Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Cormac]

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Shhh. I asked you to keep it a secret!

Sorry Prof.

... dammit Pappa!

Oh fuck... sorry Rich... Cormac.

Whyeyeawta...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The woodwork!

They are all coming out of it!

[klr]

...
Just a tad more background; the idea of the closure was that RichardDawkins.net was going to transition to RDFRS's US site. The ideas of having "camel toe" threads wasn't palatable to Foundation management. So the forum in it's current state had to go before the transition.
...

That was all cleared out in Oct. 2008 during the Great PurgeTM, which means that it is simply not relevant to the terminal episode of early 2010 - or the 6 months or so that preceded it. And the action by RD back in 2008 was not proactive, but reactive, and very sudden. In other words, I fail to see any connection.

[Pappa]

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Is it Roger Derwen?

It would be a breach of his privacy to say either way.

[Bella Fortuna]

[Cormac]

Josh, why are you even bothering here?

What good will do you think you can possibly gain? Seriously!

Since Josh didn't create this thread, the thread is "Dawkins sues Josh Timonen" and Josh is being talked about I think it's fair that he does comment, on this thread, posting updates on the case in which "Dawkins sues Josh Timonen". I don't think he get's any thing from this personally, it's clear you guys have an irrational hate of him. Maybe he's naive in thinking people give a shit about the truth and evidence.

I don't know that anyone cares much about the legal whatsits concerning the case except as an exercise in schadenfreude and speculation, if anyone's not bored of that yet. You could start by morally justifying the amount of money you got from the store as a legitimate and reasonable compensation.

How about the agreement that Dawkins had with Josh? Do you care about that? That's the thing in dispute here.

You could also apologize to all those who were summarily booted off the RDF forum.

Jesus H Christ...

...and the rickrolling, the slowing down of PMs to a crawl, the deception that led to that one post by Richard, your disrespect for the volunteer efforts of the moderators, the deletion of whole accounts...

Not wanting to derail this thread...

Please accept my deepest apologies for rickrolling a curl command line client, or more specifically inorganic traffic. That was me not Josh. Josh didn't tell me to do it either. Shock horror! Neither Josh or I were the sole source of the "disrespect for the volunteer efforts of the moderators, the deletion of whole accounts"...If people wanted to "volunteer" for Richard's PERSONAL website that's fine, but they weren't doing it for a "cause" they were doing it for Richard. If someone wanted to moderate a Z-list celeb forum believing it was for cause of reason and science and not being taken for a ride that's their prerogative! If they have any misunderstandings about that all they needed to do was look at the banner at the top of the website - it's still there on http://forum.richarddawkins.net.

Any how Richard issued the apology, taking PERSONAL responsibility for the whole team, since it was his PERSONAL website at the time, where the forum resided. There was no apology on the then Foundation site.

Just a tad more background; the idea of the closure was that RichardDawkins.net was going to transition to RDFRS's US site. The ideas of having "camel toe" threads wasn't palatable to Foundation management. So the forum in it's current state had to go before the transition.

I think we all need to remember we don't really know the full facts behind every story. And Robert_S, I think you'll have to be content that you don't know the full facts behind the whole forum thing, and that you may never will. Before you start demanding apologies or "moral justifications" I would please ask you to refrain until you are justified in making such demands.

It seems that you've made the error, that others have done, attributing actions to Josh, that he didn't do. You've probably listened to the first bit of information and accepted it as gospel. Don't worry a lot of the human race does this, you're not alone.

Most of the skeptical or rational community didn't act very skeptical or rational upon the filing of this suit. Which is hilarious. If this whole forum fallout and this law suit has taught me is that the problem isn't religion, it's the human mind.

When I resigned, due to more history re-writing at the time, Richard said this:

Andrew, lawsuits are designed to get to the bottom of cases like this. Why not wait till the Judge gives his verdict? If he decides in favour of Josh, of course I will apologise profusely and try to make everything better. If he decides against Josh, well, then you should make your decision on what to do. But please don't prejudge the issue. You don't have to wait long. I believe the case is coming up during November.

He doesn't sound too confident with the statement "If he decides in favour of Josh", he did say the evidence was "compelling" but really? Where is it?

Considering Richard hasn't produced the documents to back up his changing story, alleging that these important documents are lost forever because his Uni account has been closed and Robin Cornwell's hard drive crashed, when they all use several IMAP and Webmail accounts, it doesn't look good. The judge has thrown out the criminal charges due to no supporting evidence being presented. Claims require evidence.

If Richard had any ounce of integrity he would do what he said and apologise and try and make everything better.

All your questions may not be answered now but it looks like things are going to get more interesting and will all come out in due time. But once again I suspect we all need to reserve judgement in all of this until the evidence is presented.

Dawkins is already a member, but understandably he posts under a pseudonym.

Is it Roger Derwen?

Chalkers, I don't know you from Adam.

