For Reason and Science?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:07 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:This isn't a public hearing LP. You don't have to justify your views to us - we've been there, in various ways, and we know your reasons for pursuing this, and that, when you get down to it, people like RD, however much they are 'on the right side' as it were, still need to be held to account when they take money from others under false pretences and/or blur the necessary demarcation between their organisation's charitable activity and their personal whims. Don't get distracted by the personal stuff, just bind up all the apparent financial irregularities into a nice neat package and get it out there.
Yes. Yes - this.

I also plan to bind up all of the apparent interpersonal irregularities, which go together with the financial irregularities to paint a picture that is, well, very irregular.

One thing that I have written in my IRS referral is that the NBGA issue is not only evidence of potential fraud, but it is incontrovertible evidence as it stands, of terrible mismanagement and incompetence.

Because no matter how many ways they try to massage the numbers, destroy evidence and plead that the money had been "resting in their account" - there's no way that they're ever going to get a fine polish on that turd.

The interpersonal aspect of the conflict of interest within RDF has had detrimental consequences that go far beyond the balance sheet.

Richard handpicking mistresses for leadership roles within his charity, without any kind of vetting or monitoring processes, would have been a betrayal of donors' trust even if no costs had been incurred by RDF. The prioritising of those mistresses over the fulfilment of the stated mission, would have been a betrayal even if not a cent had been lost.

This is a man who once had his wife help him put his razors through blind trials, so that he could pick the best razor without any undue bias due to branding and marketing. Does he not think that the people he chooses to lead his charity might be of a bit more consequence than the utensil he chooses to scrape hair off his face in the morning? And perhaps his penis is a far greater threat to the impartiality of his judgement than any marketing campaign?

It really is sad because Richard really was in a great position to have achieved the things that he said he wanted to achieve. It's sad that he has forfeited so much because he was so distracted by other pursuits, sad that he still insists he is "proud", and sad that it will take many more months of denial before he finally comes to terms with how badly he has underachieved, and how much he has betrayed people.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:35 pm

Richard has expressed these regrets of opportunities he failed to take in his youth:
... the honorary doctorates have been piling up, and, with them, one recurring regret: “I wasted my time at school,” he says. “I envy my teenage self the opportunities he had and didn’t take advantage of, and sort of think, ‘You little idiot, why didn’t you pay more attention and join the astronomy club?’”

What could he have done that he hasn’t?

“I could know a lot more mathematics than I do. I could be a lot better linguist than I am. I could have read a lot more books than I have.”
Source: http://richarddawkins.net/2013/09/the-w ... the-times/

He must be relieved at how much he's changed over the years, now that he's much older and... taller.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:27 am

Looks like he's gone on another little compulsive streak of vanity retweeting. There's a good chance that some of my message is getting through. ;)

Keep those retweets coming, Richard. They might just solve all of the entrenched and endemic problems within your organisation, and absolve you of all culpability and responsibility. I'll get someone to translate The God Delusion into Basque for you, just so you can have something else to tell the auditors from the IRS, when they arrive.

Image
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:16 am

lordpasternack wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:This isn't a public hearing LP. You don't have to justify your views to us - we've been there, in various ways, and we know your reasons for pursuing this, and that, when you get down to it, people like RD, however much they are 'on the right side' as it were, still need to be held to account when they take money from others under false pretences and/or blur the necessary demarcation between their organisation's charitable activity and their personal whims. Don't get distracted by the personal stuff, just bind up all the apparent financial irregularities into a nice neat package and get it out there.
Yes. Yes - this.

I also plan to bind up all of the apparent interpersonal irregularities, which go together with the financial irregularities to paint a picture that is, well, very irregular.

One thing that I have written in my IRS referral is that the NBGA issue is not only evidence of potential fraud, but it is incontrovertible evidence as it stands, of terrible mismanagement and incompetence.

Because no matter how many ways they try to massage the numbers, destroy evidence and plead that the money had been "resting in their account" - there's no way that they're ever going to get a fine polish on that turd.

The interpersonal aspect of the conflict of interest within RDF has had detrimental consequences that go far beyond the balance sheet.

Richard handpicking mistresses for leadership roles within his charity, without any kind of vetting or monitoring processes, would have been a betrayal of donors' trust even if no costs had been incurred by RDF. The prioritising of those mistresses over the fulfilment of the stated mission, would have been a betrayal even if not a cent had been lost.

This is a man who once had his wife help him put his razors through blind trials, so that he could pick the best razor without any undue bias due to branding and marketing. Does he not think that the people he chooses to lead his charity might be of a bit more consequence than the utensil he chooses to scrape hair off his face in the morning? And perhaps his penis is a far greater threat to the impartiality of his judgement than any marketing campaign?

