joshtimonen talks

[joshtimonen]

Hi Everyone,

I guess it's time for me to talk...
http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

[Faithfree]

Hi Everyone,

I guess it's time for me to talk...
http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

Um, welcome Josh, and thanks for giving your side of the story. I await the forthcoming statement.

[MrFungus420]

Hi Everyone,

I guess it's time for me to talk...
http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

Don't care. Fuck off.

You were instrumental in ruining a great forum.

[Durro]

Mr Timonen, we meet again...

So, apart from linking to your blog statement, are you in a position to discuss the matter any further ?

[charlou]

Don't fuck off, joshtimonen. Do ... talk.

[Blondie]

Hi Everyone,

I guess it's time for me to talk...
http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

Don't care. Fuck off.

You were instrumental in ruining a great forum.

I don't disagree he was instrumental. In fact I agree wholly. I think that's not the word you're looking for.

As he says on his site (in the link):

This was a decision made by the organization, that I then executed. I kept my mouth shut through all of the personal attacks to protect the foundation, and to not get personally involved. The decisions that were made by RDF had nothing to do with my personal opinions or feelings on forums or content. They were based solely on protecting Richard Dawkins, RDF, and their reputations.

I hate to go all argumentum ad dictionary on you but Instrumental = serving or acting as an instrument or means; useful; helpful

This is precisely what he said in the post on his side, quoted above and bolded for your convenience.

Now, I too await the forthcoming statement, but to read the article here:

Timonen handed over financial books that detailed his embezzlement, Dawkins says, including $500 meals, trips to Timberline Lodge in Oregon and the Malibu Beach Inn, and $314,000 in "salaries" paid to Timonen and his girlfriend -though Timonen and the Foundation agreed that the $278,000 it was aware of paying him would be his combined salary for running the store and performing his other duties.

It sounds like you're completely fucked. They found the "gun". What will your defence be I wonder?

Not to mention the following paragraph from the same source:

Timonen's "significantly older" girlfriend, defendant Maureen Norton, allegedly used at least $100,000 of the charity's money to upgrade her Sherman Oaks home before she put it on the market.

They use the word allegedly here, so perhaps on this count you have a slightly less chance of being completely fucked.

Anyhow, thanks for stopping by. There's going to be a lot of people watching this with interest - that's one positive thing innit? You're going to be more famous after this than you ever were before. Exposure is quite important for someone in your line of work isn't it?

[charlou]

The blog currently reads (postscript was added after a member at RatSkep asked joshtimonen to include the forums he's linked from):

October 23, 2010
The Ultimate Betrayal

It’s a sad, sad day today. All I’ll say at this point is that the truth will prevail. It won’t begin to fix the damage that’s been done, but the truth will prevail.

With the internet, you can so easily spread outrageous lies, destroy someone’s reputation, self-worth and dignity, and not even have any evidence to back up your malicious attacks. And it amazes me that so many people are so quick to spew venom about people and a situation they know nothing about. Even after my name is cleared, the words and attacks will remain.

A quick aside about the closing of the RichardDawkins.net forum: I can understand that this decision was devastating to many of the forum users, and for that I am sorry. It was never our intention to hurt anyone through that process, it was purely a political decision. It’s frustrating to have been the fall-guy for this. I am am not Richard Dawkins, I am not the Richard Dawkins Foundation Board of Trustees, and I did not act independently. This was a decision made by the organization, that I then executed. I kept my mouth shut through all of the personal attacks to protect the foundation, and to not get personally involved. The decisions that were made by RDF had nothing to do with my personal opinions or feelings on forums or content. They were based solely on protecting Richard Dawkins, RDF, and their reputations.

This year has certainly been the darkest time of my life, the ultimate betrayal, and then the hordes of mostly-anonymous internet users decide to pile it on. It’s making it very hard for me to see the light at the end of this tunnel, where I might regain some kind of hope for humanity, and find motivation again to dedicate my life to improving it in some small way.

I’ve never had irreconcilable enemies before, ever. This is new for me. I’ve never before been the target of a baseless vendetta. But I’m dealing with it as sanely and calmly as I possibly can.

