joshtimonen wrote:Hi CJ, yes it's me. I've added the note to prove it.
Josh

Wasn't it all of CJ's posts you deleted?

He will be pleased to hear from you I suspect.

John

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.

To stop personal and vitriolic attacks occurring.

John

z8000783 wrote:Wasn't it all of CJ's posts you deleted?

He will be pleased to hear from you I suspect.

*Wonders just how fast darwinsbulldog can get his account reactivated*

joshtimonen wrote:Hi CJ, yes it's me. I've added the note to prove it.
Josh

Noted, thanks.

I see our newest member has already been told to fuck off on Ratz.
Shocking.

Ain't this exciting?

z8000783 wrote:

joshtimonen wrote:Hi CJ, yes it's me. I've added the note to prove it.
Josh

Wasn't it all of CJ's posts you deleted?

He will be pleased to hear from you I suspect.

John

Yes, Josh and the cunt Chalkly decided to delete my account, and others. In my case 13,000 posts sent to oblivion. Seems rather trivial given Josh could well be facing jail time as a well know atheist in a prison system with 99%+(?) theistic inmates.

Gallstones wrote:Ain't this exciting?

Bet you're glad you came back now!!

CJ wrote:Yes, Josh and the cunt Chalkly ...

In before chalkers signs up?

I think the larger issue really is the idea of forum post ownership. I understand that people post thousands of posts on other people's websites, and then feel a certain sense of ownership to that content. But the ownership still sits with whoever truly owns and pays for that website. RichardDawkins.net is Richard's website (and RDF's), and if they want to remove content, then it's completely within their right to do so. In hindsight, I think it was a bad idea to have a forum centered around one celebrity-figure. It's a lot of weight to put on one person's reputation. I think forums like this have a much better chance of success, where it's centered around ideas as opposed to people.

Josh

Made of Stars wrote:

CJ wrote:Yes, Josh and the cunt Chalkly ...

In before chalkers signs up?

The though had occurred

Can I ask that we lock this topic until after the court case?

Nobody has seen any evidence or viewed a defence. Nobody knows what they're talking about. All we'll get is a lot of spiteful sniping from members angry at the closure of the old forum. People are of course entitled to be angry if that's how they see it but that is not appropriate in a matter as serious as alleged fraud.

Quite apart from the recent allegations, whatever happened on the old forum is ancient history. Everything has already been said. It really is time to let it go. It would not make a very appealing spectacle to go over all that again.

jerome wrote:I just wish to thank devogue for breaking the news and making my evening! I must say I do feel sorry for Dawkins: he was betrayed by a friend, and that must sting, and a lot of his money and money donated in good faith was, er, mislaid. Still, it shows how deep the wounds f the forum closure were that I can still derive great joy from this: though none of that should be misunderstood as meaning I'm happy aout the misappropraition of funds, or any supposed damage to organised atheism - but I don't think the latter can possibly occur, as I don't think JT (or even RD) are really the opinion makers people think (athesits need no leaders, almost by definition). Still while being as happy as everyone else, as a theist I had better point out - I am not happy about this, except in as far as it shows we as a community were right all along.

j x

You are a delightful piece of work, tks for that.

joshtimonen wrote:Hi CJ, yes it's me. I've added the note to prove it.
Josh

Well then.... Thanks.

And I am supposed to say "Welcome".

Just to add.

PS: I have registered on several forums under the name “joshtimonen” (rationalia, rationalskepticism, JREF, etc). Yes, it’s me.

To be found here: http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

Let’s keep an open mind here, and if it is Josh and if he means to return let’s at least hear him out.

I scribbled the following before I read that The Ultimate Betrayal thing.

Calilasseia still reckons all the blame’s down to that incompetent Josh, and InYourFace feels disappointed in the boy: “Think about how Josh clearly betrayed him, destroying what was apparently a good business partnership and personal friendship between the two.”

I can’t envisage Calilasseia ever giving way to hyperbole but do have some doubts.

Not only does our friend derive revenue from various diverse sources (hopefully demonstrating at least some appreciable degree of competence), but also why would he have actively sought to jeopardize such a seemingly marvelous earner for himself as the old Site, one with a sizeable, commercially enviable captive audience?

A site not so much touting Dawkins the atheist, as Dawkins profitable product personified, presumably at his own direction and instigation or at least with his complete acquiescence, Josh mere paid employee or service provider. It also seems probable that alleged revelatory discoveries emerged largely as a result of venue changeover, begging once more the question why Josh would want to so risk upsetting the apple cart.

