Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

joshtimonen · **#361** by **joshtimonen** » Oct 24, 2010 7:44 am

I wish I could explain this all in more detail, but I need to go over my detailed public response with my lawyers first. It will also be important for me to provide all of the evidence, so that it isn't my word vs. theirs. I look forward to having my day in court.

I can't really comment on motivation right now, but there were serious reasons I discontinued my professional relationship with RDF this past May.

Josh

NineOneFour · **#362** by **NineOneFour** » Oct 24, 2010 7:46 am

joshtimonen wrote:CJ,
I can see the RD forum events are still a sore spot. I'm not expecting to be able to fix that, but these recent allegations are serious enough that I felt I should be a bit more visible. Since a lot of people have a dislike for me from that event, I can see that they're jumping to the conclusion that I'm guilty of these ridiculous accusations. In hindsight, I wish I could have stepped aside from the forum situation completely, and let someone else deal with it. I had way too much on my plate then. I'm not trying to come on here and make everyone like me, because I know that won't happen. It's just that I can not allow the Richard Dawkins Foundation or any association I had with it defame my name any longer.

Josh

How about this:

1. Tell us why the forum was deleted.
2. Tell us why you said for the longest time that there were going to be upgrades.
3. Tell us why you gave no notice of the forum being deleted.
4. Tell us why you didn't immediately let Richard know that his version of events was incorrect when it was obviously published in several places.
5. Tell us why you deleted entire post histories of members.
6. How about an apology.

If you want to make it right, you owe us that much at least.

starr · **#363** by **starr** » Oct 24, 2010 7:47 am

Callan wrote:
z8000783 wrote:
Has anyone invited Richard Dawkins over yet?

That could settle there differences here and save a packet in legal fees.

John

But where will we find a container sufficiently capacious for all the popcorn we'll need?

[Reveal] Spoiler: . :popcorn:

NineOneFour · **#364** by **NineOneFour** » Oct 24, 2010 7:48 am

Gallstones wrote:
joshtimonen wrote:CJ,
I can see the RD forum events are still a sore spot. I'm not expecting to be able to fix that, but these recent allegations are serious enough that I felt I should be a bit more visible. Since a lot of people have a dislike for me from that event, I can see that they're jumping to the conclusion that I'm guilty of these ridiculous accusations. In hindsight, I wish I could have stepped aside from the forum situation completely, and let someone else deal with it. I had way too much on my plate then. I'm not trying to come on here and make everyone like me, because I know that won't happen. It's just that I can not allow the Richard Dawkins Foundation or any association I had with it defame my name any longer.

Josh

Oh fucking please, we practically begged you to let us do just this.

Good point. What was wrong with the moderators in the first place? Why not just let others take over the forum and rename it so it didn't involve Dawkins at all? Just change the url. Why go nuts and start deleting everything? Why announce suddenly that it was being shut down?

If you couldn't handle it, why not ask the moderators to handle it?

HughMcB · **#365** by **HughMcB** » Oct 24, 2010 7:48 am

joshtimonen wrote:I wish I could explain this all in more detail, but I need to go over my detailed public response with my lawyers first. It will also be important for me to provide all of the evidence, so that it isn't my word vs. theirs. I look forward to having my day in court.

I can't really comment on motivation right now, but there were serious reasons I discontinued my professional relationship with RDF this past May.

Josh

When you do make that public announcement. Be sure to let us know, it will be interesting to see an official statement.

Gallstones · **#366** by **Gallstones** » Oct 24, 2010 7:48 am

joshtimonen wrote:I wish I could explain this all in more detail, but I need to go over my detailed public response with my lawyers first. It will also be important for me to provide all of the evidence, so that it isn't my word vs. theirs. I look forward to having my day in court.

I can't really comment on motivation right now, but there were serious reasons I discontinued my professional relationship with RDF this past May.

Josh

mcgruff · **#367** by **mcgruff** » Oct 24, 2010 7:49 am

CJ wrote:However if you are innocent then what possible motivation does Richard or the foundation have of making the accusation? However this pans out you, Richard or a third party in the foundation is going to come out of this looking pretty bad.

There are all kinds of reasons why. A mistake has been made. Someone is acting maliciously. Maybe someone else stole the money and is deflecting blame. Maybe just a gigantic cock-up that got out of control and nobody fully understands. I've seen them all in my own time as a charity trustee. The one thing I learned from that experience is that although one assumes that people of talent, intelligence and principle gravitate to positions of power it really isn't the case.

It really isn't.

I'm not supporting anyone here but I do believe we have to put aside the resentment felt at the old forum's demise and concentrate on facts and evidence and nothing else, without prejudice. Basically that means waiting for the court case. Whereof one does not know...

HughMcB · **#368** by **HughMcB** » Oct 24, 2010 7:49 am

starr wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler: .

Cripes!

I wanna butter that popcorn something awful. :popcorn:

Gallstones · **#369** by **Gallstones** » Oct 24, 2010 7:50 am

What is the word for......being allergic to......honesty?

