Forum Financial Data & Donations

[The Atheist]

You have assembled some information.

Nope, there isn't any information at all.

So what are you going to do with this information?

Given that there's no information, I thought I'd do nothing with it.

Is it just information you have collected for the sake of collecting information?

I can't say I've heard of having no information as being information in itself, but if that's how you want to view it, I'll treat it that way as well.

Is it information that leads you to a conclusion?

Yep, based on no information, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that JREF does not want to release the information.

Is it information that leads you to new questions?

Yeah. "Why" is probably at the top of the list, but as I have no expectation of that question being answered either, I have no information on that one as well.

The conclusion from that is the JREF not only will not release information, but it doesn't want to reveal reasons for not releasing it.

I don't think there are many questions which follow that.

And since you saw fit to make a thread about this, instead of sticking to private correspondence with JREF, what would you have us do with this information?

Far be it from me what to tell people to do with nothing, but I'd say the choices are: embrace it, question it or laugh at it. There may be others.

You said you'd be bumping the thread every month or so, but why?

To highlight that the information still consists of:


and to keep the issue current, so that other readers can decide what to do with the information they've gleaned from this thread.

What do you hope to accomplish, what conclusions would you like us to reach, by keeping this thread on or near the front page of this forum?

In short, so what?

What bumping it will do is let readers have access to the information the thread has brought forth - as above. I reiterate that people can draw whatever conclusions they wish. The facts are in the thread.

 

[six7s]

Nope, there isn't any information at all.

As this thread pertains to teh interwebs (a subset of IT), I think its pertinent to distinguish data from information...

I can't say I've heard of having no information as being information in itself, but if that's how you want to view it, I'll treat it that way as well.

'There is no data' = information

 

[theprestige]

Why is giving readers access to this information important, interesting, or otherwise worthwhile to you?

I'm not asking you to tell me what to think about this thread. I'm asking you what you expected would be the reaction to this thread, what you hoped would be the reaction to this thread, what you feared would be the reaction to this thread.

What did you have in mind, when you decided to share this thread with us?

 

[The Atheist]

'There is no data' = information

That's what I was getting at.

Why is giving readers access to this information important, interesting, or otherwise worthwhile to you?

I'm not asking you to tell me what to think about this thread. I'm asking you what you expected would be the reaction to this thread, what you hoped would be the reaction to this thread, what you feared would be the reaction to this thread.

What did you have in mind, when you decided to share this thread with us?

I'll explain how it works:

This is a discussion forum. The idea of it is that people start threads on subjects and if others are interested, they join in and add or subtract from the original discussion.

I would have thought it was enormously plain that the point of the thread was to get details of the income derived by the forum. As to expectations, I didn't have any. Nor fears. I've also noted several times that I'd hoped JREF would be as open as a christian forum, but that hope was forlorn.

 

[six7s]

... I'd hoped JREF would be as open as a christian forum, but that hope was forlorn.

Darat and Jeff collectively love you less than Jesus does on his tod

 

[theprestige]

I would have thought it was enormously plain that the point of the thread was to get details of the income derived by the forum.

There are plenty of ways to achieve the result: A letter sent via USPS to JREF HQ. An email to the JREF. A PM to a JREF staffer who is also a forum member. Why did you decide to use a forum post for this?

I'd hoped JREF would be as open as a christian forum, but that hope was forlorn.

Why this hope? You've already said that you have no minimum standard of openness that you would prefer to see. If you have no minimum standard, then what made you hope? And if you had no preference, how can that hope have been forlorn?

Make up your mind: Either you're indifferent to this entire subject, or you actually do have specific desires about it. Which is it?

 

[The Atheist]

There are plenty of ways to achieve the result: A letter sent via USPS to JREF HQ. An email to the JREF. A PM to a JREF staffer who is also a forum member. Why did you decide to use a forum post for this?

Because it's where I ask questions about JREF and the forum. As I tried to explain before, this is a discussion forum.

Make up your mind: Either you're indifferent to this entire subject, or you actually do have specific desires about it. Which is it?

Initially, I did have an interest in the answers. Now, I have more interest in the non-answers.

 

[theprestige]

Because it's where I ask questions about JREF and the forum. As I tried to explain before, this is a discussion forum.

