RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Jason]

He could sell shares in RD LTD.. then it would be a publicly traded company and he'd be accountable to his shareholders.

There's a distinction between "publicly traded" and just "limited", and that's to do with size. Huge companies like BP, Tesco and Serco are traded on the stock exchange - known as PLCs - ordinary limited companies can indeed sell their shares, but they can only be traded privately. To become a PLC you've got to be huge.

Most small limited companies will have a handful of shareholders (or only one - like in my case) to whom they're accountable, and they're most likely to be the folks who set the company up - often the same people who are the company's Directors.

Interesting. Is this law or up to the markets to decide who'll they'll list for trading?

It makes sense, else the market would be flooded with Acme companies.

[Thinking Aloud]

He could sell shares in RD LTD.. then it would be a publicly traded company and he'd be accountable to his shareholders.

There's a distinction between "publicly traded" and just "limited", and that's to do with size. Huge companies like BP, Tesco and Serco are traded on the stock exchange - known as PLCs - ordinary limited companies can indeed sell their shares, but they can only be traded privately. To become a PLC you've got to be huge.

Most small limited companies will have a handful of shareholders (or only one - like in my case) to whom they're accountable, and they're most likely to be the folks who set the company up - often the same people who are the company's Directors.

Interesting. Is this law or up to the markets to decide who'll they'll list for trading?

It makes sense, else the market would be flooded with Acme companies.

I think so - although you have to have a minimum share capital of £50k (I think it used to be higher - I recall a figure of £120k from some time ago, but I may be wrong).

[lordpasternack]

To be honest I don't think this is a big deal when it comes to atheism/theism as we atheists don't have an abstinence policy, quite the opposite in fact. You name it: premarital sex, blowjobs, anal, gay, bondage and if you are lucky you get a threesome or a foursome etc, all of course paid for by the 'guvmint' freeloading handouts via contraception. the disclosure of anything short or a full on orgy of Caligulaque depths with roast baby as desert will satisfy the theists to confirm their prejudices that we are in fact in league with Satan. Whatever else is going on here a sex scandal is not happening unless Lalla Ward(sp) decides otherwise.

More succinct than my previous post...




Or from the horse's mouth:


"One of the things I know extremely well about Richard is he is... female-dependent. There is a lot of psychology
at work here... but Richard is extremely weak when it comes to demanding females."


Aye - one of the things she knows extremely well, indeed... And from the rest of the writing there, we may deduce that she simply cannot bear it when the one commanding Richard's "female-dependence" isn't her.

A lot of psychology at work here, indeed...

[Coito ergo sum]

He could sell shares in RD LTD.. then it would be a publicly traded company and he'd be accountable to his shareholders.

There's a distinction between "publicly traded" and just "limited", and that's to do with size. Huge companies like BP, Tesco and Serco are traded on the stock exchange - known as PLCs - ordinary limited companies can indeed sell their shares, but they can only be traded privately. To become a PLC you've got to be huge.

Most small limited companies will have a handful of shareholders (or only one - like in my case) to whom they're accountable, and they're most likely to be the folks who set the company up - often the same people who are the company's Directors.

Interesting. Is this law or up to the markets to decide who'll they'll list for trading?

It makes sense, else the market would be flooded with Acme companies.

Well, anyone can start a company, and in the corporate form, the owners own stock. So, if you started Fakuname, Inc. or Fakuname, LTD, you would own, say 100 shares of Fakuname, LTD stock. It would be a privately held company, sometimes called a "close corporation," and you could sell shares in that stock to people who want to buy it, and the rights of stockholders are governed by a "shareholders agreement" and the corporate law applicable.

To "go public" is to become "publicly traded," which means that shares are being offered for sale to the general public. You do that by doing a "public offering." You can be publicly traded without being traded on a "Stock Exchange." The Exchanges -- like the NYSE, NASDAQ, NIKKEI, BOVESPA, and whatever exchanges around the world -- set criteria for listing - minimum number of shares outstanding, minimum market capitalization, and minimum annual income.

