[Moderated]JREF Loss $79,859 FY 2006

[one]

Sorry for my poor English. I am not from an English speaking background.
I have just been reading for a few days and what I understand from this thread is:

Your worries are
A) He receives $170 000 as income
B) The foundation has made a loss for 2006
C) James Randi should take less because of the loss.


A) is fair because:

1.He deserves the $170 000 or even more for all his works and achievements. You will never be able to do 1/1000 of what he did.
2.The $170 000 comes from the $ 270 000 that he earned for the foundation.
Even though he decided to put his income in the foundation because of possible tax savings or other reasons, it is not a negative thing for the Jref.

He earned $270 000 from HIS own job and decided to donate $100 000 to the foundation. This is 37 % of his income. How about you?



B)is acceptable:

1.Non profit making organizations can make surpluses and losses as long as the revenues and expenses BALANCE in the LONG RUN.
(The growth of the foundation or the increase in reserves is not compulsory; just a sufficient reserve is necessary) They are not businessmen.
2.They did their best for the financial management of the foundation.
If you think you can do better, just volunteer for the job.
You can help no matter what (distance, family, time) if you really care for the foundation. (Use the internet, advertise this website, tell your friend, give financial advice if you are qualified)

Option 1 : Show them their mistakes = already done…
Option 2 : Wait or forget it = hmmm…
Option 3 : Do something.


C)is an hypocrisy:

1.Remember he deserves more than $170 000
2.He already donated 37% of his income.
3.He sacrificed more than you will ever do.
He is 80 years old and still working hard for the foundation.
Honestly where do you see yourself at 70 years old?

4.America is not in a communist country.

“With $70 000 you can live decently… because I earn $60000 and I already find it too much and I want to throw some in the bin.”<<<<???????
I can live happily with $40 000 so donate any excess money you earn over $40 000 now.

Some people wanted to know how he spends his money.<<<wtf???????
This is not your problem, it is his personal choice. Tell us how you spend your income first.



5. It is not your $50 annual donation that is giving him his salary. The total donation from forum members is very low.I guess your money is probably used for the maintenance of the website and this forum. May be some of the money is spent on advertising, transport or legal matters.

6. The donation is worth it because they are doing a good job at educating people.
Many people have benefited from the foundation: those who could have been abused, skeptic individuals that use the $1m challenge in their arguments to denounce fake psychics, members of this forum and others.
Not good enough for you? What do you offer?







Summary:
-He earns $270 000 from his own job and donates $100 000 each year. (37% of his income)
- He sacrificed a lot and does not[/SIZE] need to sacrifice more.
-Your $50 donation is worth it and is nothing compared to Randi’s donations and work.
You can always help .

This is just my opinion.

 

[rjh01]

Welcome to the forum one. For someone who has poor English you can make a very good summary of a thread.

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry for my poor English. I am not from an English speaking background.
I have just been reading for a few days and what I understand from this thread is:

Your worries are
A) He receives $170 000 as income
B) The foundation has made a loss for 2006
C) James Randi should take less because of the loss.

So far, so hoopy.... English seems fine to me.

A) is fair because:

1.He deserves the $170 000 or even more for all his works and achievements.

Quite right - he can take the lot if he so wishes. The point you've missed is that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. Check out the Richard Dawkins Foundation, for example.

You will never be able to do 1/1000 of what he did.

What relevance does this have?

Should only people with similar achievements to Randi be able to ask questions? Are you one of those people who believes that because Randi is a legend he should be above reproach?

2.The $170 000 comes from the $ 270 000 that he earned for the foundation.
Even though he decided to put his income in the foundation because of possible tax savings or other reasons, it is not a negative thing for the Jref.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. All of the income is attributable to Randi. Without him, income = $0.

He earned $270 000 from HIS own job and decided to donate $100 000 to the foundation. This is 37 % of his income. How about you?

Nope, this is rubbish. The difference between income and Randi's salary is not a donation to the foundation in any way at all. If he wants to keep the income, why set up JREF?

B)is acceptable:

1.Non profit making organizations can make surpluses and losses as long as the revenues and expenses BALANCE in the LONG RUN.

Correct. This is why the next set of figures will be important.

(The growth of the foundation or the increase in reserves is not compulsory; just a sufficient reserve is necessary)

Well, given that the foundation has spent virtually nothing on "education" in the past few years, the reserves at present will likely last for eternity.

They are not businessmen.
2.They did their best for the financial management of the foundation.
If you think you can do better, just volunteer for the job.

This is rubbish: "they aren't businessmen"! Of course they are! Randi ran a business for many years prior to retiring to set up JREF - that would make him every inch a businessman. As to the others, if there is a lack of business acumen, then the board should be rearranged to find some.

As to me volunteering, I'm in the wrong country.

You can help no matter what (distance, family, time) if you really care for the foundation. (Use the internet, advertise this website, tell your friend, give financial advice if you are qualified)

If you want to start a discussion as to what I have or can do for the JREF, this is the wrong place to discuss it, but my conscience is 100% clear on the matter, so unless you wish to start another thread or PM me, you'll have to accept that.

C)is an hypocrisy:

I take it you have no idea what "hypocrisy" means.

1.Remember he deserves more than $170 000
2.He already donated 37% of his income.
3.He sacrificed more than you will ever do.
He is 80 years old and still working hard for the foundation.
Honestly where do you see yourself at 70 years old?

This is all either irrelevant, wrong or subject to individual interpretation.

What Randi "deserves" is a lot different from person to person, as this and other threads show.

