RD.net to be re-revamped!

[borealis]

Well, I emailed to RDFRS about three months ago and asked one very simple question about his new children's book, and got no reply (except the automatic reply right away, which promised no reply). My question was so basic and simple (and polite ), that yes or no answer (or even "I don't know") to that wouldn't have taken more then 10 seconds to reply. I wonder if anyone ever gets any answers from there. I don't think it has anything to do with being polite, it's about their attitude.

Shame, it would have been nice to buy the book. But not before I get an answer to my question.

[lordpasternack]

I started off politely.

Maybe my memory is unreliable, but if it is not, your very first request for information included a threat. While it is reasonable to plan an escalation if such information is not forthcoming within a generously specified span of time, it is not a good idea to announce such an intention right at the outset. I am not surprised that Dawkins and company are digging their heels in straight away.

My 'threat' was: "If you don't do this then I suppose I could always satisfy my sceptical curiosity by getting someone less ignorable to ask you these questions. It seems odd that you'd be so coy."

And I am still surprised. They should have the information to hand, and be happy to disseminate it, to the good-natured and suspicious alike. That's how things work in science. That's how things work in good organisations. They want to bend over backwards to allay any reasonable doubts and nip issues in the bud. PR people - which Paula is allegedly some breed of - understand this. The most gruff and cynical request for evidence is responded to with a "right here, mate". Richard knows how that works, and he's stated over and over what he values - though it's a pity that he all too often gives himself generous exemptions from his own stated values.

Also - my first email was on the 1st, and a next handful of emails were on the 3rd - when I also iMessaged him. This is the entirety of my email on the 3rd:

Please also note that I am deadly serious about following this enquiry up. It's true that I have a somewhat sceptical/cynical view of RDFRS (with reason) - about what it is in practice rather than in theory - but this is my earnest attempt to falsify my hypothesis. I am cordially inviting you to show me I'm wrong, to me personally, or by adding the pertinent information to your site for general consumption - which as someone else who believes in working with the currency of EVIDENCE, who encourages people to 'ask for evidence', and given that this ethos is supposedly what your charity is all ABOUT - I'm sure you'd respect and appreciate.

Please don't demonstrate that, over and above my initial cynicism, RDFRS isn't capable of responding appropriately to the most elementary General Enquiry. People may be busy, preoccupied, have other priorities to attack at any particular time - but if nobody in the organisation has the time or wherewithal to respond to this basic but important enquiry, within, say the next three months or so, then you'll have questions to ask yourself a bit more probing than anything I've put forward.

Please sir, may I have some evidence?

Heather.

It addresses my cynicism, but in a completely diplomatic, sincere, straightforward way - and states that I will be only too happily swayed by their evidence of what they're doing.

On the 5th of November I also wrote an email with this last paragraph:

Want to avoid a lot of stress and annoyance? Simply support the 'Ask For Evidence' campaign by starting at home. Anytime now.

Would it have been too much for him or Paula or anyone else in the Foundation to give me a "we have received your query and are working on resolving it"? The whole damn point of dealing with queries and complaints is that sometimes people get testy. The people in any decent organisation know this, and work to avert it as best they can, and realise that completely stonewalling the inquirer isn't going to help matters any. Especially as the shit begins to escalate, and said inquirer starts fomenting doubt about them publicly. But then, I think we've established by now that RDFRS isn't any decent organisation…

[lordpasternack]

Oh, and, what Ronja said:

kiki, when this current round started 1st November (see this post and onwards http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1027176) it was just a question: "What does your organization do?"

IMO, if and organization has received the official charity label and around half a million pounds sterling (and likely more over the years) it is very little to ask "BTW, what did you do with the money?" - and it is definitely suspicious if an answer is not speedily forthcoming. Regardless of who asks and how they phrase the question (and IMO LP was quite civilized in the beginning: mildly ironic, but civilized).

Would you trust a 501(c)(3) charity that takes four to six weeks to start reacting to that type of questions at all, and that does not answer some people's questions but does acknowledge comments/questions by others?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1069734

[lordpasternack]

And what klr said:

I'm not very familiar with any of the folks at RDFRS.

Is this the first organisation they're running?

Let us put it this way: Both of those words should be used advisedly.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1070143

[chalkers]

And what klr said:

I'm not very familiar with any of the folks at RDFRS.

Is this the first organisation they're running?

Let us put it this way: Both of those words should be used advisedly.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1070143

They like giving the impression that they are bigger than they actually are. Saying "Staff" when there aren't any.