[lordpasternack]

I've said I will document my correspondence with Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, and I will. But there are a lot of small details to document therein, and personal analysis and context I'd like to add when I do. And I'd also like to try to document it in as good a way as I can, as to impart close to the full weight of the integrity of the evidence, which remains sitting in my email inbox. So it will be a fairly time-consuming and focused task, which I'll do when I'm freer - most likely later this month.

But in the meantime, I'd like to document just one particular incidence of behaviour typical of her - to give you a taste of what's to come...

She'd given me a brief telling off about how Richard isn't as naive as I think he is, and he has all the lawyers, etc, giving him the advice he needs to move forward. And so I responded to rebut her - quoting a particular excerpt of The Motion For Terminating sanctions (page 13, lines 5-8), from the lawsuit against Timonen.





And she responded:





Oh, I see... Richard wasn't a Trustee at the time of the litigation. That was something I hadn't bargained for - and it makes all the difference. My apologies, etc.

But they should probably have a word with the person who filled out page 6 of RDFRS's 2009 annual return:



Oh, and the same respective page of RDFRS's 2008 annual return, too:



And I supposed I should also cast aside, for the sake of good faith, the fact that I know that good old Clinton Richard Dawkins was named as an individual Plaintiff, in addition to RDFRS, in the complaint - supposed to be suing Timonen for personal damages. I'm sure we can skip over that minor detail, too. It's not really relevant.

But I would love it to be explained how the case was at once "not in [her] hands" and yet so obviously being delegated in complete and minute detail.

And just, for some reason - I feel that I can't quite accept her assurance that Richard was far more involved in the case than I believe. It's just that I seem to have gained the impression that not even the most incidental details of this woman's testimony can be taken at face-value...


PS. The greatest irony is that she copied Richard into the email she sent, in which she claimed he wasn't a Trustee at the time of the litigation. The explanation for this surely must lie somewhere between the extremes of a) and b).

a) She knows as well as I do that Richard is a fucking dunce when it comes to stuff like this, and probably won't notice or question the discrepancy.

b) Richard is fully on board with her telling me such obvious lies.

[Jason]

This has probably been brought up already, I didn't read all the kerfuffle, but is it legal to disclose private communications to third parties without permission?

I'm not trying to shush you or defend her/him, I'm just wondering if you're in the clear to do this sort of thing and RD won't/can't bring a suit against you.

[lordpasternack]

This has probably been brought up already, I didn't read all the kerfuffle, but is it legal to disclose private communications to third parties without permission?

I'm not trying to shush you or defend her/him, I'm just wondering if you're in the clear to do this sort of thing and RD won't/can't bring a suit against you.

There's a broad law in the UK (where I and this site are based) regarding the right to have some form of privacy (in one's family life, etc.) - but there's no specific tort regarding what that entails precisely, and what is specifically allowed or prohibited.

And then there's the Streisand Effect...

[Jason]

I thought it was something like that. Maybe you could check with a lawyer to make sure. Fretmeister is some sort of lawyer (in the UK) I believe. It's just clever (and expensive) lawyers have a way of working ambiguous cases to their advantage.

[Calilasseia]

This is not looking good. I'll leave aside the moment the issue of LP bringing the material in here, and concentrate instead upon that material. Which, as LP expounds above, has this Cornwell character clearly stating a falsehood that was easily and readily revealed as such. This, combined with other instances of exposed falsehoods on her part, does make you wonder why someone in RD's academic circle, or one of his distinguished friends Stateside, hasn't taken him to one side and said "Look, you're an academic, not a businessman or an accountant, why don't you find someone who is, and who, moreover, can be trusted to see that the affairs of your various enterprises are squeaky clean and above board?" If I was moving into this sort of theatre of activity, the first thing I'd do is seek relevant advice from professionals in the field, and cross check that with additional advice from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Because right from the start, I'd operate on the basis that the first principle to be applied with respect to financial dealings of any sort, is quite simply, "don't fuck with the taxman". Apart from being illegal, fucking with the taxman leads to the taxman fucking with you, and you really don't want HMRC's heavy metal squad battering down your doors at 3am with a warrant, along with search and seizure powers that the Gestapo would be jealous of. In fact, HMRC would probably be the first place I'd turn to, followed by tracking down some accountants once armed with the information I'd been given from HMRC, so that if any of the accountants thought they were dealing with a numpty they could shaft, I'd be able to report back to the advisor at HMRC and be told straight if I was being given the mushroom treatment. In fact, I know someone at HMRC I could turn to for the relevant information, and who, as a consequence, would be able to ensure that I started off on a sound and squeaky clean basis.

