RD.net to be re-revamped!

[lordpasternack]

Hold onto your seats and feel the blast of the white-hot heat of innovation.

[lordpasternack]

There's been a small but glaring issue on the main RD.net site since yesterday. In approximately five minutes I worked it out, in between revising for an exam tomorrow. Someone simply put a '0' somewhere where they should have put an '8'. Let's see how long it takes them to fix it.

[lordpasternack]

Dey fixeded it! Must have got a hint...

[Tero]

I forget, why is this interesting anymore?

[JimC]

I forget, why is this interesting anymore?

Zombie topic, zombie thread...

[lordpasternack]

Just residual carping as my passion falls away.

They're still a bunch of ambitious incompetents. They're still losing traffic, probably still losing donations, with little sign of actually getting a grip of themselves, and either being genuinely professional themselves, or hiring (more) genuine professionals. This has irked me for too long - but now, fuck it, they're welcome to it, if that's obviously what they want. And Richard sure is a talented writer, speaker and communicator of science, with a nice personality and likely the best of intentions - but heaven knows he can be a bit fucking daft when it comes to pretty much anything administrative or social, to do with running of his Foundation. Whatever. He can have it. He can watch his site be made an arse of, and cry foul over people running off with his Foundation's money (after finally noticing, after three years), and then file an expensive lawsuit, and be laughed at by the judge, if that's just what gives him kicks…

And I should probably mention of course that all this time I've just been being horrible and mean-spirited and trolling against them, and they really do know what they're doing, though it's been hard to tell, sometimes - and I kept at them all that time purely because I just fucking love harrassing them.

[Cunt]

Small point, lordpasternack.

You imply that three years is slow for catching a not-for-profit fucking around with money. I disagree.

If you still disagree, do the world a favour and start up a not-for-profit. You would either find out you were wrong, or improve the world. Win-win, right?

[lordpasternack]

Cunt - it wasn't a not-for-profit fucking around with money - it was a particular employee/contractor, and an important point to factor is that he made zero attempts to cover his tracks as such. They asked him for the account books, and he handed them over, completely transparently, from what we're told. No trickery, no laundering before giving them over.

The most important point here is that they didn't bother even to skim those account books in the three years prior, and even Richard was/is supposedly in two minds over whether Josh took the money 'legitimately' - as per a previous agreement (oh yeah, verbal contracts - another LOL moment) - or whether he really was taking RDFRS to town. But they filed suit, anyway. And Richard purportedly considered a lawsuit to be the way to uncover the truth of the matter - rather than something you resort to after you've done a proper investigation and have something of a reasonable case to present. What a shambles. What a dufus. I just hope the blowjobs are worth it. I can't find many other fathomable redeeming qualities his staff may have that make them the best candidates for their position.

[Cunt]

Having worked for organizations like this, I would have to say that someone twigged quickly. It's not that there is anything right about this (I do know much of the story) it is that this is how business is running in that sector.

Truly, if you started one, remembering your feelings about this, you would improve your world. I am very serious.

Bumbling do-gooders fucking up business matters is almost predictable.

[lordpasternack]

Well, plus ça change, and all that - but that doesn't mean that it's any less basic incompetence, and risible in some places (are you seriously basing a lawsuit on an 'oral contract' with a straight face?) - or that heads shouldn't roll or be firmly chastised for the various fuck-ups that have ensued. But yeah - if that's how Richard prefers it - that's his privilege, I suppose…

[borealis]

Cunt, how do you know that people aren't involved in organizations? I could say I have some experience from that field too, and to be honest I'm quite surprised if that what LP just told is true. In my experience all the money traffic is given a good look at least once a year in annual meeting, when the annual report is listing everything that has happened and income and expenditure has to be in balance. So if JT didn't make up non-existing expense, I can't think of any way him to take 90% of the profit without someone noticing. Unless he just gave one number of online store profit after taking the pool money away first, and nobody wondered why there is a conflict between items sold and profit . But still I don't understand; annual report should include also reports of items sold, what was the income and expenditure per item and all together, and so on. If organization gets any public money, those reports are given even more accurate look than normally. Of course there can be and probably is differences in different countries, but it surely would be very nice to hear what went wrong and how is made sure that this won't happen again. As this conversation is in public area, if there is anyone from RDFRS that reads this thread, I challenge you to take part and come to tell your version of story. I don't blame RDFRS or its employees and I definitely don't know enough of this case, but as a potential donator, I want to know how is made sure that nobody will "legally steal" my money again.

[Cunt]

I try to avoid donating money because I have seen an organization pass audits year after year while still playing 'hide the salami' with money. Corruption isn't unusual (though this level might be a bit over the top). The books ARE gone over by the board. The board also enjoys shuffling money around to justify what they want to do, regardless of what funders are requested or have been promised.

I instead contribute time, which is much more difficult to exploit in a way I disapprove of. I just pack tools and fuck off if I am used inappropriately. If I donate a buck, and they misuse it, I have no reasonable recourse.

Plus I like that lordpasternack is pissed. Good things will likely grow from that. Whenever she gets involved in such an organization, her experience here will echo.

Well, I don't really like that you are 'pissed', lordpasternack, but I am pleased that you have taken such a strong interest. If more folks did, there would be less of this kind of fuck going on, and it would be caught faster.

[lordpasternack]

Borealis - I'll look for proper links soon - but my understanding is that Josh simply said to Richard that the store was 'squeaking by', and Richard took that as sufficient - sufficient auditing - and no-one so much as glanced at the RD.net store's books over that three year period. And yes, even Richard was purportedly in two minds about whether Josh took the money in good faith, or had purposefully exploited them - based on the fuzzy verbal agreement they supposedly reached - and it was nine months into the lawsuit that they realised that whatever pertinent documentation they had bolstering their case had been 'lost forever'…

It's actually quite funny, in a wry sort of way…

[Cunt]

I think it isn't your academic focus, lordpasternack, but I would encourage the FUCK out of you to supplement what you have with finance and economic training. It is useful, so why do so many science-types ignore it? Imagine Carl Sagan with a 'CA'...or Paul Erdosh with an obsession for economics...

[lordpasternack]

Ahehe… maybe. I'm a bit of a Jill of all trades, really. My brother studied business at uni, though, and we'd often chat about some of the stuff he was focussing on.

That's another thing, actually - if you think I'm argumentative with anyone from RDFRS, or anyone around here, you should see my brother and I arguing. There's no genuine aggression - but we're both as strong-willed as each other. Enough said.