For Reason and Science?

[lordpasternack]

I want to add a small caveat to what I said earlier, about Richard badmouthing me behind my back, while never saying anything openly, where I could have the opportunity to respond.

The reasons for this kind of behaviour ultimately boil down to fear of the consequences of speaking directly or publicly about someone. There are some legitimate reasons for engaging in this, such as when a someone has a serious complaint, as well as a significant fear of backlash and retaliation, possibly violent, if they speak openly about it.

But let me just put this into perspective for you: Richard Dawkins is a wealthy, esteemed academic, bestselling author, and established figurehead in the atheist movement. And he can afford good lawyers. I am a young Glaswegian woman with a science degree and a decent brain, who is a relative nobody by comparison.

Which of us would ordinarily take on the greater risk, if publicly badmouthing the other? And under what circumstances should Dawkins fear the consequences of publicly badmouthing someone in my position, who has never threatened him with violence, or shown any inclination to be violent or menacing?

In my case, the answer is: when she's telling an inconvenient truth, has the evidence, and you know very well that you'd never win a fair fight.

This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.

So the mighty Dawkins is reduced to smearing me behind my back, and hoping to god that I don't find out about it. Because he's scared of what will happen if I do find out about it. Because I'm really, really scary.

And that's it in a nutshell so far as I understand it. I take it as a preliminary sign that I'm winning this war, when I've reduced him to that level of pathetic conduct.

[Brian Peacock]

So basically, in public he wants to appear like the big man who's above it all, while being the bitchy small man in private. Don't let him troll you LP - he ain't wurfit.

[lordpasternack]

Thanks.

[Svartalf]

[mistermack]

Which of us would ordinarily take on the greater risk, if publicly badmouthing the other?

I don't think LP understands the economics of badmouthing.

It's people like Dawkins who have something to fear from doing it openly, not people like her.
He's got more to lose.
No point in suing someone who's got bugger-all.

[Hermit]

It's people like Dawkins who have something to fear from doing it openly, not people like her.
He's got more to lose.
No point in suing someone who's got bugger-all.

That is what I understood Lordpasternack to say.

[lordpasternack]

Yes, but rich people can use lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits, not to actually win damages, but to make people STFU. Indeed, if they're wealthy, they might not even care about winning monetary damages.

On the flipside, if anyone wanted to sue Dawkins for defamation, they'd have to get good lawyers, and pay them a retainer to keep them on the case, on top of the hourly rate for their services - and risk paying their opponent's legal costs on top of their own, if they lose the case. Even "no win, no fee" offers, made for cases likely to win, carry the risk of having to pay the defendants' legal fees in the event of losing the case.

Suing for defamation is the domain of the wealthy and privileged. Dawkins has nothing to fear from any commoners threatening legal action against him - not unless he says something really egregious (and false), like calling Mr Smith on High Street a child rapist and terrorist.

[Rum]

I feel dirty just reading the last couple of pages. Wish I hadn't now.

[lordpasternack]

I feel dirty just reading the last couple of pages. Wish I hadn't now.

Thank you for your insightful contribution. You are more than welcome to desist from reading and commenting.

[lordpasternack]

What surprises me most about Rum's reaction is his apparent eagerness to see past both the obvious need for RDF to be vetted, and my intended clemency in giving Richard one last opportunity to run RDF properly - which is an opportunity that Richard seems very reluctant to take, without serious pressure from outside.

And, well maybe I was a little too subtle - but I do eventually want reconciliation - but I want it to be sincere and mutual, and part of that will involve Richard dampening the hostility against me that he has purposely and dishonestly engineered behind closed doors. He has been a dishonest, spiteful wanker - and he of all people knows this best. I think he can change, though - and he must change.

The fact is that Richard set up a charity under semi-corrupt pretenses, has run it incompetently, has failed to respond in any decent or competent way to complaints and tip-offs - and has said far worse things about me in private than I have ever said about him on this thread or anywhere else.

This pattern has persisted over several years, despite repeated attempts from several people, to get through to him nicely, diplomatically, and without rocking the boat. Those tactics simply don't work.

I don't know how anyone, knowing or reasonably believing that version of events, would come out of the other side thinking "poor Richard, poor guy, why don't you just cut him a break?"

I hope you eventually find something else to gripe at me vaguely about.

[mistermack]

Yes, but rich people can use lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits, not to actually win damages, but to make people STFU.

Yes they can. But he hasn't, has he?

So either he's not bothered, or your argument doesn't stand up.

In fact, trying to silence people has been a poison chalice lately, for lots of rich and famous people.
It has the tendency to backfire.

[Hermit]

And the chance of this one backfiring looks pretty good.

[lordpasternack]

This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.

[Brian Peacock]

I wouldn't hold your breath for a reconciliation LP. Though I don't doubt your sincerity, I think the main focus is the dodgy bookkeeping and the missing funds. That which is in Dawkins' gift is beyond your ability to influence, and the ashamed often resent those who shame them even when that shaming is due.

[DaveDodo007]

Just trying to get DaveDodo007 as the last post.