I was however, a member of Richard's website and forum from the very start. I stopped posting there just before the chaos ensued, in forum meltdown #6 (the final one).

I'm a lawyer, and I'm also an experienced business manager. I've managed very large scale commercial websites and communities on a similar scale to the RDF site at its peak.

Every single change implemented on the RDF site was done in an absolutely cack-handed and incompetent manner. There was a blatant disdain for the membership, and a complete lack of concern for how changes would impact them.

I guarantee you, that had even the most rudimentary standard change management techniques been applied, then there would have been no significant backlash, and no web-wide controversy would have ensued.

As an executive who has run operations of a much larger scale, and with much bigger teams, I would have fired anyone involved in running the site in a heartbeat, at the very first scandal way back in the first year of operation.

This thread isn't really only about that lawsuit between Richard and Timonen, it is also about how our commuhity was treated with such disdain and how the worm has turned.

It is clear to me that you share the same disdain: "If someone wanted to moderate a Z-list celeb forum believing it was for cause of reason and science and not being taken for a ride that's their prerogative! If they have any misunderstandings about that all they needed to do was look at the banner at the top of the website - it's still there on http://forum.richarddawkins.net".

I understand that you also worked on the RD site. You also seem to have an axe to grind. I suggest you either state your position, or else, stop making statements like:

And Robert_S, I think you'll have to be content that you don't know the full facts behind the whole forum thing, and that you may never will. Before you start demanding apologies or "moral justifications" I would please ask you to refrain until you are justified in making such demands.

If you don't see the stupidity of the organisational failures that led to the sequence of dramas on that site, then I'm afraid you have a long way to go in order to learn how the web works. In particular about how to work with groups to promote a particular agenda.

This was not a bunch of teenagers with hormonally inflated egos (although we had some members like that who were welcome). This was a group that included a large number of highly educated, motivated, articulate, and passionate people, the vast majority of whom were well-disposed to Richard, and willing to engage in real-world activities in support of Richard's aims.

Let me tell you that global organisations would pay enormous sums of money to establish even 1% of what Richard had, just out of goodwill.

The culture of management imposed on that website was toxic, and incapable of getting anything right.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that Richard owned the site, and that Richard could, of course, do what he liked with it.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a former member who wouldn't accept that it was Richard's right to do what he wanted with the site.

BUT, there is a way to do these things, and the approach repeatedly taken for all sorts of changes was simply wrong and self-defeating.

It seems to me that Richard is quite naive in some ways - which isn't to say I think he's soft-headed. I'd say he's fairly hard-headed when he wants to be. But he doesn't understand how to work with communities and with the disparate groups making up a community, towards an end.

What you guys succeeded in doing was seeding a whole load of sites around the world where there is rank antipathy towards the so-called team (you and Timonen I believe - up until the lawsuit for Timonen, after which you left).

The consequences of this are:

1. The traffic to the Dawkins site has dropped
2. Richard's brand has been irrevocably tarnished amongst many many atheists. (And I still like Richard by the way)
3. What could have grown into a coherent political movement has been fractured and splintered
4. All of this was done in full public glare, and was jumped on with glee by the enemies of reason

A complete SNAFU.

In any kind of commercial organisation, anyone who presided over, or advised a course of action that led to the above would have been fired, without equivocation.

[Svartalf]

I'm very excited.

you've watching pictures of me again with one hand under your clothes? naughty.

[Atheist-Lite]

I propose we all draw a line under the issue and move on? Watch the trial for entertainment not to mudrake old wounds. It's already got theists circling like vultures over recent events in the saga of Richard Dawkins life, he's a damaged alpha and secularism/skepticism/atheism needs some strong new numbers in leadership lights. People at home with the new & changing socio-economic climate not trapped in the 1970s. And some of these should be female. Anyway Josh was just a kid and can't be blamed for Dawkins complacency IMO. The older man was a 'statesman' and worldly wise - precisely the opposite of Timonen, who in my eyes appears more a human shield for Dawkins reputation than a dreadful villain. Yes, perhaps, light fingered and give him time for that if he's guilty but let's recall who put temptation in his path? Whose personal site it was when the control freakery and purges got beyond reasonable? I don't usually get into this arena - I drew a line under things long ago myself. I suggest it is long enough for others to move on rather than to keep re-digesting the shite? Like I say theists and journalists are circling the old man like a vulture, new heroes for a new time are needed.

[chalkers]

...
Just a tad more background; the idea of the closure was that RichardDawkins.net was going to transition to RDFRS's US site. The ideas of having "camel toe" threads wasn't palatable to Foundation management. So the forum in it's current state had to go before the transition.
...

That was all cleared out in Oct. 2008 during the Great PurgeTM, which means that it is simply not relevant to the terminal episode of early 2010 - or the 6 months or so that preceded it. And the action by RD back in 2008 was not proactive, but reactive, and very sudden. In other words, I fail to see any connection.