He has not donated 37% of his income.

What, precisely, has Randi sacrificed? Please don't come back with the ridiculous assertion that he sacrificed a career as a stage magician, because I think you'll find that the market for 70+ stage magicians who can't even drive themselves from the airport is rather limited.

Please do list what his sacrifices might be.

As to Randi still working hard - good on him. I suspect he does it because it's what he does rather than any other reason. If nobody was paying him, I imagine he'd still be writing Swifts and appearing on TV.

4.America is not in a communist country.

Really? Did someone say it was?

“With $70 000 you can live decently… because I earn $60000 and I already find it too much and I want to throw some in the bin.”<<<<???????
I can live happily with $40 000 so donate any excess money you earn over $40 000 now.

Sure. On that basis, however, I'll wait until Randi donates the other $130,000 of his salry. Or does your logic not apply to him?

Some people wanted to know how he spends his money.<<<wtf???????
This is not your problem, it is his personal choice. Tell us how you spend your income first.

Not my problem. He could spend the lot on hookers and booze for all I care. When I ask what he spends his money on, you can ask how I spend mine.

5. It is not your $50 annual donation that is giving him his salary. The total donation from forum members is very low.I guess your money is probably used for the maintenance of the website and this forum. May be some of the money is spent on advertising, transport or legal matters.

Since I donate nothing, it doesn't concern me at all.

6. The donation is worth it because they are doing a good job at educating people.

This is where I disagree. I think it does an extremely poor job at educating people. Maybe you could explain why you think they're doing it so well? The forum doesn't really count, since it's self-funding and all the education is done by forum members rather than JREF members.

Many people have benefited from the foundation: those who could have been abused, skeptic individuals that use the $1m challenge in their arguments to denounce fake psychics, members of this forum and others.

How do people who could have been abused benefit? I don't understand that at all, please expand on what you mean.

As you may learn in time, the $1M challenge has been of no benefit to sceptics arguing with fake psychics. That it has ultimately been a failure is shown by the fact that it's about to disappear. In case you hadn't noticed, psychics have undergone exponential growth in the past decade. Scepticism doesn't appear to be even close to keeping pace.

Not good enough for you? What do you offer?

Again, if you want to talk about me, start another thread.

Summary:
-He earns $270 000 from his own job and donates $100 000 each year. (37% of his income)

Wrong - see above.

- He sacrificed a lot and does not[/SIZE] need to sacrifice more.

I'll wait to see what those sacrifies are before I answer this as I don't see it.

-Your $50 donation is worth it and is nothing compared to Randi’s donations and work.
You can always help .

This is just my opinion.

As is my opinion no more than mine!

 

[Pookster]

... The point you've missed is that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. Check out the Richard Dawkins Foundation, for example.

I checked out the Richard Dawkins Foundation through web searches, but can find no information about the foundation's expenses and how they're allocated. It was just approved as a 501(c)(3) last September, and I can't find any 990's on file yet for them.

Does or will Richard Dawkins receive from the foundation a salary or reimbursement for his services rendered for the foundation? Is there anything available that shows a breakdown of the foundations expenses?

Do you have an example of a similar educational foundation with a 990 on file that we can examine?

 

[The Atheist]

I checked out the Richard Dawkins Foundation through web searches, but can find no information about the foundation's expenses and how they're allocated. It was just approved as a 501(c)(3) last September, and I can't find any 990's on file yet for them.

You won't yet, because it was only registered fairly recently. More important than the US operation is the UK one as that's where Dawkins operates from.

Does or will Richard Dawkins receive from the foundation a salary or reimbursement for his services rendered for the foundation? Is there anything available that shows a breakdown of the foundations expenses?

No and no. Financial data will be publicly available when it's available, I guess.

Do you have an example of a similar educational foundation with a 990 on file that we can examine?

Dozens, but they're mostly religious organisations, so I don't they'd be a fair comparison.

You could try CSICOP, which is a pretty similar organisation; although it doesn't call itself an "educational foundation" the differences only appear to be superficial. Their income is about 3x that of JREF, so one could expect the CEO to be receiving, what? Close to triple Randi's take-home package?

Can you find it for me, please? All I see is a salaries, wages, pensions and other employee benefits line with a big, fat duck egg in the middle of it???

 

[Pookster]

You won't yet, because it was only registered fairly recently. More important than the US operation is the UK one as that's where Dawkins operates from.

I didn't believe there would be a 990 since they have barely even begun to operate. So, thanks for confirming that. Another organization would be more helpful if a comparison is to be made to substantiate your statement. Maybe in a year we can use them as a comparison.

Dozens, but they're mostly religious organisations, so I don't they'd be a fair comparison.

There are likely numerous educational non-profits where salaries are a significant part of program activity expenses. I dare say those would likely not be fair comparisons either. Non-profits tend to organize themselves based on their specific mission and their plans to accomplish that mission. I seriously doubt you're going to find more than a few similar to the JREF, if even that many. Your statement that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way seems to be only yet another episode of your further revealing your naivete concerning this whole matter.

You could try CSICOP, which is a pretty similar organisation; although it doesn't call itself an "educational foundation" the differences only appear to be superficial.

First, this isn't an organization with anyone's name on it like the JREF. So, it's not a valid comparison that goes toward substantiating your specific statement. But I'll give you a pass on it since the President did set it up.