To me it seems more likely the outcome of one man’s petulant ego, ‘in the vanity of dotage’, foolishly cutting off his commercial nose to spite…? It’s said that the aptitude for flattery grows by what it feeds on, and the format of Dawkins current arena seems in fact designed to cater to his own conceit and personal sublimity – no risk of serious contradiction here… If science constitutes organized skepticism, his present web-site seems anything but.

Dawkins later apology: “However, it also contained some threads that were potentially harmful to the website …” Not those posts as happened to contradict his personal ‘donnee’ or particular views then?

My purpose in writing at that time, however, was rather different: it was simply to express my full support for Josh and my horror at some of the truly appalling personal abuse he had been subjected to during the day. I still stand by that. Josh is a personal friend of mine, one of the most talented people I have ever met, and a vital and highly valued member of our team. The character assassination inflicted on him and other team members was beyond reason.

Amusing to say the least, seeing it was apparently penned only nine or ten weeks prior to filing his case versus Josh.

Because legal requirements imposed by the British Charities Commission prohibited the British wing of the foundation from running its own store, Dawkins says he asked Timonen to run the store through his company, Upper Branch Productions.

Not what I would have thought the actions of some naïve bystander, apart from perhaps the possibility of ramifications closer to home.

Timonen handed over financial books that detailed his embezzlement…

How convenient…

The alleged misdoing apparently also occurred over more than three years. And as primary responsibility resides with the trustees, weren’t the Foundation’s records subjected to proper external audit.

Reporting serious incidents demonstrates to us that you have identified a risk to the charity and that you are taking appropriate action to deal with it. This is very important because safeguarding the assets of the charity and the charity’s beneficiaries are key trustee responsibilities. Where it is clear that trustees are handling serious incidents appropriately and the risks are being managed by them, we are unlikely to take further action. If it is not clear that the incident and risks arising from it are being dealt with and the trustees are acting responsibly, we will need to engage further with you.

Charity law requires trustees to submit, as part of the Annual Return, information specified by the Charity Commission in its regulations. If your charity has an income over £25,000 you must, as part of the Annual Return, sign a declaration that there are no serious incidents or other matters relating to your charity over the previous financial year that you should have brought to our attention but have not. If an incident has taken place but you have not reported this to us, you should do so when you submit the Annual Return.

Fraud and theft are criminal activities. Their impact on a charity can be significant, going beyond financial loss and the impact on the financing of a charity’s planned activities. These crimes cause distress to trustees, staff and volunteers. They may bring adverse publicity to the charity and damage the good reputation the charity has with its donors, beneficiaries and the public as well as that of the charity sector more generally. It is vital that the public has trust and confidence that the money they donate to charity is used properly and goes to the cause for which it is intended. It is therefore important that trustees deal properly with these incidents and take reasonable steps to ensure that such events do not happen again.

You need to report to us any actual or suspected serious incidents of fraud, theft, other financial crimes or other significant loss to the charity. You should report incidents if you know an event has taken place or where you reasonably suspect that it has.

Lewis, where is the italicised copy reprinted from? A link would be great.

Lewis wrote:I can’t envisage Calilasseia ever giving way to hyperbole...

joshtimonen wrote:I think the larger issue really is the idea of forum post ownership. I understand that people post thousands of posts on other people's websites, and then feel a certain sense of ownership to that content. But the ownership still sits with whoever truly owns and pays for that website. RichardDawkins.net is Richard's website (and RDF's), and if they want to remove content, then it's completely within their right to do so. In hindsight, I think it was a bad idea to have a forum centered around one celebrity-figure. It's a lot of weight to put on one person's reputation. I think forums like this have a much better chance of success, where it's centered around ideas as opposed to people.

Josh

Hogwash. RDF was unique and will never be replicated. It's arrival on the back of The God Delusion made it a unique rallying point just when a lot of people were becoming more vocal in their own atheistic world view. You fucked RDF it was going on fine under the new rules and should have been carefully manoeuvred into what Richard wanted. And the act of wanton vandalism on the part of you and Chalkly deleting accounts shows exactly the level of contempt you personally felt for the membership and their contributions. Don't try and play the good guy, you weren't.

Text in italics extracted from here http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165 and the original courthouse document here http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm and the charity commission site here http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Ou ... notes.aspx

Lewis wrote:Let’s keep an open mind here, and if it is Josh and if he means to return let’s at least hear him out.

I scribbled the following before I read that The Ultimate Betrayal thing.

Calilasseia still reckons all the blame’s down to that incompetent Josh, and InYourFace feels disappointed in the boy: “Think about how Josh clearly betrayed him, destroying what was apparently a good business partnership and personal friendship between the two.”

I can’t envisage Calilasseia ever giving way to hyperbole but do have some doubts.