[lordpasternack]

And as OlivierK opined back on RatSkep - with particular reference to the lawsuit, but applicable generally:

If RDFRS lose this based on the fact that their record-keeping is incompetent, then all that suggests to me is that they are incompetent. Something I already suspected, given their general management style and hiring choices.

Face it, if Dawkins had acted even slightly less than cluelessly about his entire website, he wouldn't be in the situation he's in now, even if that was due to the simple competency of having employment agreements for employees, or contracts with contractors, depending on what role Josh supposedly had. He obviously didn't much care what happened, and that carelessness has landed him with a messy lawsuit at best, and being taken advantage of at worst.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... ml#p929022

[lordpasternack]

And uhm, how perceptive, in the second paragraph:



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... ml#p935741

[lordpasternack]

So, on the basis of no new information whatsoever, Dawkins folds.

Not surprising, but not rational, either. The man can't manage shit, clearly, and seems to know so little about what he's doing in areas like the web and the law that he's unaware that his hired help are as out of their depth as he is. It's sad, really.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... ml#p935750

[kiki5711]

LP

Have you gotten any kind of response to your inquiry from anybody at RD.net? Anybody at all? Please tell the truth.

[lordpasternack]

LP

Have you gotten any kind of response to your inquiry from anybody at RD.net? Anybody at all? Please tell the truth.

No kind of response, from anyone - other than the vague indirect responses of them putting up that article showing the US branch's 'plans', at around the time I had been prodding them - and fiddling around spitefully, then nicely, then spitefully again with my posts over there. I have had no direct contact from anyone in the Foundation about my query, at all. This is the truth.

[kiki5711]

I wrote to Richard Dawkins regarding this whole ordeal and received an immediate reply from him about the activities of RDFRS. This is what he said:

Needless to say, we don't have the slightest difficulty in replying to requests for information about the activities of my UK foundation, nor are we at all reluctant to do so. Indeed, I know Paula did so just a couple of weeks ago (when she answered a civilised and polite letter from somebody whose name has been removed for obvious reasons of privacy):



On 1 Dec 2011, at 07:57,[...]wrote:

> Every year instead of giving Christmas cards, I donate the amount I would have spent to charity.
>
> I'd like to donate to RDFRS but I need a bit more information on what you *actually* do. Your mission is very grand, but what specifically will you do with the money?
>
> Regards,
> [...]


On 1 December 2011 12:08, Paula Kirby RDFRS UK <paulakirby@richarddawkins.net> wrote:
Dear [...]

Happy to answer your question, but the answer will depend on whether it was the UK or the US foundation that you had in mind. Could you let me know, please?

Best wishes

Paula Kirby
RDFRS UK


On 1 Dec 2011, at 13:25, [...] wrote:

Sorry, I didn't know they were different! I'm in the UK.


On 1 December 2011 17:00, Paula Kirby RDFRS UK <paulakirby@richarddawkins.net> wrote:

Hi [...]

Yes, they're completely separate entities - similar goals, of course, but with different trustees (Richard being the only trustee common to both of them), different staffing and different focus, reflecting the different religious environment in the two countries.

The UK foundation is very small and therefore does a lot of its work through supporting other organisations which are working towards similar goals of promoting science, reason and secularism.

Examples include financial support for a fledgling science festival in Inverness; financial and promotional support for The Ancestor's Trail, which aims to bring evolution to life on rambles-with-lectures along the Dorset coastline; working with the National Secular Society, helping them with ideas, contacts, promotion and speakers for their annual conference promoting secularism; financial support for the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign, allowing them to produce leaflets and a petition to try to prevent a new school in the area being faith-selective Catholic; and sponsorship of the QED 2012 conference. We sponsor student activities such as Think Weeks, which promote rationalism and secularism, and assist the organisers in approaching big name speakers and generally offer our help and assistance. And we provide help and editorial support to organisations or individuals trying to publish books or other written materials promoting reason and/or science. We have recently been approached by another organisation about the possibility of a readily accessible free booklet explaining evolution, and if that goes ahead we have indicated that we would be happy both to contribute to the content and to contribute to the costs, or possibly cover them in their entirety, depending on the sum required.

In addition, we give talks in schools and at conferences, and offer support, encouragement and advice to atheist/agnostic groups overseas.

Our biggest project and investment this year was the commissioning of a major, very detailed Mori poll, the results of which have not yet been made public but will be over the next couple of months, and we fully expect them to be extremely helpful in the campaign for true secularism in the UK and to achieve a considerable amount of press coverage.

I hope that gives you a flavour of the kind of things we do, and what we would use your donation for, should you be kind enough to make one.