Second, according to their 990, their mission is as follows:

TO PREPARE , COMPILE , EDIT AND PUBLISH FROM TIME TO TIME ON A
NOT-FOR - PROFIT BASIS , A SCHOLARLY JOURNAL OF ARTICLES AND TO
HOLD EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCES ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

Their main effort is their journal. They spent no money on conferences last year. I can't find any scheduled conferences for them this year. The differences to the JREF are quite significant and make a comparison rather trifling at best.

Their income is about 3x that of JREF, so one could expect the CEO to be receiving, what? Close to triple Randi's take-home package?

Can you find it for me, please? All I see is a salaries, wages, pensions and other employee benefits line with a big, fat duck egg in the middle of it???

Paul Kurtz is their President. It isn't the Paul Kurtz Foundation, but again, I'll give you a pass on that. Beyond that, he seems to be only a figurehead and is not directly involved in any program activities that I can find, unlike Randi with the JREF. CSICOP is also under an umbrella organization, unlike the JREF. This appears to be a rather poor choice for a comparison.

Do you have an example where the President is involved in the organization's program activities (lectures, conferences, and investigations of claims) in a similar manner as Randi ... with their name on the organization ... with at least one 990 to look at? This would be a step in the right direction for a valid comparison to take place to substantiate your claim of ... similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you were just talking out of your ass with that claim.

 

[The Atheist]

Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you were just talking out of your ass with that claim.

Bingo - exactly as I suspected.

You demonstrably made up evidence to suit your case not so many posts ago, so coming out with this sort of claptrap is entirely expected.

I gave you CSICOP, which has almost identical aims to JREF, and you want someone with their name on the organisation. You spend a lot of time in CT? It seems to be rubbing off on you.

You want to cherry-pick an organisation identical to JREF? Go find it.

 

[Pookster]

Bingo - exactly as I suspected.

You demonstrably made up evidence to suit your case not so many posts ago, so coming out with this sort of claptrap is entirely expected.

I gave you CSICOP, which has almost identical aims to JREF, and you want someone with their name on the organisation. You spend a lot of time in CT? It seems to be rubbing off on you.

Bingo - nonresponse as I expected.

Given your history in this thread, it really was to be expected. Bluster doesn't do one thing toward substantiating your claim. I made up no evidence previously either. That claim even then was just more of your bluster to avoid being responsive to my posts. Again, it's to be expected now.

You want to cherry-pick an organisation identical to JREF? Go find it.

Do I want to cherry-pick an organization? Why would I? You said similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. They're hardly a similar organization in how they're setup or carry out their mission. Saying their aims makes them similar is disingenuous at best. Try again.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh, but take your pick: (Just to be completely fair, I'm taking these straight off a Google search for "Educational Foundation", on which list Randi appears on page 2.)

Oracle - Total expenditure $2M, directors' remuneration = $0 Oh, hell. That's named after a company, that's no good. Founder total remuneration = $0

George Lucas - Total expenditure $5.6M, directors' remuneration = $206k. (Crikey, I see they made a $600k loss last year. Wonder where the balance will come from?) Founder remuneration = $0

Randi is 3rd on the list of charities named after the founder.

Davis - Total expenditure $3M, income $15M, directors' remuneration = $170k. Included in that is: CEO $90k and Chairman with $0 remuneration. Founder remuneration = $0

Spencer - Total expenditure $870k, income $890k, directors' remuneration = $0. Founder remuneration = $0

Haberman Income only $22k. Founder remuneration = $0 Not relevant comparison, but included as the next educational foundation named after the founder.

Satchmo! Total expenditure = $1.2M, directors' remuneration $96k, of which the CEO earns $60k. Founder payments obviously do not apply.

Herb Kohl Total expenditure = $441k, income $322k, total remuneration paid = $0. Founder payments = $0.

 

[The Atheist]

Bingo - nonresponse as I expected. ....snip...

Again, it's to be expected now.

Thanks for that, you won me $10 - I took a bet you'd come out with exactly that type of post while I was compiling my post above.

As you'll note, I've just given you a list of educational foundations which back my earlier point up approximately 100%. Sorry the list took me so long - I started it immediately after my previous post, but it's taken a while as I've had some more important things to do in the meantime.

 

[Pookster]

Thanks for that, you won me $10 - I took a bet you'd come out with exactly that type of post while I was compiling my post above.

It's somewhat interesting to see you're so easily amused. It's also telling that you likely realized it would be viewed as nonresponsive too. Admitting your problem is the first step ... as they say. At least you're moving in the right direction.

As you'll note, I've just given you a list of educational foundations which back my earlier point up approximately 100%. Sorry the list took me so long - I started it immediately after my previous post, but it's taken a while as I've had some more important things to do in the meantime.

A list is at least a start, I guess. So, how do each one back up your earlier point approximately 100%? With your point being ...

(S)imilar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out.

Again, the JREF primary purpose according to their 990:

Lectures and presentations are given throughout the year
to introduce students and adults to critical thinking. The
organization also investigates claims that are beyond what
is currently explainable by known science.

How are they similar in this regard. Which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi? Glancing through the first few, I see little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose (as stated above). Shed some light on your list for us, won't ya? Substantiate your claim. I'm not doing your work for you. I'm not saying you can't do it either. I'm just saying you haven't, so far. Right now, your point is rather pointless and silly if the only significant similarity is that they're "educational foundations" ... because glancing at the first few in your list, they're not even similar in their primary purpose between themselves.

 

[The Atheist]

....irrelevant blather left out....

Gosh, you really do need to spend less time in CT! You asked me to show that other educational foundations of a similar nature do not pay their CEOs a very large percentage of their income. I used CSICOP as an organisation with similar aims.

