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

joshtimonen wrote: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

Gallstones wrote: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.

CJ wrote:

Gallstones wrote:Ain't this exciting?

Bet you're glad you came back now!!

Lewis wrote:I don't know. I'm waiting for Josh to answer. It does seem like a rash act, but so does mass deleting people's posts. Even if Dawkins ordered the forum shut down, it was clearly done in the most disrespectful and hamfisted way possible.

Now, it's possible Dawkins wanted it gone YESTERDAY and ordered Josh do to that. It's possible Josh is just not a people person and didn't realize what he was doing. I don't know.

But I do think Josh has the responsibility to tell us how it went down and why.


I think damage control, protecting Dawkins the product no matter what would have been the prime motivation, NineOneFour, however badly executed.

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.

joshtimonen wrote:Gallstones,
No, I did not steal.

I really have to go to sleep now.

Regards,
Josh

joshtimonen wrote:Gallstones,
No, I did not steal.

I really have to go to sleep now.

Regards,
Josh

joshtimonen wrote:Gallstones,
No, I did not steal.

I really have to go to sleep now.

Regards,
Josh

z8000783 wrote:

joshtimonen wrote:Gallstones,
No, I did not steal.

I really have to go to sleep now.

Regards,
Josh

Borrowed?

John

BrandySpears wrote:You got to give Josh's girlfriend some props:

Love
Your "significantly older" girlfriend

PS - Putting a comment like that in a lawsuit just shows you what kind of lawyer this guy is. What a stupid thing to say. I'm embarrassed for them.

PSS - 10 years is not a significant age difference and if I was a man we wouldn't even be having this conversation. What an ass!

Lewis wrote:
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.

hackenslash wrote:It's in the comments on Josh's blog

HughMcB wrote:Well making a public comment about the stupidity and what an ass the lawyer you're about to take on is a whole other level of embarrassment, or at least it will be.

HughMcB wrote:

They're not playing games anymore, this isn't facebook, this is looking at a civil law suit with a very real possibility of a criminal case and jail time. Perhaps it needs to be treated it as such.

z8000783 wrote:

Durro wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
When have you seen me make a personal attack here let alone against Josh even when he wasn't a member?

John

Oh, I see. No, I wasn't referring to you personally. It was for the benefit of everyone.

I would appreciate it if you didn't put it under my name then.

if there are any more of these slurs, I will leave.

John

joshtimonen wrote:Gallstones,
No, I did not steal.

HughMcB wrote:

hackenslash wrote:It's in the comments on Josh's blog

Well making a public comment about the stupidity and what an ass the lawyer you're about to take on is a whole other level of embarrassment, or at least it will be.

They're not playing games anymore, this isn't facebook, this is looking at a civil law suit with a very real possibility of a criminal case and jail time. Perhaps it needs to be treated it as such.

Charlou wrote:

HughMcB wrote:

hackenslash wrote:It's in the comments on Josh's blog

Well making a public comment about the stupidity and what an ass the lawyer you're about to take on is a whole other level of embarrassment, or at least it will be.

They're not playing games anymore, this isn't facebook, this is looking at a civil law suit with a very real possibility of a criminal case and jail time. Perhaps it needs to be treated it as such.

Pretty sure she's referring to Dawkins's lawyer there, not Josh's.