Best wishes
Paula

Paula Kirby
RDFRS UK






What we won't do, however, is respond to individuals who have been put on a black list due to a long history of persistent, excessive, stalker-like contact, ranging from obsessive, daily harassment to out-and-out hate mail; and nor, of course, will we under any circumstances respond to attempted blackmail, whatever form that might take. If anyone else would like information on RDFRS UK activities, they are very welcome to contact us at ukcontact@richarddawkins.net or paulakirby@richarddawkins.net. Alternatively, if they wait a few days, we will be carrying out a major overhaul of the UK foundation website and including an excerpt from the Trustees' Annual Report for 2010-11, outlining the activities we carried out in that year. The full Trustees' Annual Report and Accounts will sent to the Charity Commission, of course, and will be publicly available on their website in due course.

With my very best wishes

Richard

[lordpasternack]

Does anyone else believe that I was just spitefully trying to blackmail Richard, here? Anyone who thinks I wasn't sincere, and genuinely suspicious about their lack of communication? Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to hold back good news about your professional organisation, because you don't like the asker, or feel blackmailed?

I have been completely honest and upfront here, and this issue has caused me a lot of genuine consternation, and wasted time and energy. I defy anyone to see it differently. Many thanks for posting that, though, Kiki - and thanks to Richard and Paula for finally having the word relayed to me.

I will be honest about everything. I'm now writing a lengthier response to Richard to post here…

[lordpasternack]

This is my open response - a bit of a brass neck in places, to post publicly, but I'm stepping up to the plate :


I am very, very, very sorry, Richard. I am mostly harmless - and the only out and out hate-mail I have knowingly sent you was calling you a charlatan and an idiot in light of this. I also know my tone can also sometimes sound harder than I had intended, in writing. I'm sorry whatever the reason, there. I confess to being more fixated by you than was appropriate at times, and apologise for how much this has offended you. I can assure you, if you had made these feelings explicit, I would have taken the telling. I am not spiteful in that way.

And you have also complimented me in the past - so please don't paint me so blackly. I am brazen, forthright, stubborn, heedless, overfamiliar and at times obsessive. I am aware of my faults and idiosyncrasies - but I rarely mean harm, nor do harm. And I mean that. I can say when I've fucked up, and I fuck up in my own ways humblingly regularly - but please don't misrepresent what I am. I am embarrassed by how pushy I have been with you in the past, and a bit here - but I'm willing to admit to that, and I do have other redeeming qualities. And you have appreciated some things I have said. Enough to put up with me to some extent. And you have also taken on board some input I've given. This is the truth. 

And I simply did not and have not blackmailed you. I have published some pretty standard emails from myself in full here, and not many others have your perception, either. And even if I had - you are a scientist. Since when do we withhold information because we don't like the asker? Since when do we sit on evidence because we feel we are being 'blackmailed' to provide it? I really don't think that it's an adequate reason for not responding in any way, shape or form. What impression do you THINK I would have been getting from your silence?

Would I have been forwarding stuff to do with this to PZ, and publishing emails and email addresses here if I weren't genuine? You watched me start off politely and get gradually angrier, and express several sentiments that don't fit your blackmail hypothesis - so please at least do me the favour of tossing that hypothesis away - as I am now happy to toss some hypotheses I had about RDFRS away.

The response needn't have been from yourself. I even made THAT clear. It could have been from yourself, or Paula, or some other nondistinct individual associated with your Foundation - or simply put on your website(s). I stated so. Whether you like it or not, my sincerity and genuine dismay rings through in my words - and this has caused me a lot of distraction in the past few days by people not being forthcoming about this. I simply did not and have not blackmailed you and I would have been gratified to know what RDFRS has been doing. Which I am now.

So, sorry for offending you, sorry for harrassing you at times, and sorry for the misunderstanding of my intentions here and possibly elsewhere. And thank you for your response - even if I disagreed in parts with it. And I will try to leave you alone more from now on.

Thank you for your attention,

Heather Dalgleish.

[borealis]

If I were Richard I'd be slightly pissed off for publishing personal email address here, we're not even in guest free area.

Still. I can't be in the black list because that simple, polite question was the only email I've ever sent there. I don't know how much politeness Brits need, but I said hello and thank you and everything

[kiki5711]

So, sorry for offending you, sorry for harrassing you at times, and sorry for the misunderstanding of my intentions here and possibly elsewhere. And thank you for your response - even if I disagreed in parts with it. And I will try to leave you alone more from now on.

I'm sorry LP, but I see this as manipulation. Like, sorry I hit you with a hammer, I really didn't mean it. Then comes the apologies and I still care for you mantra.

Also posting his private email is kind of like "yea, I'm sorry, but I'll get back at you somehow, you'll see". And here it is: your private email for ALL to see and send you millions of texts.