You then change to "it's not named after someone", insisting that "similar" meant similarly, named after the founder. I have proven that point [repeatedly above] as well.

Your own quote edited in:

Paul Kurtz is their President. It isn't the Paul Kurtz Foundation,

Now, you'd like to shift the goalposts back to organisations with similar aims! CSICOP - see above. Just like a CTist, once one point has been proved, you skip to another, completely different one. Next you'll insist that similar organisations must be both named after the founder, have the founder as CEO and be involved with education in the area of paranormality and pseudoscience!

Face facts: other educational foundations do not pay significant amounts of money to CEOs, founders, or indeed any staff involved with running the organisation.

If you wish to dispute that, the onus is now clearly on you to do so. Using Google to list the organisations could not have been a fairer way of dealing with the question, yet you still try to wriggle and squirm out of the corner you backed yourself into.

But do keep coming back and indulging in more CTist tricks. Which side are you on, by the way? No planes? CD? MIHOP?

 

[Pookster]

Gosh, you really do need to spend less time in CT! You asked me to show that other educational foundations of a similar nature do not pay their CEOs a very large percentage of their income. I used CSICOP as an organisation with similar aims.

I asked you to substantiate your claim that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. If the only similarity is that they're educational foundations, then your point is pointless and silly. I'd hope that you had something of value to your point. My bad.

You then change to "it's not named after someone", insisting that "similar" meant similarly, named after the founder. I have proven that point [repeatedly above] as well.

I gave you a pass on the actual name. Try reading for comprehension.

Now, you'd like to shift the goalposts back to organisations with similar aims! CSICOP - see above. Just like a CTist, once one point has been proved, you skip to another, completely different one. Next you'll insist that similar organisations must be both named after the founder, have the founder as CEO and be involved with education in the area of paranormality and pseudoscience!

No goalpost moving. That's only in your imagination. The CSICOP is hardly similar to the JREF, as I stated before. Their purpose is to publish a journal and hold conferences. They spent no money on conferences last year though, nor do they have any scheduled, so they've failed in that regard. However, I'll accept that the similarity is that they're educational foundations. Because that's all the similarity there really is, and even your recent list has only that similarity between them. Feel free to elaborate on your list though. Again, it sad that your point is this silly and pointless, but I'll accept it.

Face facts: other educational foundations do not pay significant amounts of money to CEOs, founders, or indeed any staff involved with running the organisation.

And it appears that none of them have a founder as directly involved in program activities like the JREF either. They have little similarity between each other when it comes to their primary purpose as stated in their 990 ... other than being "educational foundations". So, you have a pointless point. Yay you!

If you wish to dispute that, the onus is now clearly on you to do so. Using Google to list the organisations could not have been a fairer way of dealing with the question, yet you still try to wriggle and squirm out of the corner you backed yourself into.

I'm not going to dispute that the only substantial similarity between all of these organizations is that they're educational foundations that are otherwise very dissimilar even among themselves in their purpose and how they operate. In other words, a pointless point. It's nice to finally reach common ground.

 

[GreyICE]

Pookster, there are many ways you could disprove The Atheist's point. One would be to show how many hours James Randi gave to the foundation, and compare it with the time spent by other founders. This could be measured in speeches, lectures, etc.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare income from a charitable cause to income a speaker would otherwise receive. As a simple example, consider girl scout cookies. They would almost certainly go out of business as a commercial product for the prices they charge, but as a charitable product, they enjoy popular success.

The simple fact of the matter is, Randi can charge what he does because he is a charity. Therefore saying he donated X% of his income is a misrepresentation of the picture.

Now, as I said, there are many ways to dispute The Atheists claims. Show Randi's involvement was a far greater percentage of his time than the other companies. Demonstrate why he deserves an income in excess of other charity's CEOs. Do their CEOs also have another source of income? Are they partially donating their time? Do they spend as much time as Randi? How is the position of CEO of a charity substantially different than the position Randi enjoys? Are there additional expenses hidden in Randi's income we don't know about?

You have chosen the 'yell really loudly' route to discussion. It's not productive, and it doesn't make anyone except The Atheist look good. You state that none of them have a founder as directly involved - yet fail to demonstrate with hard facts and figures Randi's involvement (X speeches, Y million dollar challenges, Z hours spent in administration, stuff like that).

If you want to discuss the issue rationally, discuss it rationally. Don't keep making claims without evidence.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

TA is looking good? It appears he's stumbling and fumbling with his answers.

 

[GreyICE]

TA is looking good? It appears he's stumbling and fumbling with his answers.

He's doing better research and constructing better arguments. Pookster is probably better rhetorically, but stripped of rhetorical vim and vigor, there's no real substance there, just claims.

 

[Pookster]

Pookster, there are many ways you could disprove The Atheist's point. One would be to show how many hours James Randi gave to the foundation, and compare it with the time spent by other founders. This could be measured in speeches, lectures, etc.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare income from a charitable cause to income a speaker would otherwise receive. As a simple example, consider girl scout cookies. They would almost certainly go out of business as a commercial product for the prices they charge, but as a charitable product, they enjoy popular success.

The simple fact of the matter is, Randi can charge what he does because he is a charity. Therefore saying he donated X% of his income is a misrepresentation of the picture.

