RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Hermit]

I think the actual name is required for legal reasons...

The entire disclaimer is most likely useless. In the real world not only are authors successfully prosecuted for libel, slander and such, but so, notwithstanding any disclaimers, are their publishers.

And I thought we got the spelling right...

Try "Dalgleish."

[lordpasternack]

Fifth was this thread. I don't want to use the word obsession yet but the insults you are getting in this thread alone are nothing to what you will get if this hits the MSM.

What's the MSM?

If after that you still feel strongly about the way the RDF is run then go for it and be prepared for the slings and arrows of some shakespearian guff.

Aye - that's what happened to Brian Cutler, 5 years ago:

http://rationalresponders.blogspot.co.u ... claim.html

http://breakingspells.wordpress.com/200 ... ake-it-so/

Which is why he said this publicly in response to me: https://twitter.com/rationalsquad/statu ... 2832111617

And this, privately:



I imagine he's some WAG or WAG-wannabe, too...

Although - I would say that I really don't want to stress so much on Dawkins' sex-life. It's not the sex in itself that's the problem - it's the conflict of interest, how naively he approaches it all, and how much he appears to be being manipulated, in the context of said sexual relationships. It's the apparent mismanagement, the nepotism, the neglect, and the conflict of interest within his Foundation that all orbit around that issue.

It's the point that gains me the most incredulous abuse - and hence the one that I often find myself defending and documenting strenuously - despite it not being my central argument.

I do plan on taking a little cool-off time before I write in more detail for a wider audience about the whole stromash, though. That'll let me get things ordered and into perspective in my head, to place coolly onto the page.

[lordpasternack]

The obvious way forward would be to send any evidence one has to the charities commission, the inland revenue or even the police and then wash ones hands if the whole thing and move on. The fact that this hasn't happened will no doubt be met with some sort of justification, but that is what someone wishing simply for some sort of 'justice' would do in my view.

Currently, the only thing that there is sufficient confirmed substantive evidence for, is that RDFRS is managed inefficiently, incompetently and negligently - that they are piss-poor at maintaining their objectives and promises to donors - and that there is/was real conflict of interest in RD's relationship with the current Executive Director of RDFRS.

There is also suggestion of other possible nefarious activities - but not enough, yet, to satisfy an official complaint - so far as I'm aware.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm glad. That place had far too few vamps.

[Red Celt]

She showed me emails.

I could show you how easy it is "recreate" emails that never existed... if I cared enough. It sounds like the woman you're referring to does care enough. Unless you have evidence from their ISP, the only evidence you have is one person's word for it. I mean, fuck it, if I created an email that proved the existence of Yahweh, would you accept it... or would you apply skeptical thinking towards such an email. You have every motivation that is required (your obsession) not to apply that skepticism to this woman's claims.

And Richard didn't deny it

"As usual, I am NOT going to enter into correspondence with you"

I do plan on taking a little cool-off time before I write in more detail for a wider audience about the whole stromash, though. That'll let me get things ordered and into perspective in my head, to place coolly onto the page.

She said... completely missing the point of the advice that has been given here.

But damn, you're not going to drop it, are you? You currently have celebrity-by-association, and in this celebrity-obsessed culture, you'll do your damndest not to return to being a nobody from Glasgow that nobody has ever heard of.

Revitalise that campaign against RD.

(sound of a fanfare of trumpets)

Because it is a just cause.

[hadespussercats]

I agree about the name. Should be a user name in my opinion, however if it is a mod consensus surely that is enough?

There was definitely consensus.

I think the actual name is required for legal reasons...

And I thought we got the spelling right...

I don't know about the name being needed. If a more knowledgeable person could set us straight, that would be helpful.

Anyway, the name is not exactly a state secret...

The person named posted her name several times herself in this thread.

[lordpasternack]

And Richard didn't deny it

"As usual, I am NOT going to enter into correspondence with you"

BUT WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT THAT EMAIL IS REAL?????!!!!!11!!!!