Sorry, klr, your statement is factually incorrect. Camel toes were present. Back in Jan-Feb 2010 "camel toe" was one of the key terms coming in on Google Analytics for http://forum.richarddawkins.net. In fact it was more popular term that richarddawkins as all one word. We followed the trail and there were camel toes...fact. If you don't believe me I am sure you can take it up with the current custodian, they can run a report and show you.

[Svartalf]

BTW, funny that "chalkers" should come just now and devote his very first two posts to this, rather abstruse (and 18 months old) dispute... Do you like josh's hand up your ass chalkers?

[Cormac]

...
Just a tad more background; the idea of the closure was that RichardDawkins.net was going to transition to RDFRS's US site. The ideas of having "camel toe" threads wasn't palatable to Foundation management. So the forum in it's current state had to go before the transition.
...

That was all cleared out in Oct. 2008 during the Great PurgeTM, which means that it is simply not relevant to the terminal episode of early 2010 - or the 6 months or so that preceded it. And the action by RD back in 2008 was not proactive, but reactive, and very sudden. In other words, I fail to see any connection.

Sorry, klr, your statement is factually incorrect. Camel toes were present. Back in Jan-Feb 2010 "camel toe" was one of the key terms coming in on Google Analytics for http://forum.richarddawkins.net. In fact it was more popular term that richarddawkins as all one word. We followed the trail and there were camel toes...fact. If you don't believe me I am sure you can take it up with the current custodian, they can run a report and show you.

So, best approach is:

Hi guys - we've been looking at our Analytics - it turns out we're showing up for Camel Toe. This is not something we want associated with our site or our foundation. Therefore, we will, within 5 days, be removing this content from the site.

Should you wish to get a copy of this content, please email this address:

Incidentally, I note that to find camel toe on the dawkins site, you'd have had to search Google for richarddawkins.net AND camel toe. A general search on camel toe would return hundreds and hundreds of pages of pornography sites, and no doubt, Wikipedia, before it would return ANY result from richarddawkins.net. So, the issue can't really have been so urgent.

Furthermore, I suspect that any content that was graphic was behind a private part of the forum, and was not publicly accessible.

So, the issue would have been less urgent.

A competent understanding of Analytics and how to read and understand them, would possibly have allowed a more measured and prudent approach to redacting the content.

[Bella Fortuna]

I'm so glad we've been corrected. Here we all thought it was the semen-tasting that had done us in. I feel like such a fool...

[chalkers]

I was however, a member of Richard's website and forum from the very start. I stopped posting there just before the chaos ensued, in forum meltdown #6 (the final one).

I'm a lawyer, and I'm also an experienced business manager. I've managed very large scale commercial websites and communities on a similar scale to the RDF site at its peak.

Every single change implemented on the RDF site was done in an absolutely cack-handed and incompetent manner. There was a blatant disdain for the membership, and a complete lack of concern for how changes would impact them.

I guarantee you, that had even the most rudimentary standard change management techniques been applied, then there would have been no significant backlash, and no web-wide controversy would have ensued.

As an executive who has run operations of a much larger scale, and with much bigger teams, I would have fired anyone involved in running the site in a heartbeat, at the very first scandal way back in the first year of operation.

Good on you. You're probably right. Want a badge? But the person who's been running the site hasn't been sacked. That person was hiding in the shadows, for some reason, until December 2009, and this is the same person spear-heading this lawsuit.

1. The traffic to the Dawkins site has dropped

Funny the site enjoyed increasing traffic and when I left we just celebrated highest traffic on RichardDawkins.net. Would love to see the source of your information Mr Lawyer.

2. Richard's brand has been irrevocably tarnished amongst many many atheists. (And I still like Richard by the way)

Well his comments on Phayrangula, and this lawsuit ain't helping either. It looks like he'd have hurt his brand by himself without the aide of bad change management.

3. What could have grown into a coherent political movement has been fractured and splintered

Give me a break - this is what happens with all groups. Look at christianity or even any of denominations like mormons. People fall out all the time and move on and try and change and control the world under a slightly different, ideological banner.

4. All of this was done in full public glare, and was jumped on with glee by the enemies of reason

Oh no! Them people in our out-group are saying bad things about people in my in-group. This has never happened before.

It was a handful of forum members who wanted press coverage of this "forum meltdown". Richard and the management didn't tweet at the press, wrote to journalists; it was the forum members. They were committing "community" suicide, if that's even a thing.

[Thinking Aloud]

Welcome to Rationalia, chalkers. Hope you enjoy your time here! You can find our guidelines here if you've not already had a chance to peruse.

[Bella Fortuna]

Legitimate, non-snarky question, Andrew: What do you hope to gain by posting here? (same goes for Josh as well, though I don't expect you to answer for him). I'm not really seeing the point of it. This whole issue was dead until Josh and you resurrected it.