Not only does our friend derive revenue from various diverse sources (hopefully demonstrating at least some appreciable degree of competence), but also why would he have actively sought to jeopardize such a seemingly marvelous earner for himself as the old Site, one with a sizeable, commercially enviable captive audience?

A site not so much touting Dawkins the atheist, as Dawkins profitable product personified, presumably at his own direction and instigation or at least with his complete acquiescence, Josh mere paid employee or service provider. It also seems probable that alleged revelatory discoveries emerged largely as a result of venue changeover, begging once more the question why Josh would want to so risk upsetting the apple cart.

To me it seems more likely the outcome of one man’s petulant ego, ‘in the vanity of dotage’, foolishly cutting off his commercial nose to spite…? It’s said that the aptitude for flattery grows by what it feeds on, and the format of Dawkins current arena seems in fact designed to cater to his own conceit and personal sublimity – no risk of serious contradiction here… If science constitutes organized skepticism, his present web-site seems anything but.

Dawkins later apology: “However, it also contained some threads that were potentially harmful to the website …” Not those posts as happened to contradict his personal ‘donnee’ or particular views then?

My purpose in writing at that time, however, was rather different: it was simply to express my full support for Josh and my horror at some of the truly appalling personal abuse he had been subjected to during the day. I still stand by that. Josh is a personal friend of mine, one of the most talented people I have ever met, and a vital and highly valued member of our team. The character assassination inflicted on him and other team members was beyond reason.

Amusing to say the least, seeing it was apparently penned only nine or ten weeks prior to filing his case versus Josh.

Because legal requirements imposed by the British Charities Commission prohibited the British wing of the foundation from running its own store, Dawkins says he asked Timonen to run the store through his company, Upper Branch Productions.

Not what I would have thought the actions of some naïve bystander, apart from perhaps the possibility of ramifications closer to home.

Timonen handed over financial books that detailed his embezzlement…

How convenient…

The alleged misdoing apparently also occurred over more than years. And as primary responsibility resides with the trustees, weren’t the Foundation’s records subjected to proper external audit.

Reporting serious incidents demonstrates to us that you have identified a risk to the charity and that you are taking appropriate action to deal with it. This is very important because safeguarding the assets of the charity and the charity’s beneficiaries are key trustee responsibilities. Where it is clear that trustees are handling serious incidents appropriately and the risks are being managed by them, we are unlikely to take further action. If it is not clear that the incident and risks arising from it are being dealt with and the trustees are acting responsibly, we will need to engage further with you.

Charity law requires trustees to submit, as part of the Annual Return, information specified by the Charity Commission in its regulations. If your charity has an income over £25,000 you must, as part of the Annual Return, sign a declaration that there are no serious incidents or other matters relating to your charity over the previous financial year that you should have brought to our attention but have not. If an incident has taken place but you have not reported this to us, you should do so when you submit the Annual Return.

Fraud and theft are criminal activities. Their impact on a charity can be significant, going beyond financial loss and the impact on the financing of a charity’s planned activities. These crimes cause distress to trustees, staff and volunteers. They may bring adverse publicity to the charity and damage the good reputation the charity has with its donors, beneficiaries and the public as well as that of the charity sector more generally. It is vital that the public has trust and confidence that the money they donate to charity is used properly and goes to the cause for which it is intended. It is therefore important that trustees deal properly with these incidents and take reasonable steps to ensure that such events do not happen again.

You need to report to us any actual or suspected serious incidents of fraud, theft, other financial crimes or other significant loss to the charity. You should report incidents if you know an event has taken place or where you reasonably suspect that it has.

joshtimonen wrote:I think the larger issue really is the idea of forum post ownership. I understand that people post thousands of posts on other people's websites, and then feel a certain sense of ownership to that content. But the ownership still sits with whoever truly owns and pays for that website. RichardDawkins.net is Richard's website (and RDF's), and if they want to remove content, then it's completely within their right to do so. In hindsight, I think it was a bad idea to have a forum centered around one celebrity-figure. It's a lot of weight to put on one person's reputation. I think forums like this have a much better chance of success, where it's centered around ideas as opposed to people.

Josh

You do know that that Copyright-thing is easily circumvented.
Once publicized, as on a forum, it's PUBLIC. Hence you, I and anyone else are free to quote it as long as a formal nod to the forum, in which it was published first, is observed.
So the Copyright-thing was rhetorical exercise merely for the benefit of the owner(s) of the forum, to be able to use the intellectual work of others without actually having to pay for it.

Bewildered wrote:Now no more trolling please. If you have any more crazy rants please post them where they belong: http://vixra.org/, with all the other cranks.

Settle down now.