Suppurating rat's anus.

[pErvinalia]

And I can also assure you on no uncertain terms that Richard Dawkins is far more preoccupied with vagina than with furthering his charities' aims.

Dead rhino vaginas?

[lordpasternack]

You might also want to read this post I wrote on another thread: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1348624

And I can also assure you on no uncertain terms that Richard Dawkins is far more preoccupied with vagina than with furthering his charities' aims.

Richard Dawkins' private life is none of my business

It's not "his private life" when it is intimately intertwined with his charitable foundation, and his hiring choices.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1lPLttSq ... Syb5e/edit

...that he has no business acumen and is a poor judge of character is a given. What I don't understand is your stake in all this? What do you hope to gain by your actions? I agree that his foundation needs a good shake up and better leadership but it appears that is due to neglect than any wrong doings on Richards part.

It's mostly neglect on RICHARD's part. It appears to be active malice, and exploitation of Richard's neglect and naivety, on other people's part. And no - I'm not referring to Timonen or Chalkley there...

[DaveDodo007]

What kind of a world are we living in when rich men can't just have their opponents kneecapped.

Or having a god to smite him. Atheists - FTW.

[lordpasternack]

Cross-posting this from Rat-Skep...

I'm returning to this topic for anyone who is interested in getting a better picture of this situation.

As per the emails exchanged by Dawkins, Cornwell and Timonen in 2007 - I still don't have the exhibits themselves to hand - but some important details are incorporated by reference in the First, and Second Amended Complaint of Timonen et al's current lawsuit against RDFRS et al.

These particular important points are from The First Amended Complaint, paragraphs 22-24, pages 7-8.

22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’ activities.”

23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.

24. Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”

My emphasis.

And in the Second Amended Complaint, paragraph 21, page 6 - it is specifically noted that Robin Elisabeth Cornwell was copied into the email quoted above, sent by Dawkins on July 25, 2007. So she also received that clear message from Dawkins.

These facts are not directly related to Upper Branch's ownership of intellectual property - but they are important in explaining the context of Timonen's current litigation against RDFRS - and how egregiously, and perhaps knowingly, unsound the previous charges made against him by RDFRS were. I don't think you have to like Timonen as an individual, or to endorse how the online Store or RD.net was run, in order to appreciate that.

With that aside - Timonen has certificates of copyright for at least fifteen works he completed through Upper Branch, while working with RDFRS. For 8 of which documented, he only has copyright of additional footage, music and artwork for the video productions - and menu selections and artwork for the hardcopy DVDs as sold from the Store.

For the remaining 7 - Upper Branch owns or owned copyright outright, for the entire video productions.

In June 2010, Timonen assigned copyright to RDFRS for two videos produced entirely by Upper Branch, which he now argues should be invalidated, since he argues that the copyright reassignment was completed as part of an implied contractual agreement with RDFRS, for RDFRS to compensate him for the transfer of store assets, and intellectual property - which RDFRS wilfully failed to honour.

The certificates of his copyright registration, and copyright reassignment, are attached to the First Amended Complaint as exhibits, available on pages 48-65.

It goes without saying that, if only two works were ever signed away to RDFRS - Upper Branch unequivocally retains valid copyright for thirteen works, including the entire production of five full-length videos - and including particularly "The Four Horsemen" video, whose copyright was officially registered in May 2008, along with the two works that were reassigned to RDFRS. (The rest were all officially registered in October 2010.)

Robin Elisabeth Cornwell understood the gravity of these issues perfectly well, when she said in meeting minutes in March 2010 (documented in the Second Amended Complaint, page 12):



And Josh Timonen had explicitly notified Cornwell in June 2010, that Upper Branch retained copyright for a number of productions - and she had acknowledged this communication and asked for clarification. (See Second Amended Complaint, page 19)



Despite all of the above - and despite no transfer of copyright ever having taken place - RDFRS began to exploit Upper Branch's copyrighted work in late June 2010, actively defied a number of Cease & Desist notices - and baldly insisted that they own copyright for the works in question (including particularly "The Four Horsemen"). (See Second Amended Complaint, pages 27-28)










RDFRS then went from insisting that they own the copyright, to conceding that Upper Branch owns the copyright - but that RDFRS had rights to use the material as part of a non-exclusive license agreement. RDFRS then continued to advertise these copyrighted works for sale till as recently as August 2012. And indeed, the disappearance of the DVDs from the next available archived screen capture in October 2012 probably had more to do with RDFRS's supplier refusing to supply them, than any possible scruples or sanity prevailing within RDFRS.

We know well enough that when Upper Branch eventually had RDFRS's YouTube channel taken down - after well over a year's worth of Upper Branch having established their copyright to the works in question - the response from RDFRS wasn't to reflect soberly on these compelling legal issues - but to turn around and hail the advent of their brand-spanking new YouTube channel, and then re-upload numerous works that they knew infringed Upper Branch's exlusive rights...