You have every motivation (ie. your cherished view of Dawkins, and your insistence on being hyper-skeptical with me) to believe it is real. But it totally might not be. I might have just fabricated that shit - even though it's not even flattering to me, and I've published it anyway...

But anyway that was back in August - and it doesn't mean that he stuck to his word. Indeed, he was quite chummy to me for a few weeks pending him resolving the issues with his organisations...

And I don't quite know what your point is.

What would you like me to do to prove to you that I sent the email to Richard, having a go at him for calling me a liar to this woman in question? And that I received his response, conceding that, well, he had indeed had Elisabeth Cornwell as a mistress, but had never bought her an apartment? (Which is obviously implied as his basis for having called such claims "ridiculous lies" - and a complete implicit confirmation of my contention. The only thing that he sought to inform me was untrue was that he had never got Elisabeth Cornwell an apartment. A claim which is untrue. (And I can PM solid evidence for that.))

Actually, put this women and her Oxford fling aside. I think we should be more concerned about the fact that his current Executive Director has been his mistress.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm just impressed that he is 70 years old, and still solidly banging chicks left and right. Either a testament to good genes and healthy living, or a testament to the value of Viagra or Cialis. LOL. Either way, more power to 'im!

[lordpasternack]

I'm just impressed that he is 70 years old, and still solidly banging chicks left and right. Either a testament to good genes and healthy living, or a testament to the value of Viagra or Cialis. LOL. Either way, more power to 'im!

But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye...

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm just impressed that he is 70 years old, and still solidly banging chicks left and right. Either a testament to good genes and healthy living, or a testament to the value of Viagra or Cialis. LOL. Either way, more power to 'im!

But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye...

For guys, taste doesn't enter into it that much -- it'll amount to whatever "strange" is easily, and hopefully discreetly, available.

[Red Celt]

I'm just impressed that he is 70 years old, and still solidly banging chicks left and right. Either a testament to good genes and healthy living, or a testament to the value of Viagra or Cialis. LOL. Either way, more power to 'im!

But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye...

Translation: He didn't bang ME! (cue motivation for hate campaign)

[Coito ergo sum]

Translation: He didn't bang ME! (cue motivation for hate campaign)

Dawkins is, like, 50 years older than lordpasternak. I know age is just a number, but at some point it becomes a factor. I've read a lot of posts by LordP about Dawkins and I don't get the impression she has some sort of ulterior motive or grudge. I'll leave it to LordP, but other than taking her word for it, I'm not sure what can be done to satisfy an accuser in this regard.

And, finally, maybe they did have a tumble or two.

[Red Celt]

Translation: He didn't bang ME! (cue motivation for hate campaign)

Dawkins is, like, 50 years older than lordpasternak. I know age is just a number, but at some point it becomes a factor. I've read a lot of posts by LordP about Dawkins and I don't get the impression she has some sort of ulterior motive or grudge. I'll leave it to LordP, but other than taking her word for it, I'm not sure what can be done to satisfy an accuser in this regard.

And, finally, maybe they did have a tumble or two.

"But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye... "

You need to learn how to read humans better.

[Coito ergo sum]

"But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye... "

You need to learn how to read humans better.

I'll work on that.

A lot of Dawkins naivete, as LordP has recounted, involves his overall dealings with people, which seem to extend to anyone he puts his trust into, whether business-wise or whether personally. And, thinking someone has terrible taste doesn't necessarily mean one is on some sort of grudge-mission against the bloke.

Maybe stick to attacking facts instead of motives.

[Red Celt]

"But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye... "

You need to learn how to read humans better.

I'll work on that.

A lot of Dawkins naivete, as LordP has recounted, involves his overall dealings with people, which seem to extend to anyone he puts his trust into, whether business-wise or whether personally. And, thinking someone has terrible taste doesn't necessarily mean one is on some sort of grudge-mission against the bloke.

Maybe stick to attacking facts instead of motives.

For all of the complexities, humans are driven by so very few motivators. Some people are easier to read than a takeaway pamphlet (with more spelling mistakes).