It really is sad because Richard really was in a great position to have achieved the things that he said he wanted to achieve. It's sad that he has forfeited so much because he was so distracted by other pursuits, sad that he still insists he is "proud", and sad that it will take many more months of denial before he finally comes to terms with how badly he has underachieved, and how much he has betrayed people.
That's all well and good, LP, and I wish you a speedy journey to the resolution of these and many other questions you've raised. I'll only remind you that the audience here is not the peer review panel to whom you must submit before your 'evidence' is recognised as such. And the appropriate authorities' opinions of the quality of your 'evidence' won't necessarily be coloured by how much anyone thinks 'Richard' has 'betrayed people'.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:35 am

They will be coloured by how much RDF has failed to fulfill its exempt purpose(s), how much it has inured to the benefit of any private individuals, and how badly the organisation seems to have been managed overall - which is the technical ways in which Richard has betrayed people.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:24 pm

In addition to how deceptive or improper any of the organisation's activities were, of course.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:44 pm

And as a sidenote - since the topic was raised: I don't think boarding schools are a straightforward "privilege" - especially for young boarders, as Richard was.

I've known other former boarders, and their memories are always mixed. It can be stoical, and hell if you're being bullied or miss your family. In some ways, it's a form of elite, privileged social deprivation.

I don't even have my own kids yet, but I have nieces and nephews. I try to see them all regularly, and I usually babysit my nephews once a week. I can't imagine not seeing them for a whole academic year, and know how much longer that it would seem to them. Not being able to see how they're getting on, talk with them, play with them, read with them, hug them - for months.

For all that boarding schools might try to do so - there is no way they can provide the kinds of everyday affection, intimacy and security that come from growing up in your own home with your family. If I felt that I had to send any kids to a boarding school, for whatever reason, I would at least wait until they were teenagers.

I just had to say that, because it's something I've thought about a bit before - about boarding, and some of the upper class "privileges" which aren't necessarily privileges at all. Sometimes the upper classes just fuck their kids up in more expensive ways than the lower classes.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 61939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by JimC » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:22 pm

It's just like Churchill said about the Royal Navy; rum, sodomy and the lash...

(well, maybe not rum...)
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Calilasseia
Butterfly
Butterfly
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:31 pm
About me: Destroyer of canards, and merciless shredder of bad ideas. :twisted:
Location: 40,000 feet above you, dropping JDAMs
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Calilasseia » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:27 pm

lordpasternack wrote:And as a sidenote - since the topic was raised: I don't think boarding schools are a straightforward "privilege" - especially for young boarders, as Richard was.

I've known other former boarders, and their memories are always mixed. It can be stoical, and hell if you're being bullied or miss your family. In some ways, it's a form of elite, privileged social deprivation.

I don't even have my own kids yet, but I have nieces and nephews. I try to see them all regularly, and I usually babysit my nephews once a week. I can't imagine not seeing them for a whole academic year, and know how much longer that it would seem to them. Not being able to see how they're getting on, talk with them, play with them, read with them, hug them - for months.

For all that boarding schools might try to do so - there is no way they can provide the kinds of everyday affection, intimacy and security that come from growing up in your own home with your family. If I felt that I had to send any kids to a boarding school, for whatever reason, I would at least wait until they were teenagers.

I just had to say that, because it's something I've thought about a bit before - about boarding, and some of the upper class "privileges" which aren't necessarily privileges at all. Sometimes the upper classes just fuck their kids up in more expensive ways than the lower classes.
This of course, dates back to the days of Empire. Boarding schools were considered the ideal method for producing the future administrators of colonies. The inmates who excelled enough to end up doing PPE at Balliol were regarded as prime minister material, or at the very least, suitable candidates for Viceroy of India. Whether these methods actually did produce genuinely skilled administrators, as opposed to petty tyrants handed more largesse than they deserved, is very much open to debate of course, though at least said methods didn't produce our own "Brazza of the Congo". At least not on the same scale as Leopold II of Belgium, who ran what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a personal fiefdom, accompanied by savage brutality.