[rachelbean]

Regardless of what Timonen did or didn't have to do with the forum shutting down, it's pretty sad that he is mostly universally believed to have taken advantage of Dawkins when it seems pretty obvious from the court case that that was never the situation. It would be pretty horrible to have your reputation smeared that way by someone nearly universally respected within the atheist community.

[lordpasternack]

Regardless of what Timonen did or didn't have to do with the forum shutting down, it's pretty sad that he is mostly universally believed to have taken advantage of Dawkins when it seems pretty obvious from the court case that that was never the situation. It would be pretty horrible to have your reputation smeared that way by someone nearly universally respected within the atheist community.

Not merely smeared, but litigated against for months, on the basis of charges that appear not only to be baseless - but obviously, knowingly, and wilfully false.

When Timonen first pled that he was being "harassed" by RDFRS, I scoffed and sneered with the best of them. It didn't seem plausible that Dawkins would be so stupid and so naive as to pursue litigation through his charity, without absolute due care and attention. It didn't seem plausible that he'd appoint an Executive so disingenuous, and with such a tenuous relationship with honesty and factual accuracy. And in light of the forum furore - RDFRS's version of events surrounding the online store agreement, regarding Timonen "embezzling" from them, seemed quite plausible.

But then actual substantive evidence came along and spoiled a lot of those convenient preconceptions.

[Svartalf]

I'm a bit rusty on the case and reading through everything again would be tl:dr for me...

Was the agreement between RD and timonen that the shop would actually profit timonen?

Because, as I see it, he may very well have taken advantage of a badly crafted agreement, even though anybody in their right mind should have known that they did not have the armament to win at a litigation fight when things soured.

I won't get near the upper branch copyright stuff, that's beyond me.

[rachelbean]

I'm a bit rusty on the case and reading through everything again would be tl:dr for me...

Was the agreement between RD and timonen that the shop would actually profit timonen?

Because, as I see it, he may very well have taken advantage of a badly crafted agreement, even though anybody in their right mind should have known that they did not have the armament to win at a litigation fight when things soured.

I won't get near the upper branch copyright stuff, that's beyond me.

Well, if you read nothing else, just this should tell you what you need to know:

22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’ activities.”

23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.

24. Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”

There was no taking advantage of and there was no ambiguity or craftiness, it seems that they had a very straight-forward arrangement

[Svartalf]

OK, loud and clear... JT is an effing douche but no thief or conman.

[lordpasternack]

OK, loud and clear... JT is an effing douche but no thief or conman.

Or if he is or was a thief or a conman, there's certainly no evidence that he was in this particular case.

[Svartalf]

I'm not interested in looking for other cases... the guy's part in the great RDF debacle is enough to earn him my undying scorn.

[lordpasternack]

I'm not interested in looking for other cases... the guy's part in the great RDF debacle is enough to earn him my undying scorn.

But what if he were "only following orders" during forumgate? There's evidence that he was being actively encouraged during this time by Cornwell...

And it must also be stated that some of the more infuriating actions (including the Rick-rolling) - were taken not by Timonen, but by Andrew Chalkley - and also that Chalkley deleted some profiles, which he claimed was at the insistence of Paula Kirby. Chalkley has since apologised for his role in stirring up shit during that time - and he's the only individual involved who has explicitly apologised publicly - even if you personally don't accept it.

Either way - you may feel obliged to create a little bit more nuance in your mind, regarding who deserves which amount of contempt, for what happened during forumgate.

[Svartalf]

Then Cornwell gets my ire as well as yours, but AFAIK, he wasn't under HER orders.

[lordpasternack]

Then Cornwell gets my ire as well as yours, but AFAIK, he wasn't under HER orders.

The management situation was complicated...

After years of obvious negligence and incompetence, Dawkins reportedly resigned from his official capacity at RDFRS just shortly AFTER forumgate, and asked not even to be consulted on Foundation matters. He also reportedly handed over the purse-strings for some of his "personal funds", completely and totally to Cornwell around this time, which is actually plausible, and gives you an idea of how obliviously he likes to delegate tasks: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1387174

And Cornwell did explicitly represent to Timonen repeatedly, though in not so many words, that she was authorised to give instructions/orders to him on Richard's behalf.

[DaveDodo007]

And it must also be stated that some of the more infuriating actions (including the Rick-rolling) - were taken not by Timonen, but by Andrew Chalkley - and also that Chalkley deleted some profiles, which he claimed was at the insistence of Paula Kirby. Chalkley has since apologised for his role in stirring up shit during that time - and he's the only individual involved who has explicitly apologised publicly - even if you personally don't accept it.

Either way - you may feel obliged to create a little bit more nuance in your mind, regarding who deserves which amount of contempt, for what happened during forumgate.

What apology? I haven't seen it, I hadn't even heard of Andrew Chalkley until you mentioned him. Did the apology come after RDF went after JT and they realised that they needed new allies? They certainly didn't go out of there way to make this apology known, Is there any evidence that Paula Kirby was involved? No offence but you seem to be taking their words at face value, call me a cynic all you want but I find people will lie their arses off when backed into a corner.