Now, as I said, there are many ways to dispute The Atheists claims. Show Randi's involvement was a far greater percentage of his time than the other companies. Demonstrate why he deserves an income in excess of other charity's CEOs. Do their CEOs also have another source of income? Are they partially donating their time? Do they spend as much time as Randi? How is the position of CEO of a charity substantially different than the position Randi enjoys? Are there additional expenses hidden in Randi's income we don't know about?

You have chosen the 'yell really loudly' route to discussion. It's not productive, and it doesn't make anyone except The Atheist look good. You state that none of them have a founder as directly involved - yet fail to demonstrate with hard facts and figures Randi's involvement (X speeches, Y million dollar challenges, Z hours spent in administration, stuff like that).

If you want to discuss the issue rationally, discuss it rationally. Don't keep making claims without evidence.

Excuse me? Are you reading the thread I'm posting in? I've been very direct with my questions to TA. They been very specific to having him substantiate his claim. Yes, I've ridiculed his nonresponsiveness at times, but chosen the "yell really loudly" route? Too funny. I got bluster as a response. Thus, the ridicule in return. Also, I'm not out to disprove his point either. It could be valid. What I'm stating is he's failed to substantiate it, other than what I conceded to in my prior post. Even if he does substantiate it beyond what I con, the point still would be, well, pointless, unless some impropriety could be shown beyond what I've seen so far in this thread.

I stated that none of them have a founder as directly involved? Well, yeah. I admitted I only looked at a few of them earlier. I asked TA which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi. Glancing through the first few, I saw little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose. I was left to assume from his nonresponsiveness that there are none. I'm sure he would've crowed if he saw one. I asked him in the paragraph before this one to elaborate on his list. He's chosen not too, so far. He or you are free to clarify this issue at any time if I'm incorrect in my assumption. I'm not doing his work for him though.

 

[GreyICE]

\

Excuse me? Are you reading the thread I'm posting in? I've been very direct with my questions to TA. They been very specific to having him substantiate his claim. Yes, I've ridiculed his nonresponsiveness at times, but chosen the "yell really loudly" route? Too funny. I got bluster as a response. Thus, the ridicule in return. Also, I'm not out to disprove his point either. It could be valid. What I'm stating is he's failed to substantiate it, other than what I conceded to in my prior post. Even if he does substantiate it beyond what I con, the point still would be, well, pointless, unless some impropriety could be shown beyond what I've seen so far in this thread.

*blink*

What?

No, no, what?

Seriously... what?

I don't even know how to respond to this. It's like you bolded a specific portion of my post and then responded to some other post. I said that was information you should provide to demonstrate the difference. You state that you've been very specific in your questions. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go check my room for Sliders portals, it's the only way to explain this.

I stated that none of them have a founder as directly involved? Well, yeah. I admitted I only looked at a few of them earlier. I asked TA which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi. Glancing through the first few, I saw little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose. I was left to assume from his nonresponsiveness that there are none. I'm sure he would've crowed if he saw one. I asked him in the paragraph before this one to elaborate on his list. He's chosen not too, so far. He or you are free to clarify this issue at any time if I'm incorrect in my assumption. I'm not doing his work for him though.

Ignoring the founder issue, many CEOs are as involved as Randi, and receive substantially less income. Also, your ongoing request for him to provide documentation without feeling the slightest need to provide any of your own is pretty much argument through annoying the other person with RFIs. It's especially funny because the default assumption should be that similarly sized charities are similar, documenting the differences shoul require more than a statement of 'it's different here.'

 

[Pookster]

He's doing better research and constructing better arguments. Pookster is probably better rhetorically, but stripped of rhetorical vim and vigor, there's no real substance there, just claims.

You seem under the impression that I'm trying to refute something. I'm not. I've been trying to get TA to substantiate his claim with my questions. I've made few if any claims. He could be correct with his claim. I'm prepared to admit he is correct if he does substantiate it. So far, he hasn't. I've pointed out the erroneous nature of much of his "better research". And, I'm not researching anything other than, at times, his "research" that he's presented. I've asked a lot of questions though that he's been nonresponsive too. Where you're getting all of that in your post is beyond me.

 

[Pookster]

\ *blink*

What?

No, no, what?

Seriously... what?

I don't even know how to respond to this. It's like you bolded a specific portion of my post and then responded to some other post.

The main part of my post was a response to the bolded part. I'm sorry if you weren't able to follow along.

I said that was information you should provide to demonstrate the difference. You state that you've been very specific in your questions. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go check my room for Sliders portals, it's the only way to explain this. Ignoring the founder issue, many CEOs are as involved as Randi, and receive substantially less income. Also, your ongoing request for him to provide documentation without feeling the slightest need to provide any of your own is pretty much argument through annoying the other person with RFIs.

Sir, I'm not trying to refute his claim. I'm ONLY asking him to substantiate it. Why you think I am doing anything different is your own imagination.

 

[The Atheist]

I've asked a lot of questions though that he's been nonresponsive too.

Too? To? Do you even know what you're typing?

Your statement - either way - is demonstrably incorrect.

You asked, I provided, then like all good CTists, you shifted the goalposts - twice! I intend providing nothing further, because, as always, both of our posts are there for all to read and decide who's playing games and who's provided evidence. The floor is all yours....

 

[GreyICE]

The main part of my post was a response to the bolded part. I'm sorry if you weren't able to follow along.

I state that you haven't provided any relevant information, and give details on the sort of information that you could provide.

You say that you've asked questions for exactly that sort of detailed information in response.

