne of temporary anger at Richard Dawkins claiming that I was "spreading lies", "ridiculous lies" about him - despite the fact that I have evidence for the allegations that I've made, and Richard knows full well that I am telling the truth, at least in part - and especially that I am sincere.

My motives come mainly from genuine seething disillusionment, partly with Richard - but mostly with the entire establishment of RDFRS. I also have evidence that Elisabeth Cornwell is a rank liar, and most certainly not a nice character... She had some brief correspondence with me last month in which she lied to me and attempted to mislead and wrongfoot me on a number of issues - and when I get the opportunity, I will document that. She quite wisely resumed taking the Fifth, after that exchange started to go sour...

I hope that people might change their minds somewhat as the evidence comes out - rather than prejudging the situation, or my motives for digging deeper into the situation. (And as for the "pity fuck" - I am now in correspondence with another woman who did get the fuck, and "hundreds of emails" she wanted from Richard Dawkins, and who is now as disillusioned as I am. She is the one who told me that Richard said I'm spreading ridiculous lies about him.)

And as I also posted on Facebook...

Just to make one additional point, for what it's worth... Here's part of a conversation I had with Richard, in August this year:



He didn't challenge any of the claims I made in my response email, at that time. Didn't leap to tell me they were "ridiculous lies", and that I was either guffing, or gravely misinformed. But he was happy to entertain me with some subsequent correspondence on other topics, for the time being - saying things like:

"That's a lovely story..."
"Thank you, that is helpful..."
"Of course you make a good point..."

[lordpasternack]

Also - in relation to another unrelated scenario - regarding a popular author being a bit of a knob:

[Svartalf]

Who are these people?

[lordpasternack]

Who are these people?

The people mentioned in the screencapped Tweet?

These people: http://jeremyduns.blogspot.co.uk/2012/0 ... ather.html

They're authors. Stephen Leather was dishonestly using pseudonyms on Amazon to review his own books flatteringly, and troll his rivals' books. Jeremy Duns exposed him. Leather didn't take kindly to it. Amazon et al were as unimpressed as Duns was, in the end...

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I do hope you have something solid, LP. I'd hate for there to be some legal action taken against you. And I'm sure he will take action if he thought he could shut you up. I've seen things get very messy on another forum, where a radio personality threw his teddies out of the pram at a few members, then got his legal team involved and had the forum shut down.
I took his side to the whole affair, but I found out about a year later I was wrong to take his side after someone contacted me on FB and gave me the evidence. It's just because this guy could afford some big shot legal team that shut the others up. And it was a somewhat trivial matter, compared to what you are accusing Richard of.

So I'm just saying, be careful.

[Jason]

The old goat is probably happy to have Heather pay so much attention to him.

[lordpasternack]

The old goat is probably happy to have Heather pay so much attention to him.

Not right now, he isn't. He prefers easier women who'll massage his ego and cock, without causing hassle.

In the past, when I managed the former - I was an interesting correspondent. When I start doing the latter, I turn into an obsessed, hate-filled stalker, at his convenience. Never mind that none of that would affect the actual validity of my arguments either way- it's just at lot easier to ad-hom and dismiss harsh critics, than swallow some bitter pills and be honest... Better yet if you can stand mightily in your position of authority and blatantly lie about said critics' basic honesty.

I got 99 problems, but dishonesty ain't one...

[DaveDodo007]

Thanks Hermit. And I would only add that my "exchanges on Facebook" were borne of temporary anger at Richard Dawkins claiming that I was "spreading lies", "ridiculous lies" about him - despite the fact that I have evidence for the allegations that I've made, and Richard knows full well that I am telling the truth, at least in part - and especially that I am sincere.

My motives come mainly from genuine seething disillusionment, partly with Richard - but mostly with the entire establishment of RDFRS. I also have evidence that Elisabeth Cornwell is a rank liar, and most certainly not a nice character... She had some brief correspondence with me last month in which she lied to me and attempted to mislead and wrongfoot me on a number of issues - and when I get the opportunity, I will document that. She quite wisely resumed taking the Fifth, after that exchange started to go sour...

I hope that people might change their minds somewhat as the evidence comes out - rather than prejudging the situation, or my motives for digging deeper into the situation. (And as for the "pity fuck" - I am now in correspondence with another woman who did get the fuck, and "hundreds of emails" she wanted from Richard Dawkins, and who is now as disillusioned as I am. She is the one who told me that Richard said I'm spreading ridiculous lies about him.)

And as I also posted on Facebook...

Just to make one additional point, for what it's worth... Here's part of a conversation I had with Richard, in August this year:



He didn't challenge any of the claims I made in my response email, at that time. Didn't leap to tell me they were "ridiculous lies", and that I was either guffing, or gravely misinformed. But he was happy to entertain me with some subsequent correspondence on other topics, for the time being - saying things like:

"That's a lovely story..."
"Thank you, that is helpful..."
"Of course you make a good point..."

So "exchanges on Facebook" linky please. As for having heros well they either die early or their humanity is exposed. If Richard Dawkins indulges in extramarital affairs is up to him and his wife. The claims of nepotism I'm assuming that they got their jobs because of said affairs rather then in office romances. I'm not making judgements either way but one is more damning then the other. As for the RDF if it in as bad shape as you say it is then you are right to call them on it, I only have your say so at the moment but I promise to investigate it, not that I ever contributed anyway so I just doing it for clarification. 'Pity fuck,' please tell me that this isn't some revenge issue? As I was never part of the inner sanctum at Dawkins' towers so I don't know what is going on here. If what you claim is going on at RDF isn't Josh Timonen just as guilty as the others you are now holding in contempt, I don't know the other guy you mentioned. Also there are plenty of religious and media people who would normally be all over this like maggots on shit, it is not like Dawkins doesn't have enemies so why the silence?

P.S. Not having ago at you LP just there are some serious accusations here so I'm just after clarifications.

[Calilasseia]

Indeed, this is one aspect of the entire Greek tragedy that I'm puzzled about. If it was so easy for LP to find out this stuff, how come certain well known creationists haven't been all over it? Let's face it, they would regard this stuff as a solid gold gift handed to them on a plate, and we'd be bored shitless by the endless crowing and bleating ensuing therefrom. How come they've kept schtum over this? Are they simply too fucking stupid to bother digging this up, or are they saving this because they're hoping something far more juicy will turn up, which they can use this as the entrée to?

[Hermit]

Well, thanks to a link Pensioner provided, it's pretty bloody obvious that the financial performance of the RDFRS as a charitable organisation is piss-fucking-poor, to say the least. I summarised it here and updated and expanded on it in another post which I cannot now find.

As for mismanagement of the RDFRS, I think Lordpasternack has provided ample documentation by way of primary sources.

I too am somewhat puzzled as to why creationists and other assorted fundamentalist theists have not yet noticed the crumbs of damaging information that is available, and run with it. I bet that eventually they will do just that, though.

[Svartalf]

How about they all have decided Dawkins etc are inconsequential and not worth the effort?

[JimC]

How about they all have decided Dawkins etc are inconsequential and not worth the effort?

More likely they realise that internal wrangling of this nature is common in all organisations, and wouldn't make a telling point in their campaign against atheism...

[Hermit]

How about they all have decided Dawkins etc are inconsequential and not worth the effort?

More likely they realise that internal wrangling of this nature is common in all organisations, and wouldn't make a telling point in their campaign against atheism...

If it was just a matter of internal wrangling, yes. The material Lordpasternack has provided - and even more obviously Pensioner's link - point to serious problems way beyond that.