That RD didn't take this approach, and didn't make sure that he had on board people who would ensure proper contracts were drawn up with respect to Timonen's tenure, really is appalling. I have a sneaking suspicion that he treats such dealings the same way as he treats dealings with other Oxford dons, and acts on the basis that everyone he interacts with operates on the same "gentleman's agreement" basis that Oxford dons do, which is a fatal mistake in a world where the financial services sector is abundantly populated with sharks. Of course, people who have that expertise add to the internal running costs, because they're not cheap, but given the plethora of laws that organisations have to obey, at least here in the UK, with respect to internal financial dealings, not shelling out for that expertise is a sure fire way of seeing that organisation do a Titanic when it hits the iceberg of legislation. Now if I, as a total novice in such a world, can work this out from first principles, why couldn't RD?

[Rum]

We have only ever heard one side of the story here, let's not forget.

[lordpasternack]

Ah, but you see, Cali - you can view this archived snapshot of the RDFRS Staff page and behold:

Dr R. Elisabeth ‘Liz’ Cornwell, PhD, has been taken on as the first Executive Director of the US branch of RDFRS. She has already made many contributions to RDFRS behind the scenes, including... setting up our system of accountancy, auditing and legal advice. She was equipped to do this during her years as a businesswoman, working in marketing and sales in the semiconductor industry in California.

My emphasis.

Please note, though, that that capture was taken on 22 May 2011... and that he claims about her auditing, accounting and legal expertise had been removed by the time of the capture taken almost exactly a month later. Probably around the time that she started to realise that making those claims wasn't turning out to be as good for her PR as she'd hoped...

The comment about her business experience remained, but it was shunted further down in the bio, successfully divorced of its original context regarding said expertise - and an outright lie about her having filmed lecture events (ho, hum) was inserted, for good measure.

But at least Dawkins thinks she's a good fuck.

[Calilasseia]

We have only ever heard one side of the story here, let's not forget.

Trouble is, even though I have RD's E-Mail address, I think he would probably be pretty hacked off if I steamed in asking awkward questions out of the blue. Consequently, obtaining the "other side" might be a tad problematic here.

However, I still find it entirely reasonable to ask certain questions here, as I've done above. Moreover, I contend that the issues I've raised previously with respect to the political dimension still hold, not least because we now have legal documents in the public domain suggesting that RD's management, and that of some of his acolytes, is either incompetent or derelict. Even if the issues are merely those of incompetence, this still carries with it the serious risk of being subject to duplicitous apologetic manipulation by his enemies, quite a few of whom will have no qualms about making shit up in order to sensationalise the issues and indulge in specious magnification thereof. My concern is that any whiff of mischief in this matter will be abused wholesale by those enemies, and that their willingness to lie through their teeth, as they do routinely on their websites with respect to science, will impact negatively on the entire reality based community.

[lordpasternack]

We have only ever heard one side of the story here, let's not forget.

Not really, since I'm posting her unedited emails to me in their original form - without misrepresenting what at least was her true and accurate "side of the story" then, at the time of going to press.

And I don't imagine that she could convincingly backtrack out of her statement to me about Dawkins' minimal involvement in the lawsuit. I wouldn't put it past her to try - but I don't believe she could do it convincingly.

Also - there's more... and it just isn't ambiguous...

[Calilasseia]

Oh fucking hell, I just have to laugh at this sentence from the June 2011 snapshot ...

As an evolutionary psychologist, her research has examined the underlying mechanisms of human mate selection

That's a sentence that could come back to haunt them both.

[Svartalf]

Anybody has a RELIABLE record of where she went to college, what places granted her sheepskins, and what she's done with her life that she'd claim expertise in anything beside boning dirty old men?