RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Robert_S]

Took them long enough to get a story together.

[lordpasternack]

Took them long enough to get a story together.

During which they postured pointlessly and indulged in various fallacious arguments.

I emailed them:

That wasn't so hard, was it?

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundatio ... ur-website

Next time, please try providing substance instead of providing choice excerpts from your CV, various logical fallacies - and mindless rubbish about me never having visited Pakistan, and therefore being unqualified to speak on the issue.

I sought out and provided perfectly valid evidence. I did a better job of helping you to establish a clear understanding of the situation than you managed yourself.

Also - just to remain contentious: in Richard's article there, he says that, on the strength of the notices about RD.net being banned in Pakistan RDF launched an "appeal for help".

How many lines of that "appeal" are devoted to asking for money for RDF?

And how many lines are devoted to explaining how money raised would actually be used to help secularists in Pakistan?

And how many Pakistani secular organisations had you got in touch with, to offer solidarity or ask questions, prior to and while using the situation to raise money for RDF?

Indeed, there is absolutely no substance in the fundraiser. All it really says is "Pakistan has blocked our website. SEND US MONEY!"

Even granting that the premise of the fundraiser contains truth - it's patently obvious that the situation was being used cynically by RDF in order to raise money for itself - with which it expressed no intent to help secular Pakistanis, and no intent is evident, even in the current screenshots.

It's also nice to have vindication that none of you - none of you - bothered your arse to seek out any grassroots Pakistani secularists before using their situation to raise cash for RDF. And it still reveals something of how much you really care about their situation.

So, Richard, don't stand there faux-innocently stating that on the strength of the situation you launched an "appeal for help" when it's patently obvious that you launched an appeal to fill RDF's coffers - while absolutely neglecting to speak to a single grassroots Pakistani secular/atheist organisation proactively to offer solidarity. You only got in touch with Pakistani Atheists on Twitter AFTER signing off on your fundraiser [and after I had contacted Pakistani atheists on Facebook]. I need say no more.

You're still full of rubbish - albeit slightly less full of rubbish than I'd feared.

And a final word: I stated that I have heaps of evidence which caused me to doubt the premise of the fundraiser in the first place, and this remains true.

That is all I will say for now.

Regards,

Heather.

Bolding added.

[lordpasternack]

My article pending submission to the British press is now provisionally titled:

"Perhaps Merely Incompetence and Unscrupulousness on This Particular Occasion, for Reason and Science"

I'm gonna check under a few more stones though. I still think it's a coincidence that they first heard it through me telling a particular Facebook group to contact Richard directly. And I just have this lingering suspicion that other Pakistanis might have spoken up earlier, and been conveniently swept under the carpet. It would be something that would be difficult to find evidence for - but there's the niggling suspicion.

[DaveDodo007]

By the way Ms lordpasternack, care to explain how you are on level 2 of #womenabusers on twatter.

fuck it the link didn't work I'll have to upload a picture later on.

[lordpasternack]

By the way Ms lordpasternack, care to explain how you are on level 2 of #womenabusers on twatter.

fuck it the link didn't work I'll have to upload a picture later on.

A Twitter user who used to actually follow me, cropped up randomly to shout at me for having told the truth on Greta Christina's blog over a year ago, about the sexual relationship between Richard Dawkins and RE Cornwell - presumably along with my stating, truthfully, that RE Cornwell was incompetent for her role as Executive Director, and has a rich history of dishonesty.

The odd thing was that he was shouting at me and calling me a "woman abuser" for the "accusations" of adultery - which of course involved an "accused" man as well as a woman. He was apparently shouting at me for accusing Cornwell of adultery - and not for my accusing her of incompetence and dishonesty.

It was odd.

[DaveDodo007]

By the way Ms lordpasternack, care to explain how you are on level 2 of #womenabusers on twatter.

fuck it the link didn't work I'll have to upload a picture later on.

A Twitter user who used to actually follow me, cropped up randomly to shout at me for having told the truth on Greta Christina's blog over a year ago, about the sexual relationship between Richard Dawkins and RE Cornwell - presumably along with my stating, truthfully, that RE Cornwell was incompetent for her role as Executive Director, and has a rich history of dishonesty.

The odd thing was that he was shouting at me and calling me a "woman abuser" for the "accusations" of adultery - which of course involved an "accused" man as well as a woman. He was apparently shouting at me for accusing Cornwell of adultery - and not for my accusing her of incompetence and dishonesty.

