Globe wrote:J. TImonen's answer online.

http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

The Ultimate Betrayal

It’s a sad, sad day today. All I’ll say at this point is that the truth will prevail. It won’t begin to fix the damage that’s been done, but the truth will prevail.

With the internet, you can so easily spread outrageous lies, destroy someone’s reputation, self-worth and dignity, and not even have any evidence to back up your malicious attacks. And it amazes me that so many people are so quick to spew venom about people and a situation they know nothing about. Even after my name is cleared, the words and attacks will remain.

A quick aside about the closing of the RichardDawkins.net forum: I can understand that this decision was devastating to many of the forum users, and for that I am sorry. It was never our intention to hurt anyone through that process, it was purely a political decision. It’s frustrating to have been the fall-guy for this. I am am not Richard Dawkins, I am not the Richard Dawkins Foundation Board of Trustees, and I did not act independently. This was a decision made by the organization, that I then executed. I kept my mouth shut through all of the personal attacks to protect the foundation, and to not get personally involved. The decisions that were made by RDF had nothing to do with my personal opinions or feelings on forums or content. They were based solely on protecting Richard Dawkins, RDF, and their reputations.

This year has certainly been the darkest time of my life, the ultimate betrayal, and then the hordes of mostly-anonymous internet users decide to pile it on. It’s making it very hard for me to see the light at the end of this tunnel, where I might regain some kind of hope for humanity, and find motivation again to dedicate my life to improving it in some small way.

I’ve never had irreconcilable enemies before, ever. This is new for me. I’ve never before been the target of a baseless vendetta. But I’m dealing with it as sanely and calmly as I possibly can.

I worked myself to the bone over the last four years to promote reason and science, hoping that my small role in this movement could affect some lasting positive change. I refuse to let this smear campaign destroy me. I created the Scarlet Letter “A” icon and its associated campaign to bring us all together, not tear us apart. I hope to be able to continue on that mission.

This lawsuit is a joke, and completely ridiculous. The accusations are baseless and unfounded.

I will be releasing a public statement soon through my legal team Costa Abrams & Coate, LLP.

Josh Timonen

joshtimonen wrote:Hi Everyone,

I guess it's time for me to talk...
http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

z8000783 wrote:
Are you sure this is the real Josh. Anyone can set up a username.

John

z8000783 wrote:
Are you sure this is the real Josh. Anyone can set up a username.

John

virphen wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
Are you sure this is the real Josh. Anyone can set up a username.

John

Given what he linked to, it seems likely, don't you think?

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm hoping for the Dali Lama as well. If on the odd chance this guy is legit, i'd like to hear more about their take on the missing 300k than the old forum.

z8000783 wrote:

Josh Timonen wrote:A quick aside about the closing of the RichardDawkins.net forum: I can understand that this decision was devastating to many of the forum users, and for that I am sorry. It was never our intention to hurt anyone through that process, it was purely a political decision. It’s frustrating to have been the fall-guy for this.

He still doesn't get it after all this time.

John

CJ wrote:Josh

Please make a note on your blog to the affect that you have joined this forum and link to that note.

virphen wrote:I think given his legal situation Josh would be most unwise to reply to your questions Durro, even if he wants to - I wouldn't hold your breath for a reply.

Durro wrote:

virphen wrote:I think given his legal situation Josh would be most unwise to reply to your questions Durro, even if he wants to - I wouldn't hold your breath for a reply.

I had considered that and it's why I mentioned it specifically in my earlier post. But given that his blog link was already provided by another member, I'm not sure why else Josh would join here and indicate that he's ready to talk unless he wanted to get something more off his chest.

Yes, he may be restricted in revealing specifics, but I'm still interested if Professor Dawkins is (allegedly) wrong, has been led astray or is lying in Josh's opinion, should he wish to share that.

Weaver wrote:What an interesting way to quash commentary on this site ...

I'd have never thought of registering on a site where I'm detested, and counting on the FUA to "protect" me thus putting a major damper on commentary.