I understand that this is a disucssion forum. What I don't understand is your actual position on discussion of your questions. Obviously you don't simply want to ask JREF about these matters--you also want us to discuss them? With you? Please help me out here.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

He's "just asking questions"...

 

[The Atheist]

I understand that this is a disucssion forum. What I don't understand is your actual position on discussion of your questions. Obviously you don't simply want to ask JREF about these matters--you also want us to discuss them? With you? Please help me out here.

No, I don't see any need for anyone else to be in the discussion, but being a discussion forum, there was bound to be some, so c'est la vie.

He's "just asking questions"...

Nope. I had a specific reason in mind to start with, but since no information has been forthcoming, it's become irrelevant, but the point was not "just asking questions".

Note again that the thread was posted to Management and moved to the public section by mod/admin.

 

[theprestige]

No, I don't see any need for anyone else to be in the discussion, but being a discussion forum, there was bound to be some, so c'est la vie.

So let me get this straight. You saw no need for discussion... so you chose a discussion forum as the stage for your questions?

 

[Morrigan]

Don't worry, anyone with half a brain can smell the stench of disingenuousness with every post he makes on the subject. But I applaud your efforts to get him to speak honestly, as futile as it unfortunately is.

 

[The Atheist]

So let me get this straight. You saw no need for discussion... so you chose a discussion forum as the stage for your questions?

Sorry, I should have said "no-one outside of JREF".

Those people - who have access to the information - were obviously needed, but other posting certainly wasn't. This thread could - and should - have covered a maximum of half a dozen posts. As it is, the vast majority are puling brown-nosers, but since it's a free discussion, I can't change that.

 

[remirol]

He can't respond because he'll prove his signature true if he does.

 

[The Atheist]

He can't respond because he'll prove his signature true if he does.

Nice of you to pop back in.

First off, you're making baseless assumptions, just as Jeff Wagg did.

Secondly, if I were attacking JREF/about to attack JREF, why would I keep it quiet? When have I ever ducked an issue or failed to poke it right up whoever I've decided to poke it up?

As always, I'm perfectly happy for my record of commenting on everything from sports to medicine to stand for itself, positive or negative, which is exactly why I don't retain anonymity on the internet.

Your assertion is a witless as it is wrong. But jolly sporting of you to pick the one thing which is so demonstrably false as to beggar belief that someone would try that attack.

Oh yeah, especially some anonymous person on the internet.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Nope, there isn't any information at all.



Given that there's no information, I thought I'd do nothing with it.



I can't say I've heard of having no information as being information in itself, but if that's how you want to view it, I'll treat it that way as well.

Actually, as far as science is concerned, not receiving information can tell you quite a bit about the experiment.

Yep, based on no information, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that JREF does not want to release the information.

Or, perhaps, they don't have it to begin with?
Or they don't want to release it in this format?
Or they don't want to release it to you in particular?

There are plenty of possible conclusions to come to.

Yeah. "Why" is probably at the top of the list, but as I have no expectation of that question being answered either, I have no information on that one as well.

The conclusion from that is the JREF not only will not release information, but it doesn't want to reveal reasons for not releasing it.

Wait a sec. You are drawing a conclusion from the probable lack of an answer to a question that hasn't been asked?

Ok, guys, I give up. Which logical fallacy is being employed here? Is it strawman, or something else? (Invisible strawman??)

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, as far as science is concerned, not receiving information can tell you quite a bit about the experiment.

It probably does here as well. People are certainly drawing conclusions from it.

Or, perhaps, they don't have it to begin with?
Or they don't want to release it in this format?
Or they don't want to release it to you in particular?

There are plenty of possible conclusions to come to.

And....

It could be that aliens have taken over Randi's body and are planning to assimilate hundreds of humans during the Tim-Tam as well.

Wait a sec. You are drawing a conclusion from the probable lack of an answer to a question that hasn't been asked?

No, it's quite obvious; or it is to me. Time to post information or a refusal is negligible compared to an ongoing slanging match and continued highlighting of the fact that they have failed to provide a simple piece of financial information.

Sure, I could be completely wrong, but I do credit JREF staff with some intelligence, and the face they're showing at the moment fails that test, so you maybe think they're dumber than I do.