I don't see how this is in any way a response. You haven't supported your arguments, but you really know what information you need to support them, and you've asked the right questions? That's the closest I can come to fitting your posted words into some sort of a response. Understand it? Sorry, I pawned my Ouija Board, I can't divine sense from utter nonsense.

Sir, I'm not trying to refute his claim. I'm ONLY asking him to substantiate it. Why you think I am doing anything different is your own imagination.

The problem is he did substantiate it. He provided the incomes of both CEOs and Founders. If you believe Randi's job is significantly different than that of a CEO or a founder, it's up to you to detail how. As it is, I see no good evidence that Randi isn't similar to any other CEO/founder of a charitable organization of this size. He manages the foundation, gives talks, travels, all well within the purview of a CEO. If you truly think he does exceptional work, the ball is in your court to show how.

Oh, and a hallmark of woo is 'just asking questions.' It means your position is too weak to defend, but you're hoping to annoy people into leaving. If you're not trying to refute his claim, it is certainly adequately documented, and thus, you must admit that Randi, as a CEO and founder of the organization, is engaging in no unusual duties.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

He's doing better research and constructing better arguments. Pookster is probably better rhetorically, but stripped of rhetorical vim and vigor, there's no real substance there, just claims.

Stripped of bluster, TA's arguments are based on Randi envy. There's no substance to his argument that Randi is profiting at the expense of JREF by drawing a large salary.

 

[GreyICE]

Stripped of bluster, TA's arguments are based on Randi envy. There's no substance to his argument that Randi is profiting at the expense of JREF by drawing a large salary.

The evidence that other CEOs/founders get paid less, based on IRS tax statements seems pretty solid substance. If you think the analysis is wrong, refute it, but don't claim it doesn't exist.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

The evidence that other CEOs/founders get paid less, based on IRS tax statements seems pretty solid substance. If you think the analysis is wrong, refute it, but don't claim it doesn't exist.

Do not put words in my mouth. It's a good way to lose fingers...

The CEO of the American Red Cross pulled down a salary of $650,000 in 2006. I've already given the example of the CEO of a local NP whose salary exceeded one million. Go back a few pages.

 

[GreyICE]

Do not put words in my mouth. It's a good way to lose fingers...

You've failed to document the claim that you have teeth.

The CEO of the American Red Cross pulled down a salary of $650,000 in 2006.

The Red Cross also has a budget a bajillion times higher than the Randi foundation. The Atheist examined similar foundations in terms of size and scope.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

I gave you examples. Stop claiming things don't exist.

 

[GreyICE]

I gave you examples.

Then you'd have no problem quoting them from this thread.

Stop claiming things don't exist.

It's just so amusing to be threatened by something that mild.

 

[The Atheist]

Stripped of bluster, TA's arguments are based on Randi envy.

Wow.

When someone taking a position opposite my view has to stoop to that kind of cliched ad hominem, I know they have no argument.

"Stripped of bluster?"

There's no substance to his argument that Randi is profiting at the expense of JREF by drawing a large salary.

No, of course not. That's why you and Pookster have no input beyond some weak diatribes. I contended that similar educational foundations do not exist to provide a living for their owner/founder/whatever you want to call him/her/them.

By "similar" I mean the following:

Private educational foundation
Registered 501(C) charitable organisation
Exists to educate people in line with the founder/s' wishes
Is of reasonably close proximity in terms of size/income etc

If you cannot see that those qualities make them similar to JREF, then you're even dumber than I thought, which is a neat trick. If you wish to claim that only organisations run by 80-year old former magicians who run fan meetings at Las Vegas and whose first two initials are "JR" can be classed as "similar", you can just be quiet right now, because you;d be making yourself look very foolish indeed.

Accordingly, I have well and truly proven my case that JREF operates in an entirely different manner from other purported "educational" foundations. Others spend almost all of their gross income on education, and pay almost no CEO salaries - JREF works the opposite - large salary, little education.

The business about how much work Randi does or doesn't do is nothing but a red herring, which GreyICE picked up on immediately. Whatever the work is, someone will do it and that person will be paid for it. If you feel Randi's worth what he's paid, then you don't have an issue to argue - we've covered that ground many times. He is entitled to pay himself whatever he chooses. I'm interested that you and Pookster have brought this subject up, because frankly, if I were defending JREF, I wouldn't really want to emphasise the fact that Randi pays himself so much more - especially on a proportional basis - than other organisations and CEOs/directors which purport to be charitable and educational.

The CEO of the American Red Cross pulled down a salary of $650,000 in 2006. I've already given the example of the CEO of a local NP whose salary exceeded one million. Go back a few pages.

Oh. My. God.

The American Red Cross? This one?

The CEO of American Red Cross runs an organisation with revenue of FOUR BILLION bucks. Yes, that is American dollars, i.e. $4,000,000,000. Count 'em - nine zeroes. That is roughly 6000 times more than the JREF. ARC has thousands of employees, and you think their CEO is only worth four times more than Randi?

Oh, but their CEO doesn't generate all the income....



You really are terrible at this, aren't you? With defenders like you, Randi would certainly need plenty of friends.

 

[LashL]

Game, set, match to Pookster.

Yes. I read this thread back in February, printed off the 990s, showed them to a professional accountant friend (with 20+ years experience in cost accounting) and asked him about the matters at issue regarding cost accounting, deferred revenue, prepaid expenses, and how that all plays out on the financial statements. He confirmed what Pookster and SpitfireIX had to say about deferred revenue and prepaid expenses, and opined that TheAtheist had misinterpreted and misstated the financial documents as a result of his failure to acknowledge and/or understand these particular matters, which are very important from an accounting standpoint.