NineOneFour · **#370** by **NineOneFour** » Oct 24, 2010 7:50 am

mcgruff wrote:
CJ wrote:However if you are innocent then what possible motivation does Richard or the foundation have of making the accusation? However this pans out you, Richard or a third party in the foundation is going to come out of this looking pretty bad.

There are all kinds of reasons why. A mistake has been made. Someone is acting maliciously. Maybe someone else stole the money and is deflecting blame. Maybe just a gigantic cock-up that got out of control and nobody fully understands. I've seen them all in my own time as a charity trustee. The one thing I learned from that experience is that although one assumes that people of talent, intelligence and principle gravitate to positions of power it really isn't the case.

It really isn't.

I'm not supporting anyone here but I do believe we have to put aside the resentment felt at the old forum's demise and concentrate on facts and evidence and nothing else, without prejudice. Basically that means waiting for the court case. Whereof one does not know...

I am actually willing to do that, but not until Josh explains his actions about the demise of the old forum.

I can't see how that interferes with the current court case.

Even if Josh says, "yeah, I did it, and I screwed up and here's what I was thinking at the time", that's cool. I'm willing to meet him half way if he explains himself.

z8000783 · **#371** by **z8000783** » Oct 24, 2010 7:51 am

starr wrote:
Callan wrote:
z8000783 wrote:
Has anyone invited Richard Dawkins over yet?

That could settle there differences here and save a packet in legal fees.

John

But where will we find a container sufficiently capacious for all the popcorn we'll need?

[Reveal] Spoiler: .

Shouldn't this be on 'Pictures of thee'?

John

joshtimonen · **#372** by **joshtimonen** » Oct 24, 2010 7:52 am

Globe,
I signed up on several forums because people are saying horrible things about Maureen and me, and I wanted to let everyone know that my response will be forthcoming. It's hard to sit back and watch people take potshots at you. Their lawsuit is so full of lies. But I can see that if someone just read that article about it, they would take it as if it was gospel truth. Have you ever sat back and watched tons of people discuss lies about you? It's horrible.

Josh

Callan · **#373** by **Callan** » Oct 24, 2010 7:52 am

Gallstones wrote:What is the word for......being allergic to......honesty?

Accountancy?

akigr8 · **#374** by **akigr8** » Oct 24, 2010 7:53 am

z8000783 wrote:
starr wrote:
Callan wrote:

But where will we find a container sufficiently capacious for all the popcorn we'll need?

[Reveal] Spoiler: .

Shouldn't this be on 'Pictures of thee'?

John

NineOneFour · **#375** by **NineOneFour** » Oct 24, 2010 7:53 am

joshtimonen wrote:Globe,
I signed up on several forums because people are saying horrible things about Maureen and me, and I wanted to let everyone know that my response will be forthcoming. It's hard to sit back and watch people take potshots at you. Their lawsuit is so full of lies. But I can see that if someone just read that article about it, they would take it as if it was gospel truth. Have you ever sat back and watched tons of people discuss lies about you? It's horrible.

Josh

Have you ever sat back and watched a community you cared about be destroyed in front of your eyes and then have the so-called leader of that community falsely describe the events that led to that community's destruction?

z8000783 · **#376** by **z8000783** » Oct 24, 2010 7:54 am

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.

So the reason the posts were removed was because you had the right to do so?

John

Gallstones · **#377** by **Gallstones** » Oct 24, 2010 7:54 am

mcgruff wrote:
CJ wrote:However if you are innocent then what possible motivation does Richard or the foundation have of making the accusation? However this pans out you, Richard or a third party in the foundation is going to come out of this looking pretty bad.

There are all kinds of reasons why. A mistake has been made. Someone is acting maliciously. Maybe someone else stole the money and is deflecting blame. Maybe just a gigantic cock-up that got out of control and nobody fully understands. I've seen them all in my own time as a charity trustee. The one thing I learned from that experience is that although one assumes that people of talent, intelligence and principle gravitate to positions of power it really isn't the case.

It really isn't.

I'm not supporting anyone here but I do believe we have to put aside the resentment felt at the old forum's demise and concentrate on facts and evidence and nothing else, without prejudice. Basically that means waiting for the court case. Whereof one does not know...

Why? This is our golden opportunity for indulging that simmering resentment. The sacrifice has offered itself up. It would be impolite to refuse.

Takes some gall for Timonen to show his face here. I don't trust him.

HughMcB · **#378** by **HughMcB** » Oct 24, 2010 7:54 am

joshtimonen wrote:Have you ever sat back and watched tons of people discuss lies about you? It's horrible.

Josh

My irony meter just exploded! :rofl2:

NineOneFour · **#379** by **NineOneFour** » Oct 24, 2010 7:55 am

z8000783 wrote:
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.

So the reason the posts were removed was because you had the right to do so?

John

Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean he should do something...

hackenslash · **#380** by **hackenslash** » Oct 24, 2010 7:55 am

joshtimonen wrote:Have you ever sat back and watched tons of people discuss lies about you?

Actually, most of the membership here have some experience of that, given some of the things that we were smeared with wholesale by you in the aftermath of the late unpleasantness, so yes, we understand completely.

It's horrible.

Indeed, especially when it isn't actually true, and the version of events published doesn't actually reflect what occured.

Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Re: Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Who is online