Ok, guys, I give up. Which logical fallacy is being employed here? Is it strawman, or something else? (Invisible strawman??)

Or, because it isn't a fallacy?

Nah, you wouldn't want to admit that at this late stage.

Remember, the question unanswered is this simple:

How much income is being derived from forum advertising?

And if not answering is preferred:

If you don't wish to say, why not?

Just take a step back for a second and ask how hard it was to answer those questions. Then maybe decide whether the JREF's total input into this thread so far of "The Atheist is a bad man!" is positive for JREF, compared to making a 30-second post.

(No fallacy there either, mate.)

 

[Cuddles]

Remember, the question unanswered is this simple:

How much income is being derived from forum advertising?

Of course, anyone interested in the truth instead of The Atheist's disingenuity can simply look back at the first post of the thread and see this:

Is there any chance we could have the financial information of the forum made available?

I'm interested to find another forum doing just that as it asks for donations and it occurred to me that while JREF's finances are public knowledge, I haven't seen any details of this forum's financial performance.

Nothing about about income from advertising at all, simply a request for "financial information". Of course, that would presumably include advertising revenue, but to pretend that that was all you were asking about is simply a lie. And of course, the mention of donations in the OP naturally led to discussion about donations from this forum which, despite The Atheist's insistence that he knows more than anyone on the forum about the internet, he was eventually forced to admit are not actually separate from other donations. If advertising and not donations were the reason for asking the question, you would have thought that actually asking about advertising might have helped, rather than getting invloved in a long discussion about donations and the wonders of New Zealand forum software.

And if not answering is preferred:

If you don't wish to say, why not?

And of course this part was not mentioned at all at the start, so having it answered within half a dozen posts would have been a little tricky.

So, The Atheist, would you perhaps like to try again, but this time basing your outrage on actual events rather than those that occured soley within your own mind?

 

[Phlebas]

Ok, guys, I give up. Which logical fallacy is being employed here? Is it strawman, or something else? (Invisible strawman??)

Moving the goalposts?

 

[theprestige]

Time to post information or a refusal is negligible compared to an ongoing slanging match and continued highlighting of the fact that they have failed to provide a simple piece of financial information.

Negligible when measured on what scale? You've stated that you have no ethical standard in mind to measure against. So in what context is any of your inquiries or conclusions meaningful?

Sure, I could be completely wrong, but I do credit JREF staff with some intelligence, and the face they're showing at the moment fails that test, so you maybe think they're dumber than I do.

And what test would that be? Again, you've repeatedly indicated, both explicitly and implicitly, that you're not actually testing anything

Just take a step back for a second and ask how hard it was to answer those questions. Then maybe decide whether the JREF's total input into this thread so far of "The Atheist is a bad man!" is positive for JREF, compared to making a 30-second post.

So is this the standard by which you're juding the JREF? How easy it is for them to answer your questions?

What makes this a meaningful standard? Why should anybody bother to answer questions simply because they're easy? Certainly many people place greater value on complexity, subtlety, amusement, pride, honor, etc. than they do on "ease of action".

If I only ever did what was easy, I'd drive a car instead of riding a motorcycle. If NASA only ever did what was easy, Neil Armstrong would never have set foot on the Moon.

Of course you think that somehow JREF's behavior in this matter reflects poorly on JREF. Personally, I'm curious to know what an informal forum poll would show: After reading through this thread, are forum members more likely to have an improved opinion of the JREF, or a degraded opinion of The Atheist?

 

[The Atheist]

Of course, anyone interested in the truth instead of The Atheist's disingenuity can simply look back at the first post of the thread and see this:

Oh, a mod calling me a liar, how usual!

I said that is the question remaining to be answered. Part of the question in the OP has been answered.

Nothing about about income from advertising at all, simply a request for "financial information". Of course, that would presumably include advertising revenue, but to pretend that that was all you were asking about is simply a lie.

This is the problem joining in a thread this late - read the damn thread. Income of the forum is made up of two parts: donations and advertising. Since I am accepting that JREF doesn't have the donation figures, all that is left is advertising.

But even though you're completely wrong you call me a liar. No wonder they made you a mod.

 

[chillzero]

Cuddles is not posting as a moderator, so your comments to that effect are out of order. Please restrain yourself to posting about the topic.