I was going to post this back in February but at the time, it appeared that TheAtheist had given up on trying to refute that argument, and I didn't want to bump the thread unnecessarily since it had pretty much been determined that the 2007 990 would be required to further the discussion in any meaningful way, and the 2007 990 isn't likely to be filed until May 2008.

But since the thread has been bumped by others and further discussion has ensued, what the hell, I thought I'd post the results of my inquiries from February.

So, there they are.

 

[The Atheist]

He confirmed what Pookster and SpitfireIX had to say about deferred revenue and prepaid expenses, and opined that TheAthiest had misinterpreted and misstated the financial documents as a result of his failure to acknowledge and/or understand these particular matters, which are very important from an accounting standpoint.

I said several pages ago, that I understand exactly what that's all about, and income has been deferred for the past couple of years at least. The amount of the increase during the last financial year is enough to offset the loss, but little more, and I have stated that if the next year's figures - due out soon! - show that the financial health of JREF is not going backwards, then I will admit to being wrong about that. That is one small point in the discussion and nothing to do with the current one.

The "game set match" also avoids the little point that Pookster has had to resort to making up arguments - as shown earlier - to try to score points, but you're welcome to see it your way.

Given the way the current argument - which is about Randi's salary compared to other organisations - is going, I'm not surprised you're changing the subject.

 

[LashL]

Oh, my. If that particular post of yours is in any way representative of your posts in general, you are even worse than tinhat conspiracy fantasists for cherrypicking, obfuscating, erecting strawmen, making unfounded assertions, drawing unsupported conclusions, and asserting unfounded assertions and conclusions as factual.

Wow.

I will not bother to respond to your post further since it is ridiculous on its face. (Don't even get me started on the misplaced commas, "Grammar Tyrant".)

 

[The Atheist]

..., you are even worse than tinhat conspiracy fantasists ....

I love it when someone has nothing to say or add, they resort to borrowing the comments of the opponent...

Well played!

 

[chillzero]

If you can't discuss the topic you want to debate without the personalisation and bickering, then the thread will be set to moderated status. Argue the points at hand, not the personalities.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Pookster]

Too? To? Do you even know what you're typing?

Your statement - either way - is demonstrably incorrect.

You asked, I provided, then like all good CTists, you shifted the goalposts - twice! I intend providing nothing further, because, as always, both of our posts are there for all to read and decide who's playing games and who's provided evidence. The floor is all yours....

Sure, I finally conceded to what you provided -- that the only real similarity between ANY of the educational foundations you've mentioned and the JREF is that they're ... educational foundations. Your point, which was the focus of my questions, is silly and pointless. Again, yay you. If you wish to so substantiate something more at a later time, the floor is still open to you.

 

[Pookster]

I state that you haven't provided any relevant information, and give details on the sort of information that you could provide.

You say that you've asked questions for exactly that sort of detailed information in response.

I don't see how this is in any way a response. You haven't supported your arguments, but you really know what information you need to support them, and you've asked the right questions? That's the closest I can come to fitting your posted words into some sort of a response. Understand it? Sorry, I pawned my Ouija Board, I can't divine sense from utter nonsense.

I replied to your " 'yell really loudly' " comment. I also replied to your "state that none of them have a founder as directly involved" comment. I even re-stated them in my reply. Again, if you couldn't follow along, then I'm sorry. I'll draw you a picture next time.

The problem is he did substantiate it. He provided the incomes of both CEOs and Founders. If you believe Randi's job is significantly different than that of a CEO or a founder, it's up to you to detail how. As it is, I see no good evidence that Randi isn't similar to any other CEO/founder of a charitable organization of this size. He manages the foundation, gives talks, travels, all well within the purview of a CEO. If you truly think he does exceptional work, the ball is in your court to show how.

My posts clearly showed the erroneous nature of what he posted to substantiate his "point". His point being --- similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. He's shown no similarity between the organizations other than superficial ones. It was disingenuous at best, and I called him on it.

I believe he may well be correct with his point. I asked him to substantiate it. He got flustered and blustered likely thinking I was about to attempt to debunk him. Even if he is correct, the point is STILL silly and pointless unless he can show some impropriety attributable to Randi. Nonprofits operate in all kinds of configurations and manner.

Oh, and a hallmark of woo is 'just asking questions.' It means your position is too weak to defend, but you're hoping to annoy people into leaving. If you're not trying to refute his claim, it is certainly adequately documented, and thus, you must admit that Randi, as a CEO and founder of the organization, is engaging in no unusual duties.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that he is engaging in unusual duties. I see no valid reason for TA to suggest it either. If he does, I'll query him to substantiate it just as I have with this prior point. Based on what I've seen, I believe the JREF is run quite well. I also believe it's rather naive to suggest my position is too weak to defend because I'm 'just asking questions', but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[GreyICE]

I replied to your " 'yell really loudly' " comment. I also replied to your "state that none of them have a founder as directly involved" comment. I even re-stated them in my reply. Again, if you couldn't follow along, then I'm sorry. I'll draw you a picture next time.

I'll do one better. This was the section of my post that you bolded:

You have chosen the 'yell really loudly' route to discussion. It's not productive, and it doesn't make anyone except The Atheist look good. You state that none of them have a founder as directly involved - yet fail to demonstrate with hard facts and figures Randi's involvement (X speeches, Y million dollar challenges, Z hours spent in administration, stuff like that).