It was odd.

I think it would be OK to give their nym or their twatter name as you are included with some unpleasant characters on level 2.

[lordpasternack]

What do you mean?

[DaveDodo007]

Basically you didn't name the cunt who put you on level 2, I'm interested in who did the dirty deed as I can confront them if I cross their path online. If you don't want to do that well that's fine and you are a better person than me, though that is not saying much as I'm a twat.

[lordpasternack]

Basically you didn't name the cunt who put you on level 2, I'm interested in who did the dirty deed as I can confront them if I cross their path online. If you don't want to do that well that's fine and you are a better person than me, though that is not saying much as I'm a twat.

This guy:

[lordpasternack]

Incidentally - somebody posted this great picture to one of the Facebook groups I follow:



Damn and blast - just a few days too late for me to put it to good use.

[DaveDodo007]

Basically you didn't name the cunt who put you on level 2, I'm interested in who did the dirty deed as I can confront them if I cross their path online. If you don't want to do that well that's fine and you are a better person than me, though that is not saying much as I'm a twat.

This guy:

Fuck me, that guy is all over the atheist online intertubes, in fact I think he might be the creator of the #womenabusers on twatter hashtag. If anybody mentions FTB/Skepchicks he is there in the comment section attacking them. Now I have nothing against anybody who attacks the A+ clowns as I occasionally do it myself and I fully recommend it but he jumps in with both feet and comes across as a little obsessed with them. He is so rash to comment that he lets the likes of oolon and A Hermit come across as rational and that takes some doing. Still it looks like me and Rich will be having a conversation in the near future.

[lordpasternack]

This is still pure comedy gold: http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundatio ... rs-website#

You can help us continue to reach secularists in Pakistan and other religiously oppressive countries.

Yes, I can, can't I? By sending some simple emails and Facebook messages - which is more than anyone within your organisation bothered their arse to do, given well over a month of having heard news of being banned in Pakistan.

They can ban our website, but they can not diminish our resolve to make the world safer for nonbelievers.

Please note that the Richard Dawkins Foundation's "resolve" does not include actually contacting anyone in religiously oppressive countries to establish the facts of their situation, or to offer any kind of support or solidarity.

Nor does the Foundation's "resolve" include fulfilling any of the projects it has ever pledged to do, while pandering for money.

But they love you - and they need money!

[lordpasternack]

Sean Faircloth has left RDF. I have heard this via one of my contacts just now, and confirmed this on the RD.net site, from which he has been removed: http://www.richarddawkins.net/home/about

His name was erased very quickly. And if there be no further mention of his resignation on RD.net, and his intent to move on to bigger and better things - then this is very suggestive of him having come into direct conflict with Robin Elisabeth Cornwell. I would likely never be able to confirm the actual facts, and I won't stick my neck out completely - but this just happens to be one of Cornwell's well-worn tactics: erasing the names of those she no longer likes, those who dared challenge her, very quickly.

She's done it to Margaret Downey (see 13 Sept 2008 versus 18 Oct 2008), Josh Timonen (whose name she erased from his videos two months before she could falsely accuse him of embezzlement) and Andrew Chalkley. And I wouldn't doubt for a minute that she was quick on the ball to erase the names of all the former Trustees, (Karen Owens, Todd Stiefel and Greg Langer,) who had all resigned from RDF at least in part due to her.

This also perhaps helps put into context Cornwell's bizarre email to me under Sean's initials, back in August.

This is the same woman who lacks the basic initiative to suggest that RDF send some emails to secularists in Pakistan. As it happens, she is very proactive and efficient when it comes to the erasing of names.

I think I'll write Sean a letter to detail some of my speculations, and wish him all the best, notwithstanding. I always liked him, despite the small conflict I had with him on Facebook a while back.

[lordpasternack]

I can no longer edit the above post.

For the erasure of Andrew Chalkley, see the "Built by Andrew Chalkley" citation on the foot of the page, present on 11 July 2011, and absent from 14 July 2011, onwards…

She probably took her time in effacing that particular mention of traitor Chalkley, only because it was so small and it had escaped her notice for a few months. 

Chalkley had resigned in November 2010, citing Cornwell and her "persistent re-writing of history" as the explicit reason.

And eight months later, true to form, Cornwell wrote Chalkley out of history.

[Robert_S]

for how much potential there was.