For Reason and Science?

[Calilasseia]

Well I don't recall saying we should give RD a free pass on this. What I have said, of course, is that RD manifestly fails to understand what I keep referring to as the "political dimension" in all of this, presumably as a result of letting his dick do his thinking for him, and that the resulting Greek tragedy will be pitiful to witness once it unfolds. I've never once said that evidence of wrongdoing should be withheld, and indeed, if there is prima facie evidence that the wrongdoing strays from mere incompetence, and goes diving headlong into the territory of outright criminality, then those of us who have that evidence have a duty to present it to the proper enforcement authorities. All I've done is lament the manner in which RD has handed the enemy a truckload of solid gold ammunition.

[lordpasternack]

He has always understood the political dimension of what would happen if his enemies caught whiff of any scandal within RDF, and of how much it would let the rest of the rationalist community down if RDF were caught with its trousers down.

However, it neither discouraged him from pursuing "secret agendas" through his charity, nor encouraged him to develop an attitude towards his charity that could be described as remotely professional. It's only ever encouraged him to be incredibly defensive about RDF and his shenanigans, and to blame everyone and anyone else for "potentially damaging the foundation" - while lying and covering things up to save his own arse.

Psychologically, it's not dissimilar to paedophile priests who are completely fixated with the goal of maintaining the Catholic Church's PR - not enough to get their own act together - but just enough to keep things hush-hush, to get defensive when questioned, and to criticise anyone who does anything that might invite scrutiny.

And to be quite frank - he deserves to enjoy the same success that the Catholic Church has experienced, with that PR strategy.

[Brian Peacock]

Hey LP.

I reckon you should shorten your open letter, summarising the main points into three or four tight paras conducive to publication and putting the rest in a supporting document. Then fire it out to all the quality papers and news-sites.

Just a thought.

[lordpasternack]

Was thinking of re-editing it like a scientific paper - with a short, punchy "abstract", followed by a longer explanation... But your idea might be better.

[Hermit]

Good idea. Enticing someone to attentively read a lengthy investigative report involves a lot more than listing a lot of facts and using colours, italics and bolding. I for one must admit that I only managed to read the first two pages in detail before skimming through the rest. Apart from the physical formatting of the text, the obvious barrow-pushing put me off a bit. Content should be presented in such a way as to speak for itself.

Though your mileage may differ, I find the articles in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh textbook (so to speak) examples of clear, thorough, convincing, yet gripping investigative reportage. The Stovepipe is one of them. Others are easy enough to find. Not as easy to emulate though, I fear.

[JimC]

Good idea. Enticing someone to attentively read a lengthy investigative report involves a lot more than listing a lot of facts and using colours, italics and bolding. I for one must admit that I only managed to read the first two pages in detail before skimming through the rest. Apart from the physical formatting of the text, the obvious barrow-pushing put me off a bit. Content should be presented in such a way as to speak for itself.

Though your mileage may differ, I find the articles in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh textbook (so to speak) examples of clear, thorough, convincing, yet gripping investigative reportage. The Stovepipe is one of them. Others are easy enough to find. Not as easy to emulate though, I fear.

Or LP could study some old Coito Ergo Sum threads...

[charlou]

All I've done is lament the manner in which RD has handed the enemy a truckload of solid gold ammunition.

I wouldn't describe lp as the enemy

RD seems to have been his own worst...

[Brian Peacock]

Good idea. Enticing someone to attentively read a lengthy investigative report involves a lot more than listing a lot of facts and using colours, italics and bolding. I for one must admit that I only managed to read the first two pages in detail before skimming through the rest. Apart from the physical formatting of the text, the obvious barrow-pushing put me off a bit. Content should be presented in such a way as to speak for itself.

Though your mileage may differ, I find the articles in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh textbook (so to speak) examples of clear, thorough, convincing, yet gripping investigative reportage. The Stovepipe is one of them. Others are easy enough to find. Not as easy to emulate though, I fear.

Let journalist write the articles, LP just has to give them the impetus (because most journos are lazy and wait for stories to come to them) and the info (which they can check for themselves anyway). And if anyone does bite LP, don't let them, or EC, make the story about you - this is about people giving money to charity in good faith and it disappearing into thin air.

[lordpasternack]

A little appropriate comic relief:

[Calilasseia]

All I've done is lament the manner in which RD has handed the enemy a truckload of solid gold ammunition.

I wouldn't describe lp as the enemy

RD seems to have been his own worst...

I wasn't thinking of LP as the enemy, I was thinking of assorted creotards ...

[lordpasternack]

I think RD has, at times, wanted to dismiss me as "the enemy", between telling me that I have "an interesting, clever mind" and telling me that I'm a thorn in his side. I'm not sure what the current consensus is. All I know is that I'm probably his most vexing critic.

I think part of the trouble for Richard is that he can't pigeonhole me at all. I don't fit into the archtype that his harsh critics are supposed to fit into. I'm not the sort of person that he imagines would tell him to go fuck himself. He finds it difficult to be criticised harshly by someone he can't easily dismiss. Even when he goes off with all his bluster about how I'm a nutty curmudgeon with whom he WILL NOT converse - he has followed this by talking to me exactly as though he expects me to be sane and reasonable - which I am, all the while criticising him harshly.

He'll use "I've blocked her", as a way to implicitly discredit me in conversation, without bothering to add:

"I've blocked and unblocked her more than once, consulted her for advice, and complimented her via email and in person - and the conflict between us is far more complex than the simplistic impression that I am deceitfully trying to give you. And right after telling you to consider her nuts, I'm going to get involved in a conversation with her in which I try to bargain with her exactly as though I think she's sane and reasonable. I'm also going to attempt to lie to her, which she won't like and will share on Rationalia. Whoopsies... BRB - the IRS wants a word with me..."

[JimC]

"Will someone rid me of this turbulent woman?"

[charlou]

All I've done is lament the manner in which RD has handed the enemy a truckload of solid gold ammunition.

I wouldn't describe lp as the enemy

RD seems to have been his own worst...

I wasn't thinking of LP as the enemy, I was thinking of assorted creotards ...

I know.

Noting the irony. The solid gold ammunition seems to have escaped their notice all this time. lp is the only person following up on and proceeding with this, afaik.

[lordpasternack]

"Will someone rid me of this turbulent woman?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

[Brian Peacock]

I think part of the trouble for Richard is that he can't pigeonhole me at all. I don't fit into the archtype that his harsh critics are supposed to fit into...

Perhaps you just fit into the 'sceptic' pigeonhole?