If you want to discuss the issue rationally, discuss it rationally. Don't keep making claims without evidence.

Your "reply"

Excuse me? Are you reading the thread I'm posting in? I've been very direct with my questions to TA. They been very specific to having him substantiate his claim. Yes, I've ridiculed his nonresponsiveness at times, but chosen the "yell really loudly" route? Too funny. I got bluster as a response. Thus, the ridicule in return. Also, I'm not out to disprove his point either. It could be valid. What I'm stating is he's failed to substantiate it, other than what I conceded to in my prior post. Even if he does substantiate it beyond what I con, the point still would be, well, pointless, unless some impropriety could be shown beyond what I've seen so far in this thread.

I stated that none of them have a founder as directly involved? Well, yeah. I admitted I only looked at a few of them earlier. I asked TA which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi. Glancing through the first few, I saw little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose. I was left to assume from his nonresponsiveness that there are none. I'm sure he would've crowed if he saw one. I asked him in the paragraph before this one to elaborate on his list. He's chosen not too, so far. He or you are free to clarify this issue at any time if I'm incorrect in my assumption. I'm not doing his work for him though.

My posts clearly showed the erroneous nature of what he posted to substantiate his "point". His point being --- similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. He's shown no similarity between the organizations other than superficial ones. It was disingenuous at best, and I called him on it.

Fact: Randi's duties, as laid out in this thread seem very similar to the duties of many CEOs
Fact: Compared to similarly sized charities, Randi is receiving an excessive amount of money.

Conclusion: This seems very unusual for a charity this size.

I believe he may well be correct with his point. I asked him to substantiate it. He got flustered and blustered likely thinking I was about to attempt to debunk him. Even if he is correct, the point is STILL silly and pointless unless he can show some impropriety attributable to Randi. Nonprofits operate in all kinds of configurations and manner.

It is not pointless without showing some impropriety. It shows the charity is not being efficiently administered in terms of revenue stream. Since charities run on donations, that's actually quite important information.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that he is engaging in unusual duties. I see no valid reason for TA to suggest it either. If he does, I'll query him to substantiate it just as I have with this prior point. Based on what I've seen, I believe the JREF is run quite well. I also believe it's rather naive to suggest my position is too weak to defend because I'm 'just asking questions', but you're entitled to your opinion.

Wait, I thought you didn't have a position. Now you do? And it's defensible, even though you haven't defended it? I don't think it's merely an opinion that something isn't adding up with your post.

 

[Pookster]

... Accordingly, I have well and truly proven my case that JREF operates in an entirely different manner from other purported "educational" foundations.

Yes, the JREF operates in a different manner from other purported "educational" foundations. In fact, the ones you presented operate in a different manner from even each other. Your point is pointless and silly. Your point is like saying that, even though they're both nuts, peanuts are grown differently than other nuts. Congratulations.

Others spend almost all of their gross income on education, and pay almost no CEO salaries - JREF works the opposite - large salary, little education. ...

As has been shown to you before, Rand's salary is not all for his duties as a CEO. In fact, his allocated salary for his CEO duties is not out of line compared to other nonprofits that have paid CEOs. Do you need to have cost allocation explained for you again? But Randi is not just a CEO now, is he? He's directly involved in the organization's program activities -- education. Comparing his total salary to other organizations that are not similar in this manner is nonsensical at best. The bulk of his salary is reimbursement for -- education. Education takes many forms, many of which will involve staff that are paid a salary. To attempt to claim otherwise would be ludicrous. Your post is utter drivel and nonsense on it's face if you think you're making any kind of reasonable or meaningful point with it. Your ax is getting ground to be as dull as your point too.

The business about how much work Randi does or doesn't do is nothing but a red herring, which GreyICE picked up on immediately. Whatever the work is, someone will do it and that person will be paid for it. ...

... if I were defending JREF, I wouldn't really want to emphasise the fact that Randi pays himself so much more

You're trying to create a canard with this. Yes, someone will do it and get paid for it. Your problem seems to be that it's Randi. If not, it seems to be from your ignorance that practically all nonprofits have their own little unique twist on how they operate which usually displays their ingenuity and creativity to carry out their primary purpose. Unless you have some legitimate impropriety to demonstrate, then your bias concerning Randi will be quite clear. Your argument becomes little more than a personal attack on him.

Lets cut to the chase ... Is Randi being paid to perform program activities a legitimate problem? If so, please explain why. If he's providing the service that he's reimbursed for, how can it be a problem? If you claim he's not, substantiate it.

 

[Pookster]

Fact: Randi's duties, as laid out in this thread seem very similar to the duties of many CEOs

Of those laid out in this thread, which CEOs? Which ones are as directly involved in program activities as Randi? Or, are you just claiming specific CEO management/administrative duties? If so, then I believe Randi is no different than any other CEO in carrying out those specific duties. I also believe his salary for performing those duties are probably right in line, or even a bargain at what he's paid among those CEOs that are paid a salary.

Again, here is a breakdown of Randi's salary by function:

Program Services: $113,574
Management & General: $38,813
Fundraising: $22,613

Fact: Compared to similarly sized charities, Randi is receiving an excessive amount of money.

Define how you're using the word "excessive". Are you claiming that he hasn't earned the money? If so, on what basis would you make that claim?

 

[Pookster]

Wait, I thought you didn't have a position. Now you do? And it's defensible, even though you haven't defended it? I don't think it's merely an opinion that something isn't adding up with your post.

This is a red herring. I'm not a fan of those. Try a different tact.