RDFRS

[lordpasternack]

Stick whatever email addresses you like back into my post. That's all I wish. You use your discretion whatsits.

[Ronja]

Good, now we have one bona fide googlable address for each person of interest. Easily available on a thread REALLY near you...

This will be intersting, I think.

[lordpasternack]

Incidentally, one of the biggest compliments Tigger gave me (and it was intended as a compliment) was that he wouldn't like to be in an argument with me if I knew my ground. I think I'll treasure that, right now.

I'd also like to add, a little cryptically - I was a legitimate bit on the side of Tig's - but never did I fuck him about emotionally or financially - or get him to do grotesque or flamboyant favours for me. If he lent me money I paid him back, and I more often than not paid half for things during a meet. Nor did we ever speak to each other through schmaltzy pseudonyms. I can't imagine anything so fucking BLEURGH!

Hell, I've probably fucked most of the moderator team, here - and for some reason am not wielding the political clout that should come with that.

This is relevant, though not to anything I've mentioned - though I can't elaborate much at the moment. Except to say that apart from being naive generally, Richard thinks a little too much with his cock and his pocketbook.

[Robert_S]

[Rum]

In my experience if one puts someone on a pedestal, when they fall off and disappoint it is wise not hold them to the high standard you imposed in the first place. Best to admire people, warts and all in my view.

Pretty well everyone has feet of clay when it comes down to it.

[lordpasternack]

I also think Richard has got a little too used to his pedestal. A little too blasé. He needs too be knocked off it for his own good. He's literally, honestly, too stupid and too lazy to be at the helm of a charity, and too stupid to pick the right mistresses individuals to delegate to. His foundation is destined to remain a clusterfuck till it dies - and when it dies, Richard won't need to worry, because his causes won't miss his foundation. Except that he will still worry of course - because it will bash his ego and his pride terribly…

No-one in his foundation can explain to me what they're defending - and yet they're defending it tooth and nail all the same. And they defend their PR like good Catholics.

[kiki5711]

Hell, I've probably fucked most of the moderator team, here - and for some reason am not wielding the political clout that should come with that.

This is relevant, though not to anything I've mentioned - though I can't elaborate much at the moment. Except to say that apart from being naive generally, Richard thinks a little too much with his cock and his pocketbook.

ya wanna get in his pants, don't ya?

[lordpasternack]

Hell, I've probably fucked most of the moderator team, here - and for some reason am not wielding the political clout that should come with that.

This is relevant, though not to anything I've mentioned - though I can't elaborate much at the moment. Except to say that apart from being naive generally, Richard thinks a little too much with his cock and his pocketbook.

ya wanna get in his pants, don't ya?

Wanted. Past tense. I wish Tigger could have lived to see this moment, too. All change. All change…

[charlou]

I think it's your ego and your pride that's been bashed, lp. This is coming across as a campaign to ruin a man for your personal reasons, not a quest for truth.

[lordpasternack]

I think it's your ego and your pride that's been bashed, lp. This is coming across as a campaign to ruin a man for your personal reasons, not a quest for truth.

I would never 'ruin a man' without substance or a reasonable motive to do so. And if I wanted that, I'd have been far more underhanded and spiteful and conniving, rather than completely frank, open and honest with all concerned (and I have been, I assure you). I'd have revealed more 'juicy details' to people to embarrass him. I'd over egg what I write to the Charity Commission, and I probably would have written something already. And nor am I ruining him, in any case. I'm of a mind to trash his Foundation, because I think it is a farce - and part of my reasoning is that they can't manage to explain what it is that they DO, in over five weeks and counting, now.

Part of me even thinks it's in Richard's best interests to scrap or drastically pare down his Foundation's pretensions. Sincerely. I think it has brought out the worst in him, and the worst in those around him.

So thanks for your tuppence - but I'm happy to conclude for myself that it isn't grounded in reality. Of course there's schadenfreude, there's indignation - but justified, so far as I'm concerned. This is quest for truth. It's your privilege to see it another way - but I'm not fazed.

Edit to add: And even if my ego and pride were involved, it wouldn't falsify the strength of my argument or motives. That would be a Tu Quoque fallacy.

[Robert_S]

Fame monster?

Well, at least he's not had plastic surgery yet.

[Gallstones]

Hell, I've probably fucked most of the moderator team, here - and for some reason am not wielding the political clout that should come with that.

Huh?
I don't get the connection to Richard Dawkins, RDFetc, moderators, and clout.

[Gallstones]

Aren't most men (who are headed for it) capable of causing their own ruin?
One only need sit back and watch--if one is into that kind of thing.

[charlou]

Aye

Wanting to knock a man off a perceived pedestal, wanting to bring his site down, slurring his name and that of his friends, associates (and/or lovers, if that's the case) via inferred gossip, as demostrated here ... that's not objective analysis, that's vindictiveness.

[lordpasternack]

Of course it is, Charlou - that's why I've been so damned restrained and patient over it all, and not 'slurred' anyone, besides Richard - besides calling him a charlatan and a fucking idiot. There's a small vein of moralistic aggression, but I can assure you that the core of my motive is clean. And sometimes knocking someone off a perceived pedestal is a decent thing to do, in the circumstances. You don't know the details that I know, and that's not your fault. Perhaps I should just have kept it zipped until I was ready to give details more fully, and objectively. Fair deuce.

I think maybe you need to get a little more perspective on what 'slurring' is, and what this situation is, even just as it's laid out in this thread for you. I get the feeling you're just here to be the token 'diplomatic' contrarian again, to be honest.