Boarding schools are still seen as the premier means for producing exquisitely fashioned cogs in the Establishment machine, regardless of several documented malign side effects.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:08 am

The thing here is you are slut shaming Richard Dawkins though aren't you. What's all this shit about balance in a relationship as there isn't any and how could there be. I get the whole if they are in a position of authority then they have to care and protected their students. Though out side of that environment who gives a fuck if consenting adults like to have sex. We already have P Z Maggotcunt having ago at Richard Feynman because he had the audacity to pick up women, the monster.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... roes-ever/

Are you saying that women can't chase after high status males, are you saying that high status males can't have sex with women who are 'beneath' them. There goes hypergamy out the window. How are you going to legislate for that. This demonization of male sexuality has gone on far enough and anyone who supports it can stick a prickly cactus up their arse.

As for your campaign to expose RDFSR while well intentioned is on a hiding to nothing. To think it will lose its charitable status is a pipe dream. Can you imagine the smorgasburg outrage of whataboutry will commence if this happens. For reasons of convenience atheists charities are covered under belief charities. Can you even contemplate the laser like focus most atheists will have on every religious tax exempt status of every religious organization ever, if a piddling atheist charity is punished for improprieties. There are so many fucking retarded religious organizations out there enjoying tax free (exempt) and charity status it is untrue. Do you seriously think any tax organization is willing to open that can of worms. I hope they do BTW but it is never going to happen in a million years. Lets face it the media would have picked up on this long ago because they don't like Dawkins but they haven't so what gives. I'll tell you what gives, they all have their own pet charity full of nepotism and unfilled goals and if they report this then that opens themselves up to scrutiny. Call me a Dawkins fanboi and guilty as charged, though when you find a world that is fair and just then let me know as I would like to live there as well.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:37 am

JimC wrote:It's just like Churchill said about the Royal Navy; rum, sodomy and the lash...

(well, maybe not rum...)
So gin, sodomy and the lash would be OK to you then. :biggrin:
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 61939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by JimC » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:54 am

DaveDodo007 wrote:
JimC wrote:It's just like Churchill said about the Royal Navy; rum, sodomy and the lash...

(well, maybe not rum...)
So gin, sodomy and the lash would be OK to you then. :biggrin:
If I was a housemaster at Eton, all 3 would be compulsory...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 20595
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Hermit » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:35 am

DaveDodo007 wrote:The thing here is you are slut shaming Richard Dawkins though aren't you.
Where did you get that impression from? Mine is that Lordpasternack is campaigning to have the of charitable, tax exempt status of the RDF revoked because it allegedly turns out to be just a resource for Richard Dawkins to plunder the donations for his own, private purposes.
DaveDodo007 wrote:...are you saying that high status males can't have sex with women who are 'beneath' them..
Again, where did you get that impression from? Lordpasternack has repeatedly mentioned that she is OK with whatever consenting adults do in their own time. Her objection is that Dawkins is allegedly robbing his foundation in order to do so.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:14 pm

I also added an important point to my speculation about Dawkins being involved with students, to the effect that he would have been doing academic favours for them. The implication is that he would have been using his position to sort deals and advance the careers of his favourites, in a way that skirted the boundaries between reasonable discretion and serious impropriety and nepotism.

Sexual relationships between faculty and students are problematic for many reasons. They can be just "harmless fun between consenting adults" - but they can also be drama-filled mutually exploitative messes of relationships, which detrimentally affect both parties involved.

As for Feynman - there's already plenty of evidence that he was a sexist, cynical bastard, in addition to being one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century. I don't know why this is suddenly blowing up - but this is something that I've known for a long while.

Seriously - he once called a woman "worse than a whore" for letting him buy her sandwiches and coffee, and not automatically providing sex in return.

From his autobiography:
I bought her $1.10 worth of sandwiches, and hadn’t asked her anything, and now I know I’m gonna get nothing! I have to recover, if only for the pride of my teacher.”
I stop suddenly and I say to her, “You … are worse than a WHORE!”
“Whaddya mean?”
“You got me to buy these sandwiches, and what am I going to get for it? Nothing!”
“Well, you cheapskate!” she says. “If that’s the way you feel, I’ll pay you back for the sandwiches!”
I called her bluff: “Pay me back, then.”
She was astonished. She reached into her pocketbook, took out the little bit of money that she had and gave it to me. I took my sandwich and coffee and went off.
Source: http://forum.burek.com/richard-phillips ... html?imode

I hope to god that I can be disgusted at that without implicating every man alive. I hope that that isn't "male sexuality". I'd have to start conscientiously objecting to cock, if that really were the case. Say it ain't so!
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by lordpasternack » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:42 pm

Let's put it another way - Richard probably has a history of getting himself into sexual relationships loaded with conflict of interest and temptation to professional impropriety. He's probably indulged in a good bit of professional impropriety.

Those kinds of relationships are hard enough to manage responsibly for people who actually have fully developed social skills.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests