RD.net to be re-revamped!

[lordpasternack]

LP

has Richard ever given you any signal verbally or otherwise to encourage you to a personal/intimate relatonship with him?

He has complimented me a few times in the past, sincerely. Some encouraging words, which one could always read optimistically between the lines over - but certainly nothing I could sell to the tabloids.

[lordpasternack]

Flora - here is a screenshot of an email that I sent to Richard, and forwarded to Paula, on the 6th of bloody November:



I don't get it. I told them and told them, politely, then took the piss gently, then took the piss firmly, then expressed contempt - all the while telling them that I wasn't going to let it go if they weren't willing to tell me what they've been up to.

I actually think that that article about the US branch's 'plans' was in some way an indirect response to my prodding. Unfortunately, they've just a little disingenuously made an arse of it - not only in the article - but in the removal of all the comments.

I have a good idea for a good book project they could all collaborate on for, though: "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Being Despairingly Incompetent, and Fucking Up Your Own Charity and Online Community Royally"

[lordpasternack]

I'd also like to add that I'm glad that others are echoing my opinions, only a little more detachedly and diplomatically. I don't apologise for getting miffed, and being as frank and brutally honest as I can be at times - but it's always nice to see some Good Cops to my Bad Cop.

[kiki5711]

LP

are you really concerned about the fate of RD.net or is it just some kind of revenge war of a sort for not getting something out of Richard in a manner that you would like?

[lordpasternack]

LP

are you really concerned about the fate of RD.net or is it just some kind of revenge war of a sort for not getting something out of Richard in a manner that you would like?

I already responded to Charlou about this on the other thread. If I had wanted to try to seduce Richard shamelessly I'd have gone for it. If I wanted base spiteful vengeance for whatever grievance I have, I'd have gone for it. I have plenty that I could have used simply to spite him and his staff. I didn't, I haven't and I'm not. There may be a little more emotional complexity involved here - but that isn't it.

Have you seen how optimistic and good humoured my initial enquiry about RDFRS was? How open I was to a response in any format, via any medium, from any person in the foundation? Are you aware how polite I stayed for the first fortnight or so being dealt deafening silence to the simple query of what it is that they do?

[lordpasternack]

Just sent this email:

I would like to thank you for taking criticism on board, and showing this through the gesture of reinstating my posts - including the particular post in that thread, and responding to Jan in that thread. I also admire Jan for her good humour since she was one of the moderators who worked for free on your forum for several months before being jackbooted out, and who remains more competent than your current moderators.

I still don't apologise for my anger though - and you STILL haven't responded to say what you HAVE been doing. It's encouraging that you are taking these steps, but remains discouraging that you were and are in such a state that you are unwilling to be transparent about what you have been doing, right here and now. It's still a disgrace that it should have had to come to this - that you and your staff should need to be told this - Richard. I have every faith that underneath it all, many at RDFRS, and you in particular, are very well-meaning - but sometimes that only makes the naivety more aggravating, and incompetence more galling.

And please, in all this, don't lose sight of the fact that I started off perfectly politely in asking you this trivially simple question. I gave you plenty of notice. Plenty of signals. I was hoping deep down that you'd provide something proper, in whatever way you deemed suitable, to show me I was wrong in all my previous cynicism about RDFRS. You didn't and you still haven't. I am RIGHT to be as cynical of RDFRS as I am. Please do change that. Please do. Please fix it.

Just don't lose sight of the fact that my trusty camel's back broke months ago, and this situation has just about buried it alive in straw. All of my irritation at RDFRS, and your foibles, has been a long time coming - only compounded by the fact that you can't respond to the query of what it is that you're doing.

And don't lose sight of the fact that you would likely respond the same way if you contacted a Foundation for Reason and Science - asking them what they do - and found that it was like trying to get blood from a stone. That asking for evidence was like pulling teeth. You'd get petulant, too, Richard. And being optimistic about 'constructive' input NOW doesn't cover that many sins, to be frank.

And you still haven't responded to this query.

Regards,

Heather.

[Gallstones]

Are businesses with a charity status required by law to report what they take in and where it is spent?

[Pensioner]

Are businesses with a charity status required by law to report what they take in and where it is spent?

I think that is true in the Uk.

[Ayaan]

Are businesses with a charity status required by law to report what they take in and where it is spent?

I think that is true in the Uk.

I'm pretty sure it's the same in the US too.

[Gallstones]

So RDF has to have provided that information. To whom or what would it have had to provide it?

[lordpasternack]

In the UK, they'd have to report to the Charity Commission, and I think the information is publicly accessible. In the US, I'm sure I read that non-profits must declare all money passed through them, and again, this is publicly accessible.

I'm going to start looking into what procedures I can follow with the Charity Commission to complain and dig for information.

They've thrown us a sop in the form of reinstating my posts and actually allowing people to talk on the damn thread - but they still show no inclination of actually answering that question of what it is that they do, and have been doing, in line with their Mission Statement. They've still shown no sign of resolving that issue. They're still the same incompetents in the same positions. I don't honestly trust them to manage to implement Jan's suggestions properly, and I'm not going to let them stay complacent. My issue remains unresolved, and I still plan to escalate it to the Charity Commission, and to other atheist boards and blogs (including Pharyngula, of course).

[Pensioner]

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Sh ... ryNumber=0

I do not understand any of this stuff.

[PsychoSerenity]

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Sh ... ryNumber=0

I do not understand any of this stuff.

It doesn't say much. A big chunk of the money they've received, they have donated to the RDF US charity, and smaller amounts to other charities. They seem to be just sitting on the rest of the money (Net assets: £243,103), unless they've done something with it since the last year end. They spent £9,790 on Computer and website costs in the year ending April 2010 apparently, which is a fair bit higher than the previous years.

[Flora]

I also admire Jan for her good humour since she was one of the moderators who worked for free on your forum for several months before being jackbooted out, and who remains more competent than your current moderators.

Thank you for the compliment Heather, it's most appreciated. I was a moderator then admin on the forum for about 3 years and I don't regret any of it (despite being very upset at the way the forum was closed). I feel privileged to have been part of something that enabled all sorts of people from around the world to post their thoughts and articles on reason & science, ask for/give advice, make links with others etc.

I don't think the mods on RDnet now are incompetent - I suspect they are just trying to "the right thing" and don't have any malicious intent. Is it fair to describe them as not competent? I know one of them and he's a lovely guy who has RDFRS best interests at heart. I don't know what you've posted that was deleted but perhaps they thought you were just intent on trolling/insulting RD rather than making a contribution.

In some respects, every organisation needs someone as feisty and clever as you are to challenge what they are doing but perhaps your frank manner and occasional 'stalking' behaviour undermines what you are actually saying, which results in you not being listened to as much as you might be. I can't remember where I read/heard it but there's a quote somewhere about the importance of listening to those who disagree with you as much as those who agree. This is easier if those who disagree aren't personally insulting or threatening, which you sometimes are despite your other attributes of compassion, wit and generosity, which many of us know about.

I've just read what I've written and I sound hugely patronising but I don't mean to be - just trying to express myself while juggling family/work/pets. I hope you'll get the gist of what I'm attempting to convey even if it's not well written.

[Hermit]

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Sh ... ryNumber=0

I do not understand any of this stuff.

It doesn't say much. A big chunk of the money they've received, they have donated to the RDF US charity, and smaller amounts to other charities. They seem to be just sitting on the rest of the money (Net assets: £243,103), unless they've done something with it since the last year end. They spent £9,790 on Computer and website costs in the year ending April 2010 apparently, which is a fair bit higher than the previous years.

Thanks for the link, Pensioner. What little can be gleaned from the figures in this report, looks not so good. In fiscal 2009, for instance, donations received amounted to £317,926. In that time the foundation made donations that only amounted to £119,227. The figures for fiscal 2010 are worse than that. Not only has the amount of donations received plummeted to £66,301, (which is less than a quarter of the previous year's total,) but donations made amounted to less than one sixth of that lower amount, namely £10,051. Meanwhile, governance and support costs doubled from £10348 in 2009 to £20578 in 2010.

Donations made are not itemised. For all we know, a certain amount may have been classified as a donation to the RDFRS in the US, whereupon some of that in turn finished up in a swimming pool. Also noteworthy is that four of the six trustees resigned in short order - one in November 2009 and three within six days of each other late in May 2010.