I worked myself to the bone over the last four years to promote reason and science, hoping that my small role in this movement could affect some lasting positive change. I refuse to let this smear campaign destroy me. I created the Scarlet Letter “A” icon and its associated campaign to bring us all together, not tear us apart. I hope to be able to continue on that mission.

This lawsuit is a joke, and completely ridiculous. The accusations are baseless and unfounded.

I will be releasing a public statement soon through my legal team Costa Abrams & Coate, LLP.

Josh Timonen

PS: I have registered on several forums under the name “joshtimonen” (rationalia, rationalskepticism, JREF, etc). Yes, it’s me.

[Blondie]

I hope you're keeping up on the swath of threads you've started Josh, I'd hate to waste my time replying to you.

I think the larger issue really is the idea of forum post ownership. I understand that people post thousands of posts on other people's websites, and then feel a certain sense of ownership to that content. But the ownership still sits with whoever truly owns and pays for that website. RichardDawkins.net is Richard's website (and RDF's), and if they want to remove content, then it's completely within their right to do so. In hindsight, I think it was a bad idea to have a forum centered around one celebrity-figure. It's a lot of weight to put on one person's reputation. I think forums like this have a much better chance of success, where it's centered around ideas as opposed to people.

Quote from Josh posted on the vile rationalskepticism.org (which I am no longer affiliated with).

I'm afraid you're wrong Josh. Copyright ownership does not transfer automatically to the forum it is posted to. There must be a clause in the Terms of Use or the Users Agreement which explicitly states something to the effect that "by submitting matieral to [suchandsuch.such] you agree to transfer ownership of copyright of all said materials to [suchandsuch.such]". Obviously that's not strict legalese, but my point is you must have such an explicit clause in either the TOU or FUA transferring ownership of copyright which the members agree to upon joining, or agree to by their use of the forums. I know this as I'm steeped in copyright laws along with the DMCA right now regarding matters of my own.

edit: Fecking feck.

[Atheist-Lite]

I don't think it is very wise to publish anything in the public domain concerning a active legal case where you yourself are involved. Emotions are high but this appeal to the crowd isn't going to establish your innocence Josh. The rumormill will crush the great and the small but the court is where they draw the sweet blood of truth.

[Cunt]

I'll listen a bit. Do go on.

[Rob]

Should be interesting to see his response. I think this will not end up going the way he wants.

[Blondie]

I hope you're keeping up on the swath of threads you've started Josh, I'd hate to waste my time replying to you.

I think the larger issue really is the idea of forum post ownership. I understand that people post thousands of posts on other people's websites, and then feel a certain sense of ownership to that content. But the ownership still sits with whoever truly owns and pays for that website. RichardDawkins.net is Richard's website (and RDF's), and if they want to remove content, then it's completely within their right to do so. In hindsight, I think it was a bad idea to have a forum centered around one celebrity-figure. It's a lot of weight to put on one person's reputation. I think forums like this have a much better chance of success, where it's centered around ideas as opposed to people.

Quote from Josh posted on the vile rationalskepticism.org (which I am no longer affiliated with).

I'm afraid you're wrong Josh. Copyright ownership does not transfer automatically to the forum it is posted to. There must be a clause in the Terms of Use or the Users Agreement which explicitly states something to the effect that "by submitting matieral to [suchandsuch.such] you agree to transfer ownership of copyright of all said materials to [suchandsuch.such]". Obviously that's not strict legalese, but my point is you must have such an explicit clause in either the TOU or FUA transferring ownership of copyright which the members agree to upon joining, or agree to by their use of the forums. I know this as I'm steeped in copyright laws along with the DMCA right now regarding matters of my own.

edit: Fecking feck.

I should note however, this does not mean that the owner/administrator of the site doesn't have the right to delete posts from his/her site (but I do believe this also has to be stated explicitly in the TOU or FUA) as they see fit.

[hackenslash]

Switch off your irony meter for a moment. Danger of serious injury:

Have you ever sat back and watched tons of people discuss lies about you?

[Gawd]

Anthroban, you're fecking feck? What they get you for at RatSkep?

Also, somebody make me some pop corn.

[Blondie]

Anthroban, you're fecking feck?

Not just now.

What they get you for at RatSkep?

Using my brain too much. They don't take kindly to that sort of thing 'round there.